Colorado State Fair weapons ban

[wrightme]

Beat me to it, plus it appears to be an AND of three requirements:

18-12-214:

(4) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a public building at which:

(a) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building;

(b) Security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and

(c) Security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building.

So it appears that the state can only ban concealed carry from buildings. And I bet they have NO way of storing your firearm if you surrendered it to them "while in the building".

So, the fairgrounds is not a building and they aren't meeting requirements a and [I assume] c.

O2

This reads as three requirements, of which ALL THREE must be met. Otherwise, the statute would not be following grammar and common usage as specified by statute. Tossing in an "or" between (a) and (b) isn't a valid method to evaluate the statute.

 

[since9]

The references that the legislators use to draft legislation for CO do not use boolean logic, they use plain english.

My point was that programmers would make better legislators than lawyers, as programmers are forced by the nature of their profession to think logically. If they don't, the program won't run as expected.

I could swear our Founding Fathers were programmers! Just look how tight their coding is: ..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That's tight!

Compare that to the mountains of convoluted thinking and legislation and decisions that have oozed forth from legislators and the courts ever since.

Have you checked the references I linked that define how wording is to be used and interpreted?

They're broken, but that's a common problem with Michie, as it displays the statutes in frames (sub-windows) without changing the URL in your browser. You have to open up the specific statute in a new window to get an accurate URL that you can copy. Example: Broken. Fixed.

Just right-click on the blue title of the text in the right window and choose "open in a new window." That'll fix it.

 

[JamesB]

My point was that programmers would make better legislators than lawyers...

I really don't think being a programmer would make someone a good lawyer. I think going to law school...

And I still think they can't ban guns at the fair acording to the statutes.

 

[Gunslinger]

I do not believe a judge would rule favorably to your interpretation. Have you reviewed the references that CO uses to craft legislation? "Doublespeak" would invalidate a law given the drafting standards required of legislation in CO.


Any 'confusion' in that statute is only in evidence if the drafting standards required of legislation are ignored.


First, can you respond to a specific question? Given 'rules of grammar and common usage,' do you agree that a series of items that are all equal and inclusive would be separated by commas, except for the last item in a series, which would be separated with 'and'? And, that 'and' means that each item in the series is in force?


So: "To drive a car, you are required to have a driver's license, a vehicle registration, AND proof of insurance" would be a list of three total requirements, EACH of which must be met? If any of those three is not available, you would not be legal to drive that vehicle, correct?

Or: "To fly upon commercial airlines, you must present a state-issued driver's license, a non-dl state-issued identification card, OR a federal issued identification such as a passport" would mean ANY ONE of those fits the requirement to board a flight?

To you , in the first example, you would only need either a driver's license OR a vehicle registration , AND a proof of insurance?


The CO statutes specify to use standard 'rules of grammar and common usage,' not some non-standard insertion of 'or' in a series for some odd reason.

While I don't disagree with you, good grammer and black letter law are not coincidental to each other. And semi-colons have a different meaning than commas. As I said, the ruling would be as a fact of law and the judge could interpret it as he saw fit, subject to judicial review. I would not bet either way on this and until it comes to the bar, it is all speculation. That being said, the act of going through a static metal detector and being actively wanded are two different matters. I think that, quite simply, would be the deciding point in interpreting the law. In Colorado, it is prohibited to : a. drive a black car; b. lean against a red car; and c. make noises that sound like an exhaust of a car. Interpret that via your logic.

 

[wrightme]

While I don't disagree with you, good grammer and black letter law are not coincidental to each other. And semi-colons have a different meaning than commas. As I said, the ruling would be as a fact of law and the judge could interpret it as he saw fit, subject to judicial review. I would not bet either way on this and until it comes to the bar, it is all speculation. That being said, the act of going through a static metal detector and being actively wanded are two different matters. I think that, quite simply, would be the deciding point in interpreting the law. In Colorado, it is prohibited to : a. drive a black car; b. lean against a red car; and c. make noises that sound like an exhaust of a car. Interpret that via your logic.

Yet you already did, by claiming a and b were an "or" because there wasn't an "and" between them. Claiming an "OR" is implied when the last two items in the series are "AND" is not logical at all.


It isn't a difference between "good grammer" and "black letter law," it is how your state statutes declare that common grammar and usage are how the law is to be drafted, implying that is how it WILL be interpreted. Your view of it is at odds with the statutes.

