Denver bans CCW in parks, buildings

Status
Not open for further replies.
IlikeSA said:
Does anyone think it will stand scrutiny in court?
Click to expand...

Depends on who appointed the judge and how honest they were when asked questions about opinions.

The people that draft “stupid stuff” are educated lawyers, they just throw out stuff to see “what sticks”. When it does and forwards their agenda, it ceases to be “stupid stuff”.

If you are looking for a real time study of this you might watch SCOTUS decisions in the near future.
 
Last year the state government removed preemption on all firearm laws as long as local ordinances are more restrictive than state law. This was in response to the Boulder City AWB getting killed in the courts right about the time a disturbed individual shot a bunch of people in a Boulder grocery store.

The state law was drafted specifically to allow the city of Denver (and any other local government) to ban firearms on property it controls. I doubt there will be any help from the courts on this matter unless there is a national change.

Colorado is going to turn into an unknowable patchwork of local firearm laws all with different restrictions. Broomfield wants to ban carry in parks. Boulder City is has a laundry list of restrictions they are currently discussing. There will be more.
 
What is the legality of the ordinance, since Denver also bans open carry as a home rule city? Does anyone think it will stand scrutiny in court?

District of Columbia v. Heller:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
​
It may be difficult to ultimately have SCOTUS overturn a Denver law prohibiting carry on property they own or control.
 
Link provided is a pay wall
Here is another

Many City offices ban weapons, Ours does, just lik the PO, Court and Hospitals

https://www.gopusa.com/denver-bans-concealed-weapons-in-city-buildings-parks/

“I don’t think it’s necessary nor appropriate for members of the public, city employees or anybody to have a concealed weapon in a city facility,” said Council President Stacie Gilmore at a hearing April 27.


“There is no data, no foundation that this actually does anything at all to improve our safety,” said Councilmember Kevin Flynn. “This ordinance tonight is not about making it illegal to carry concealed weapons in a park. It is about removing the exception for people who have permits to do so.”
 
Rule3 said:
“This ordinance tonight is not about making it illegal to carry concealed weapons in a park. It is about removing the exception for people who have permits to do so.”
Click to expand...
That we can elect people, to responsible offices, who can spout this type of wholly illogical tripe, does not speak well for us. Not only do we continue to elect morons to office, we do so without knowing that they're incapable of critical thinking, and then fail to hold them accountable when the foist useless new laws upon us.

It's not as though the criminals and gang-bangers will cease carrying their already unlawfully carried concealed handguns into the parks now; they will not cease to make drug deals nor use drugs in the parks, nor will they cease shooting others of their ilk, oft-times claiming innocent lives as well. Taking the ability for self-defense away from law-abiding citizens improves everyone's safety?

Seattle's mayor tried to ban lawful concealed carry in his city's parks back in 2010, a law that was battled all the way up to the state supreme court, which was forced to recognize the state's preemption law. Too bad Colorado doesn't have a strong state preemption law in light of what its cities are doing. As an aside, no law-abiding citizens spend much time in Seattle's parks any longer, as most of them have turned into homeless camps. But, the homeless do have the right to defend themselves with firearms... which is apparently happening far more often than what's reported in the news.
 
The virtue-signaling thought process behind these new restrictions in mind numbing. We did have strong pre-emption, until last year when it was voted out by the Triple-D state government to "allow local entities the ability to fight gun violence as appropriate to their communities and districts of influence."

For the record, if you have a valid carry permit, the first-time violation of the new Denver municipal ordinance is a non-criminal charge with a ticket and fine of $50.
 
Last edited:
Old Dog said:
That we can elect people, to responsible offices, who can spout this type of wholly illogical tripe, does not speak well for us. Not only do we continue to elect morons to office, we do so without knowing that they're incapable of critical thinking, and then fail to hold them accountable when the foist useless new laws upon us.

It's not as though the criminals and gang-bangers will cease carrying their already unlawfully carried concealed handguns into the parks now; they will not cease to make drug deals nor use drugs in the parks, nor will they cease shooting others of their ilk, oft-times claiming innocent lives as well. Taking the ability for self-defense away from law-abiding citizens improves everyone's safety?

