OC in Denver

[Dario]

JG_Buffalo

When multi-quoting please attribute the quotes correctly as I'm not the only one replying in this thread.

Thanks,

Dario

 

[JG_Buffalo]

JG_Buffalo

When multi-quoting please attribute the quotes correctly as I'm not the only one replying in this thread.

Thanks,

Dario

Sorry, I was trying to manage 3 different peoples responses.

Ultimately I think we are talking about different things. I will contact a lawyer, and the Denver Attorney and see what responses I get.

I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time.

 

[solus]

Sorry, I was trying to manage 3 different peoples responses.

Ultimately I think we are talking about different things. I will contact a lawyer, and the Denver Attorney and see what responses I get.

I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time.

JG, tis never a waste of time per se when ppl remain open minded & can learn something new...

ipse

 

[Bblumpatriot]

I think JG has a point

This has been asked an answered most completely, Mr. Buffalo. If someone cannot understand the plain, direct English contained therein, then I suggest they contact a competent gun rights attorney and not muddy up this forum by repeating the same questions over and over.

Plain and simple - OC is illegal in Denver. Period. Exclamation point!

JG isn't advocating that anyone attempt to do anything illegal so I don't believe he's violating any forum rules. I think we are just looking to clarify the law, because I agree by the reading of Denver municipal code 38-117 I could see how the interpretation would allow for CHL holders to OC.

Before dismissing this interpretation, can anyone cite the Denver Municipal Code that specifically bans open carry?

We understand Meyer failed to PREEMPT Denver's ban/regulation of on open carry. So with that being said, what is Denvers law on open carry? If Open Carry is illegal in Denver plain and simple Mr. Grapeshot can anyone cite the Denver statute/code that explicitly bans open carry?

 

[Bblumpatriot]

JG meant the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals not the 10th distirct

I think you are ill informed.

The 10[SUP]th[/SUP] District Court is located in Pueblo, is of the lowest level court in the judicial system, and its decisions do not create case law = not binding on other courts.

The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court decisions do create case law and are therefore legal directives to the lower courts i.e. District Courts.

This was widely reported and nothing has changed.

"The open carry law makes it unlawful to walk around visibly wearing a firearm in public. Certain individuals, with a concealed carry permit, are allowed to carry concealed weapons - but they are an exception.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3901503

The case JG is quoting is Peterson v Martinez ruled by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 10th Circuit.

And that court ruling does clearly cite that the Denver statute requires a CHL for most forms of open carry. Page 18 if you'd like to read it yourself.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-1149.pdf

I think JG is on to something here... Unless grapeshot or anyone else can cite the Denver statute that prohibits open carry with/without a CHL....

 

[Bblumpatriot]

JG meant the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals not the 10th distirct

I think you are ill informed.

The 10[SUP]th[/SUP] District Court is located in Pueblo, is of the lowest level court in the judicial system, and its decisions do not create case law = not binding on other courts.

The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court decisions do create case law and are therefore legal directives to the lower courts i.e. District Courts.

This was widely reported and nothing has changed.

"The open carry law makes it unlawful to walk around visibly wearing a firearm in public. Certain individuals, with a concealed carry permit, are allowed to carry concealed weapons - but they are an exception.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3901503

The case JG is quoting is Peterson v Martinez ruled by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 10th Circuit.

And that court ruling does clearly cite that the Denver statute requires a CHL for most forms of open carry. Page 18 if you'd like to read it yourself.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-1149.pdf

I think JG is on to something here... Unless grapeshot or anyone else can cite the Denver statute that prohibits open carry with/without a CHL....

 

[Grapeshot]

The case JG is quoting is Peterson v Martinez ruled by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 10th Circuit.

And that court ruling does clearly cite that the Denver statute requires a CHL for most forms of open carry. Page 18 if you'd like to read it yourself.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-1149.pdf

I think JG is on to something here... Unless grapeshot or anyone else can cite the Denver statute that prohibits open carry with/without a CHL....