 

[O2HeN2]

My gawd, let's put this to bed already. Here's an example of an "or" clause, from the concealed carry statutes:

(h) Demonstrates competence with a handgun by submitting:

(I) Evidence of experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competitions or current military service;

(II) Evidence that, at the time the application is submitted, the applicant is a certified instructor;

(III) Proof of honorable discharge from a branch of the United States armed forces within the three years preceding submittal of the application;

(IV) Proof of honorable discharge from a branch of the United States armed forces that reflects pistol qualifications obtained within the ten years preceding submittal of the application;

(V) A certificate showing retirement from a Colorado law enforcement agency that reflects pistol qualifications obtained within the ten years preceding submittal of the application; or

(VI) A training certificate from a handgun training class obtained within the ten years preceding submittal of the application. The applicant shall submit the original training certificate or a photocopy thereof that includes the original signature of the class instructor. In obtaining a training certificate from a handgun training class, the applicant shall have discretion in selecting which handgun training class to complete.

Note the "or" (which I have highlighted in red) at the end of penultimate statement. Versus the "and" that's at the end of the penultimate statement for requirements for disallowing carrying in a building.

Case closed.

O2

 

[wrightme]

My gawd, let's put this to bed already. Here's an example of an "or" clause, from the concealed carry statutes:
Note the "or" (which I have highlighted in red) at the end of penultimate statement. Versus the "and" that's at the end of the penultimate statement for requirements for disallowing carrying in a building.

Case closed.

O2

I doubt it. It is obvious to me that the example you gave is a list of items, of which ANY ONE ITEM will fulfill the requirement, and the 'or' at the end item implies the 'or' between each item; in the same manner as an 'and' at the end of the list implies an 'and' between each item. To me, that is completely obvious, and there isn't any other way to interpret a series like that, given the 'and' or 'or' between the final two items.

 

[O2HeN2]

I doubt it.

Um, I think we're in agreement, please reread my post, especially the "versus" part...

This list, the one we keep going back and forth about, ends with an "and" (in red) implying that all statements must be met in order to be valid:

(4) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a public building at which:

(a) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building;

(b) Security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and

(c) Security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building.

Do you agree?

I gave a list of "ORed" items as an example to contrast with the above list, which is a list of "ANDed" items. Hence my "versus" sentence.

O2

 

[wrightme]

Um, I think we're in agreement, please reread my post, especially the "versus" part...O2

Yes, we are in agreement. You should be able to 'get' that from my response.

 

[O2HeN2]

I took your highlighing of my "Case closed" text with your intial repsonse of "I doubt it" as being a disagreement with the "Case closed". But except for that, everything else you typed appeared to agree, hence my confusion.

O2

 

[wrightme]

I took your highlighing of my "Case closed" text with your intial repsonse of "I doubt it" as being a disagreement with the "Case closed". But except for that, everything else you typed appeared to agree, hence my confusion.

O2

Yes, I did highlight it for exactly that reason. But, not because I disagreed with you, but because I am positive that some here will not agree with you, even though it is completely plainly meant by the CO legislature, and is the ONLY logical method of reading the statutes such as that one.

 

[O2HeN2]

Ah, point taken. And yes, I fear you are correct.

O2

 

[wrightme]

Ah, point taken. And yes, I fear you are correct.

O2

And, in retrospect, I believe I could have more clearly stated that I agreed with you.....


But, from your wording, I was not absolutely positive that you were stating that the "and" "or" did reference the entire series string. I shoulda asked you for clarification.

 

[since9]

I really don't think being a programmer would make someone a good lawyer. I think going to law school...

Hi, James. That's not what I said. What I said was: "My point was that programmers would make better legislators than lawyers..."

The devil's in the details!

And I still think they can't ban guns at the fair acording to the statutes.

That depends on who owns the fairgrounds, a question which has yet to be answered.

 

[JamesB]

Hi, James. That's not what I said. What I said was: "My point was that programmers would make better legislators than lawyers..."

The devil's in the details!

And I agreed with you. Lets face it this thread has degraded to arguing over the laws of the English language. That being said, your statement implied a choice of future career for current programmers, legislator or lawyer. And I agreed with the assesment that they should become lawyers since they had not nescessarily gone to law school...

