imported post
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/cda/article_print/0,1983,DRMN_23970_4801307_ARTICLE-DETAIL-PRINT,00.html
Speakout: Despotic city, courts fret gun owners
By John A. Sternberg
June 26, 2006
The city of Denver has long criminalized what has been legal elsewhere in Colorado, namely the ownership, use and transportation of firearms. After years of being abused by the city, gun owners found some measure of support in 2003 when the state legislature and governor passed two important bills. These bills established a statewide concealed carry statute (Senate Bill 24) and state law as the standard for possession, use and transportation of firearms (Senate Bill 25).
Denver has for years claimed that, as a home rule city, they are free to treat gun owners anyway they want, including nonresidents who happen to be in Denver. Our state constitution never intended to create a city-state with home rule or to use home rule as a means to cancel other constitutional rights.
So, after the legislature in 2003 handed Denver a loss on this issue and affirmed our constitutional rights to possess, use and transport firearms, Denver turned to the courts to achieve its desires. Denver lost on some of these issues when Judge Joe Meyer ruled that Denver must comply with the new state law regarding concealed carry and firearms in vehicles and more. Denver won when Meyer ruled that Denver can continue to enforce a slew of laws that only strike fear and confusion in the minds of gun owners. These include bans on openly carrying guns, and on the sale of so-called Saturday-night specials and assault weapons. Denver also won on its requirement for safe storage of guns.
I was not satisfied that gun owners' interests would be properly represented when Denver originally filed suit against the state and governor, so I filed a motion to intervene in this case but was denied by Meyer. I then filed a separate suit against Denver. In my case, I forced Denver to produce evidence to support my claim that the constitution and legislative intent of preventing Denver from abusing gun owners' legal and constitutional rights was proper.
The Colorado Supreme Court recently reached a tie vote of 3-3 in both my case and the case of Denver v. State of Colorado. To be clear, the Supreme Court could not reach a decision. So Meyer, a district court judge in Denver, had his ruling upheld. That means that a lone judge gets to trump the will of the duly elected legislature and governor. The only good news here is that Meyer's ruling applies only to the city of Denver and does not remove SB 24 and 25 from state law. So these laws are still in effect throughout Colorado, except in Denver.
The evidence we uncovered in my case was astounding. Denver has not kept its laws on firearms up to date. A favorite tactic of the city attorney's office is to threaten prosecution of arrested gun owners under these old laws unless they surrender their firearms to the city. Most people surrender their guns. Those who do not are forced to spend thousands of dollars to have their wrongly seized firearms returned.
Even more astounding was what Denver did and did not do with these firearms. The chief of police is required to report to the court the status of all firearms surrendered or seized by the police. From 1992 to 2002, Denver did not report to the court the status of more than 30,000 firearms. What happened to these 30,000 firearms is anyone's guess. If any of these guns is missing, then both state and federal laws may have been violated and this issue should be fully investigated.
Denver bans the sale of so-called Saturday-night specials that are made of polymer or plastic yet allows its police and sheriffs deputies to purchase and carry these guns. Denver has only one prosecution for violating the so-called safe storage law. This law is so poorly written that its contradictory language makes it unclear how firearms are to be stored in Denver.
Last is the famous "assault weapons" law. For more than 10 years Denver has refused to recognize the ruling in the 1994 Robertson case, in which the Supreme Court voided several sections of the city's assault weapons ban because they were too vague. It's ironic that Denver has ignored that ruling for 12 years, but now embraces a Supreme Court decision that essentially favors its policy objectives.
Our Founding Fathers affirmed the equal rights of all in our state and federal constitutions. They also feared an all-powerful government and an out-of-control judiciary. We have both in Denver and in Colorado. An all-powerful municipal government that can ignore both the constitution and state law, and a Supreme Court with three members who choose to ignore that body's own prior rulings and legal precedent and issue personal opinions from the bench.
We should all be concerned for the future of our state when there are classes of citizens created based on where we live or happen to be - the kingdom of Denver!
John A. Sternberg is a firearms expert and is a member of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and the National Rifle Association. He is a resident of Denver.