Section 38-117(b) provides:

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person, except a law enforcement officer in the performance of duty, to carry, use or wear any dangerous or deadly weapon․


CONCLUSION DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION

Based on the foregoing conclusions of law, I hereby order as follows:

1. DRMC §§38-117(a), 38-117(f) and 38-118, insofar as these ordinances regulate the carrying of firearms in automobiles without a permit, are preempted by C.R.S. §§18-12-204(2)(a), 18-12-214(1)(a) and 18-12-105.6 (2003) to the extent their language is mare restrictive than state e law as described above. These ordinances remain valid and enforceable in all other respects.

2. DRMC §§38-117(b) and 38-118, insofar as these ordinances regulate the open carrying of firearms, remain valid and enforceable by the City and are not preempted by C.R.S. §29-11.7-103 (2003).

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peterson_v._LaCabe

[url]http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?105443-Colorado-s-Preemption-Law-Please-sticky-this


[/URL]

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by Bblumpatriot

The case JG is quoting is Peterson v Martinez ruled by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 10th Circuit.

And that court ruling does clearly cite that the Denver statute requires a CHL for most forms of open carry. Page 18 if you'd like to read it yourself.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-1149.pdf

I think JG is on to something here... Unless grapeshot or anyone else can cite the Denver statute that prohibits open carry with/without a CHL....

You stopped reading to soon. See page 20 of your case link:

"By contrast, had Peterson challenged the Denver ordinance, he may have obtained a ruling that allows him to carry a firearm openly while maintaining the state’s restrictions on concealed carry. The specific constitutional challenge thus delineates the proper form of relief and clarifies the particular Second Amendment restriction that is before us. Because only the Colorado statute has been challenged, and thus only the statute is at issue in the case at bar, we must look to the effectof that statute in conducting our Second Amendment assessment."
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-1149.pdf

Notice the word "may?" That means did not obtain a ruling allowing OC.

 

[solus]

JG isn't advocating that anyone attempt to do anything illegal so I don't believe he's violating any forum rules. I think we are just looking to clarify the law, because I agree by the reading of Denver municipal code 38-117 I could see how the interpretation would allow for CHL holders to OC.

Before dismissing this interpretation, can anyone cite the Denver Municipal Code that specifically bans open carry?

We understand Meyer failed to PREEMPT Denver's ban/regulation of on open carry. So with that being said, what is Denvers law on open carry? If Open Carry is illegal in Denver plain and simple Mr. Grapeshot can anyone cite the Denver statute/code that explicitly bans open carry?

bblum...
first, welcome to the forum

second, it is pleasant to see your first post to this august group is defending another first poster's position on a subject significantly bantered about on this site regarding the OC'g in and about the city and county of Denver CO.

third, i am pleased, after reading the appropriate Denver County code you feel there is an interpretation conflict.

fourth, you have acknowledged the district court's 2004 ruling against the State's petition to force the home ruled Denver County to capitulate to the State's wishes on firearm issues, OC'g included.

fifth, you might not realize, with minor exception, this site's membership are not appropriately trained as barristers, and commonly advise others to seek appropriate legal adjudication to their perceived judicial situations.

sixth, given the information above, i am truly sorry, you find the moderator's advice to seek legal clarification wholly inadequate.

now, if JG & yourself are flush'd with gaggles of money and time as well as expendable firearms, you could fly to Denver and walk around with JG OC'g to your hearts content and become the test cases needed to force case law to possibly change this alleged ordinance conflict.

btw...bblom, your use of the term quote we understand unquote...
you got a mouse in your pocket or is that indicative of the 'royal' WE and these peons should be referring to you as their Royal Highness or as i suspect, you are a colleague of or acquainted with the illustrious JG and pursuing this on their behalf?

ipse

 

[Grapeshot]

Conclusion:

1) It is not a violation of Forum Rules to discuss the pro and cons of a statute or ordinance.

2) It is violation of Forum Rules to promote, encourage or suggest breaking laws by action, deed, or word.

When someone takes the course of #2 above, there are various sanctions/penalties available to members of the administration (Moderators) which have been applied in the past and will be applied in the future if necessary. Warnings are generally given, but not required.