It is what you said. The way you constructed your arguement, it is. I know that's not the way you intended it. But you are also right in that,
The Devil IS in the details.

That depends on who owns the fairgrounds, a question which has yet to be answered.

Are you Flippin' kidding me here?

SEE ALSO POST #14

 

[O2HeN2]

Definitive: It's state land, parcel 1502301001 in Pueblo County.

O2

 

[Gunslinger]

Yet you already did, by claiming a and b were an "or" because there wasn't an "and" between them. Claiming an "OR" is implied when the last two items in the series are "AND" is not logical at all.


It isn't a difference between "good grammer" and "black letter law," it is how your state statutes declare that common grammar and usage are how the law is to be drafted, implying that is how it WILL be interpreted. Your view of it is at odds with the statutes.

My view is clearly in line with statutes as the decision is a fact of law. Your wrapping your opinion around grammer is not in line with the statutes of any state. All require an interpretation from the judge at bar, legislative intent--implied or perceived, notwithstanding. My car example is as valid as the instant statutes being discussed. This discussion has degraded to nit picking that has zero to do with the OP and I'm done with it. Unless and until it goes to trial, opinion is nothing more than that.

 

[wrightme]

My view is clearly in line with statutes as the decision is a fact of law.

No, your view is only your opinion, and you have not cited any 'fact of law' to support your opinion.

Your wrapping your opinion around grammer is not in line with the statutes of any state. All require an interpretation from the judge at bar, legislative intent--implied or perceived, notwithstanding. My car example is as valid as the instant statutes being discussed. This discussion has degraded to nit picking that has zero to do with the OP and I'm done with it. Unless and until it goes to trial, opinion is nothing more than that.

I am not wrapping my opinion around grammar. I am pointing out that the statutes of YOUR state specifically require legislation to be worded for correct grammar, and common usage; which means that any legal interpretation MUST be based upon those specifics.

Your opinion is at odds with CO statute definitions.

 

[mahkagari]

I need to stop reading these threads when they devolve into legal theory mental masturbation sessions. It gums up the actions on my automatics. *picks up solvent*

 

[since9]

Now that we've puzzled over the "and," let's examine the entire statute in detail

I spent the entire morning reviewing the facts and the law. Here's what I discovered:

1. The Colorado State Fair, a tradition since October 9, 1872, is a public event and is located on public land owned and operated by the City of Pueblo, Colorado:

Colorado State Fair
1001 Beulah Avenue
Pueblo, CO 81004

2. It is run by the State Fair Commission, a non-profit, volunteer organization under the auspices of the State of Colorado.

State Fair Commission
700 Kipling Street, Suite 4000
Lakewood, CO 80215

3. The Fairgrounds rest on a 100-acre parcel of land, owned by the State of Colorado, 80 acres of which are contained within an 8 foot stone wall. Source

4. While the Fairgrounds include several buildings, most of the State Fair takes place in the open.

Armed with these facts, let's re-examine the applicable Colorado Revised Statutes to determine the legality of denying entry on both CC and OC bases.

First, Concealed Carry:

18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions.

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section.

So, you're legal to CC, except as noted below. Let's see if any of these apply:

A permit does not authorize the permittee to use a handgun in a manner that would violate a provision of state law.

Obviously.

A local government does not have authority to adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this part 2.

All municipalities and counties, including the City of Pueblo, as well as the State of Colorado itself, must follow this provision of state law and do not have the right to countermand this provision of state law. That includes the Colorado State Fair Commission Board, as they operate under the auspices of the State of Colorado.

(b) A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene.
(2) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.

Federal law does not restrict carry at the Colorado State Fair, so this restriction does not apply.

(3) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvements erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school; except that:
(a) A permittee may have a handgun on the real property of the public school so long as the handgun remains in his or her vehicle and, if the permittee is not in the vehicle, the handgun is in a compartment within the vehicle and the vehicle is locked;
(b) A permittee who is employed or retained by contract by a school district as a school security officer may carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvement erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school while the permittee is on duty;
(c) A permittee may carry a concealed handgun on undeveloped real property owned by a school district that is used for hunting or other shooting sports.

While this is a good refresher for Colorado's exceptions to the GFSZ Act of 1990/1995, it's not germane to our discussion.

