Denver CCW
Apparently, a judge has ruled that the city of Denver can prohibit the carrying of arms even though the state has implemented concealed carry:
District Judge Joseph Meyer has ruled the city may continue to ban the carrying of weapons even though the state has authorized them.
Meyer said that because Denver is a home-rule city it can pass ordinances limiting assault weapons, Saturday night specials and the open display of weapons.
Home rule? Additionally:
Under Colorado law, cities can have state statutes define their laws or choose to have home-rule charters. Those who opt for home-rule can define their own powers as long as they don’t violate the state constitution.
And what does the Colorado constitution say about arms:
The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
So, there you have it. I don’t like it but it is the law.
Meanwhile, the court also upheld bans on assault weapons and Saturday night specials, whatever those are. I’d say that definitely calls the rights to arms in question.
November 8th, 2004 at 12:53 pm
“The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person ”
how are you supposed to defend your person if you can’t carry they gun with you.
November 8th, 2004 at 1:22 pm
It sounds like open carry is plainly protected.
As for concealed carry, are the limits of home rule defined by the Co. Constitution or by legislation?
November 8th, 2004 at 4:15 pm
CCW is partially excepted form the judge’s ruling. For example if you have a CCW you can carry in your car.
What’s really outrageous is that open carry, along with possession of junk guns, assault weapons & any other weapon Denver sees fit to ban is apperently fair game to Denvers laws despite the Colorado constitution’s explicit protection of the Right to Arms (concealed carry excepted).
Depending on how the ruling is worded the judge’s logic (& I use the term loosely) would allow Denver to set up or prohibit a specific religion, ban newspapers & books, & do a host of other things under the guise of home rule status. Again, it depends on how his decision is worded but since the Right to Arms is so plainly protected in the state constitution I do not see how he could have tailored his judgement to only touch on firearms.
November 8th, 2004 at 4:44 pm
On the surface the i know the difference between open carry and CCW, but I don’t fully understand why you would make two seperate set of laws govermenting them.
Can any one explain that to me.
Also the absurdity of allowing open carry and not allowing CCw is odd.
November 8th, 2004 at 6:11 pm
Cube,
In the 1800’s the logic was that an honest person with honest intentions wore his guns openly, therefore laws prohibiting concealed carry only affected dishonets people with dishonest intentions. I’d argue that wasn’t the case then & it’s certainly not now.
As for allowing one but not the other I don’t see much persuasive logic in it either. Both are merely ways to carry & in most states carry is protected as a constitutonally acknowledged Right.
But just to be clear, Denver, according to the judge’s ruling, can prevent open carry but in some circumstances cannot prevent concealed cary. I’ll have a more detailed & hopefull calmer take when I can dig up the briefs & the opinion itself. Unfortunately on the local level these documents are harder to come by than on the federal level.
November 8th, 2004 at 7:10 pm
Is Denver turning into its own little “city state”? I would have expected San Francisco before them…
November 8th, 2004 at 7:37 pm
Between this and the pit bull ordinance, one might think so.