 

[Grapeshot]

Bblumpatriot take note that as a Newbie your posts first go to moderation for review before being seen here - none of your posts have been disallowed/disapproved.

I have responded to where OC is restricted in the Denver ordinances and case law, but as I am not an attorney you should avail yourself of competant legal advice.

We shall see if there is anything new to be added to this thread that is not merely repetitious and/or ranting. A thread lock awaits if the latter proves to be the case.

Meanwhile, do not advocate breaking the Denver ordinance in question.

 

[ed]

Bblumpatriot take note that as a Newbie your posts first go to moderation for review before being seen here - none of your posts have been disallowed/disapproved.

I have responded to where OC is restricted in the Denver ordinances and case law, but as I am not an attorney you should avail yourself of competant legal advice.

We shall see if there is anything new to be added to this thread that is not merely repetitious and/or ranting. A thread lock awaits if the latter proves to be the case.

Meanwhile, do not advocate breaking the Denver ordinance in question.

For the record.. Blum is a good guy.. patriot.. just a little over zeoleous in his information gathering

 

[rushcreek2]

Just popped in on this continuing discussion ...regarding the silly DENVER ORDINANCE ...again.

Seriously...since the Colorado Constitution does IN FACT provide that in the State of Colorado ...the RIGHT OF NO PERSON....to keep and BEAR ARMS in defense of their home, person, or property SHALL BE CALLED INTO QUESTION....(unless they are carrying a concealed weapon....or happen to be a convicted felon - of course- and therefore NO LONGER ENTITLED TO BE CONSIDERED A PERSON - sarcasm ! )

....How would the Colorado Supreme Court advise ....such persons... regarding the defense of their PERSONS .....while navigating through the byways of DENVER ?

How silly of me to bring up the Colorado Constitution...again....in the presence of DENVER......

 

[Dario]

....How would the Colorado Supreme Court advise ....such persons... regarding the defense of their PERSONS .....while navigating through the byways of DENVER ?

Follow the money... out of sight, out of mind

 

[JG_Buffalo]

Section 38-117(b) provides:

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person, except a law enforcement officer in the performance of duty, to carry, use or wear any dangerous or deadly weapon․


CONCLUSION DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION

Based on the foregoing conclusions of law, I hereby order as follows:

1. DRMC §§38-117(a), 38-117(f) and 38-118, insofar as these ordinances regulate the carrying of firearms in automobiles without a permit, are preempted by C.R.S. §§18-12-204(2)(a), 18-12-214(1)(a) and 18-12-105.6 (2003) to the extent their language is mare restrictive than state e law as described above. These ordinances remain valid and enforceable in all other respects.

2. DRMC §§38-117(b) and 38-118, insofar as these ordinances regulate the open carrying of firearms, remain valid and enforceable by the City and are not preempted by C.R.S. §29-11.7-103 (2003).

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peterson_v._LaCabe

[url]http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?105443-Colorado-s-Preemption-Law-Please-sticky-this


[/URL]

I don't think anyone disagrees that OC in Denver without a permit is illegal.

I was curious to the fact that section (f) of the same law exempts you from (b) if you have a concealed handgun permit and the weapon is a handgun. I am awaiting replies from the Denver DA on this subject and contacting a lawyer friend.

Thanks,

 

[jackrockblc]

I was curious to the fact that section (f) of the same law exempts you from (b) if you have a concealed handgun permit and the weapon is a handgun.

The exemption shown in 38-117(f)(2) specifically states "The person, at the time of carrying the concealed weapon, holds a valid written permit to carry a concealed weapon issued...".

This means that the exemption only applies if the weapon was carried concealed at that time. It does seem to be a bit misleading that this exemption also refers to the open carry ban (38-117(b)), but since that section clearly bans open carry, and does not provide any specific exemption for open carry, I can pretty much guarantee that anybody who challenges this statue will lose unless there are incredible extenuating circumstances.

I would still like to hear of the DA's response, but given what I've read in the news, rulings, Denver revised statutes, and elsewhere, I wouldn't bet a nickle on anybody successfully challenging the OC ban in Denver without the law changing substantially.