Seattle's mayor tried to ban lawful concealed carry in his city's parks back in 2010, a law that was battled all the way up to the state supreme court, which was forced to recognize the state's preemption law. Too bad Colorado doesn't have a strong state preemption law in light of what its cities are doing. As an aside, no law-abiding citizens spend much time in Seattle's parks any longer, as most of them have turned into homeless camps. But, the homeless do have the right to defend themselves with firearms... which is apparently happening far more often than what's reported in the news.
Click to expand...


I didn't say the above it is a "Quote" from the article
 
Doesn't most government property ban you from carrying?
All the state & fed buildings have metal detectors in them in my town.
I guess I won't be going to Denver Colorado any time soon. LOL
 
Rule3 said:
Link provided is a pay wall
Here is another

Many City offices ban weapons, Ours does, just lik the PO, Court and Hospitals

https://www.gopusa.com/denver-bans-concealed-weapons-in-city-buildings-parks/

“I don’t think it’s necessary nor appropriate for members of the public, city employees or anybody to have a concealed weapon in a city facility,” said Council President Stacie Gilmore at a hearing April 27.


“There is no data, no foundation that this actually does anything at all to improve our safety,” said Councilmember Kevin Flynn. “This ordinance tonight is not about making it illegal to carry concealed weapons in a park. It is about removing the exception for people who have permits to do so.”
Click to expand...

Interesting read, the part that I bolded. And yet, if I were to look up their laws on this I'll bet there are plenty of exceptions to "city employees or anybody", and that they're all one-sided, favoring the State (capital "S", meaning "government").
 
So let's see. Banning otherwise lawful and permitted concealed carry of handguns by law abiding and vetted citizens, in certain places owned/controlled by local government?

Will it reduce gun violence in those places? No.

Could it potentially cause an increase in gun violence in those places, because they are now publicly known to be "gun free zones" full of soft targets? Yeah. That seems likely.
 
MErl said:
Last year the state government removed preemption on all firearm laws as long as local ordinances are more restrictive than state law. This was in response to the Boulder City AWB getting killed in the courts right about the time a disturbed individual shot a bunch of people in a Boulder grocery store.

The state law was drafted specifically to allow the city of Denver (and any other local government) to ban firearms on property it controls. I doubt there will be any help from the courts on this matter unless there is a national change.

Colorado is going to turn into an unknowable patchwork of local firearm laws all with different restrictions. Broomfield wants to ban carry in parks. Boulder City is has a laundry list of restrictions they are currently discussing. There will be more.
Click to expand...

I just now saw this thread from last month, but you pretty much described the issue perfectly. Colorado has gone downhill, and continues to slide.
 
Briefly, now that the supreme court is a tad more constitutional leaning I expect a large swath of good results. I was highly concerned Kavanaugh and Barret were not what we were fed. I'm not wholly convinced but the recent rulings are a very good sign.
 
armoredman said:
With NYSRPA vs Bruen in the can with a described individual right to carry outside the home, I see a lot of these ordinances being challenged with vengeance.
Click to expand...
.455_Hunter said:
Yup- "Parks" is hardly a discrete, defined, and specific location.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but it's only vague if the actual ordinance fails to specify which parks, or it's otherwise unclear from the context.
 
Broad prohibitions adopted by some locales may not survive the downfall of New York's effort to "effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place”" in NYSRPA v. Bruen.
Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” where weapons were altogether prohibited —e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses— we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions.
Click to expand...
But expanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Summary of Denver Anti-Gun Judicial Activist Decision from Firearms Coalitition of CO
Replies
1
Views
575
Standing Wolf
S
A
  • Locked
Concealed carry guns could be banned from Denver parks, city buildings
Replies
23
Views
513
.455_Hunter
.455_Hunter
G
  • Locked
Denver council to eye 2 new state gun laws
Replies
11
Views
620
Jim March
J
C
  • Locked
Colorado: "Council starts work on posting gun bans"
2
Replies
25
Views
885
Erik
E
C
  • Locked
Colorado: "Springs council may reinstate firearms ban in city buildings"
Replies
6
Views
917
Leatherneck
L
Back
Top