(4) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a public building at which:

There are two operative words here: "public" and "building." These raise two pertinent questions:

1. Are the State Fairgrounds public property or are they privately owned? Answer: They are PUBLICLY owned.

2. Are the State Fairgrounds housed in a building, or are there merely some buildings on the State Fairgrounds? Answer: While a few buildings do exist, the majority of the State Fairgrounds is open space.

(a) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building;
(b) Security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and
(c) Security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building.

We seem to be in agreement the "and" means all three of these must be in place for (4) to apply. With that understanding, let's press on:

(5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.

Bottom line: Private property owners retain the authority to say "No Firearms" and make it stick, while a municipality may restrict access to a public building and must comply with all three of (4)(a), (b), and (c). As the majority of the Fairgrounds are on open grounds, not in a building, they can restrict access to the buildings, but they cannot restrict access to the open parts of the fairground itself.

Conclusion 1: Security can restrict you from CCing into any building on the State Fairgrounds, but each and every building must comply with (4) (a), (b), and (c).

Conclusion 2: Restricting access to the open part of the Fairgrounds by forcing everyone to process through a public building violates the right of a Colorado CHP holder to CC on public land outside of a public building.

In Summary:

a. If you'd like to contest their screening rules as being illegal, you have 3 business days, including today, to prepare a legal brief and obtain an injunction from a judge.

b. Alternatively, you can simply show up at the fair with the injunction in hand and if they refuse access, you can sue.

c. Alternatively, you can go the more difficult route of showing up without the injunction, videotape the screening process and/or have several witnesses present willing to testify in court, and if you're refused access, you can sue.

Addendums:

1. There's nothing on the Colorado State Fair website which expressly prohibits firearms.

2. There's nothing on the About the Fair page which expressly prohibits firearms.

3. There's nothing on the FAQ page which expressly prohibits firearms.

4. There's nothing on the Policies and Standards page which expressly prohibits firearms.

5. Even if there were notices on all these pages as well as at the gate, no government or organization associated with the Colorado State Fair can legally restrict CC on the open areas of the Fairgrounds.

6. The presence of public security or private security hired by a public agency in no way removes your right to Keep and Bear Arms under the Constitution of Colorado and the Colorado Revised Statutes.

Second, Open Carry:

The laws of Colorado regarding Open Carry are well-known, so I'll let others chime in as to the legality of OC on public land outside a publicly-owned building.

However, some might suggest the fairgrounds are within 1,000' of a K-12 school, so I checked that out via Google Earth, measuring the minimum distance to the local schools from the closest boundaries of each property:
Central High School: 2,551' away. Nope.
Heritage Elementary School: 1,310' away. Nope.
Columbian Elementary School: 1,186' away. Close, but still - Nope.
Keeting Jr. High School: 2,131' away. Nope.

This entire case comes down to two issues:

1. Whether or not it's lawful for a city to deprive you of your CC-based right to keep and bear arms in open space by herding you through a publicly-owned building, first, where they can employ scanning measures.

2. The fact that their current portable scanning measures (hand-held wands) do not meet the requirement that "(4)(a) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building."

I would argue:

1. Their herding everyone through a building is an attempt to circumvent the law granting people the Constitutional (both federal and state) right to keep and bear arms. The law (4) was intended to apply to courtrooms and similar full-time, high-use facilities where the nature of the business being conducted therein poses a clear danger to the public if weapons were allowed inside. It was never intended to restrict our right to keep and bear arms at friendly gatherings or normal public areas, as evidenced by the Students vs Regents case cited below.

2. Their current scanning measures do not meet the letter or the law requirement.

3. Even if they installed permanent scanners at the entrance to each of the many buildings, argument #1 still applies.

These last three arguments are based on Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, LLC v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., __ P.3d __ (Colo. App. 2010), the annotation of which states:

"Institutions of higher education not exempt from the express authorization of permittees to carry concealed handguns "in all areas of the state". The concealed carry act, §§ 18-12-201 to 18-12-216, satisfies the "unless otherwise [provided] by law" provision of article VIII, section 5(2), of the state constitution by manifesting a clear and unmistakable intent to subject the entire state to a single statutory scheme regulating concealed handgun carry, subject to specified exceptions. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, LLC v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., __ P.3d __ (Colo. App. 2010)."​

***

Now, given the above, either poke holes in it, or get that injunction!