 

[solus]

I don't think anyone disagrees that OC in Denver without a permit is illegal.

I was curious to the fact that section (f) of the same law exempts you from (b) if you have a concealed handgun permit and the weapon is a handgun. I am awaiting replies from the Denver DA on this subject and contacting a lawyer friend.

Thanks,

jg, haven't you beat this horse to death?

tell ya what...get your six shooter on your hip, OC, wander around the mile high city and county with your sidearm, be seen in multiple locations; go to pete's establishments or pick some place else out of Westword; better yet, since it is getting close to the halloween season ~ take the ghost tour (quite fascinating actually) to places throughout the city with your six shooter!!

remember now, be very very cordial to the nice LEs who confront you...repeat above as necessary till you get the conflict resolved to your personal satisfaction.

please, do keep in touch with the membership and let us know how you are making out.

ipse

 

[JG_Buffalo]

The exemption shown in 38-117(f)(2) specifically states "The person, at the time of carrying the concealed weapon, holds a valid written permit to carry a concealed weapon issued...".

This means that the exemption only applies if the weapon was carried concealed at that time. It does seem to be a bit misleading that this exemption also refers to the open carry ban (38-117(b)), but since that section clearly bans open carry, and does not provide any specific exemption for open carry, I can pretty much guarantee that anybody who challenges this statue will lose unless there are incredible extenuating circumstances.

I would still like to hear of the DA's response, but given what I've read in the news, rulings, Denver revised statutes, and elsewhere, I wouldn't bet a nickle on anybody successfully challenging the OC ban in Denver without the law changing substantially.

If you would continue reading:

(f)

It shall not be an offense under 38-117(a) or 38-117(b) if:

(1)

The person, at the time of carrying the concealed weapon, holds a valid written permit to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to section 18-12-105.1, C.R.S., prior to its repeal, or, if the weapon involved was a handgun, holds a valid permit or a temporary emergency permit to carry a concealed handgun issued pursuant to state law and is otherwise carrying the handgun in conformance with any applicable state or local law;

I know I've beat this to death but, I feel that no one seems to have listened to the actual statements I'm making, or have completely read the statute.

I think the entire interpretation rests on the "or" I begin bolded. The two commas initiate a separate clause. "if the weapon involved was a handgun..."

The way I read this is that CC and OC are banned to anyone but police, CC is allowed with a permit, "carry" is allowed with a permit.

I have a "case #" with Denver DA office so they should respond soon. My lawyer friend is getting married this week so I won't get a response for a while.

I'm not a lawyer, and you should contact a lawyer before taking any action regarding OC in Denver, my interpretation is based on reading statute and judge's rulings.

 

[Grapeshot]

If you would continue reading:



I know I've beat this to death but, I feel that no one seems to have listened to the actual statements I'm making, or have completely read the statute.

I think the entire interpretation rests on the "or" I begin bolded. The two commas initiate a separate clause. "if the weapon involved was a handgun..."

The way I read this is that CC and OC are banned to anyone but police, CC is allowed with a permit, "carry" is allowed with a permit.

I have a "case #" with Denver DA office so they should respond soon. My lawyer friend is getting married this week so I won't get a response for a while.

I'm not a lawyer, and you should contact a lawyer before taking any action regarding OC in Denver, my interpretation is based on reading statute and judge's rulings.

We'll wait. So might you until you have talked to your contacts. More than that and you are repeating endlessly what you have already said - like playing an audio loop.

At this point, you are a minority of one (1) on this issue. That just might mean something significant.

I would very much like to find you are right, but I have found holding my breath for that long is injurious to my health and well being.

 

[Dario]

I have a "case #" with Denver DA office so they should respond soon. My lawyer friend is getting married this week so I won't get a response for a while.

I'm not a lawyer, and you should contact a lawyer before taking any action regarding OC in Denver, my interpretation is based on reading statute and judge's rulings.

Thanks for the disclaimer and good luck with the DA. If you are right this is going to make headlines!