Inconsistencies in CO's preemptive law - SB25-03?

Coupla questions form my CO brethern ....

SB25-03 preempted any municiplaities/cities/counties from ennactig any illegalities regards fierarms that were more strict than state law - whether travelling through, or making as many stops in that jurisdiction as the folk saw fit.

.PDF for the law

Seems perfectly clear - with the exception of clearly posted signs - for certain areas (& who knows to what extent these municipal entities have gone to preclude legal carry .... ?) Part of my question. I'm aware that several cities/municipalities have attempted challenges under their "home rule" clauses - AFAIK, they've yet to become legally adressed.

Packing.org however, has a "disclaimer" on the CO page that:

"Open Carry - You can open carry legally unless posted otherwise. Hoever (sic), persons have been and continue to be prosecuted for "disorderly conduct" if the "victim" was "alarmed" at seeing the firearm." Seemingly very contradictory regards the latest legislation.

I've noticed this municipal clause very early in my CO career that "scaring sheep" is akin to inciting a riot, if & when a hoplophobe sees your openly carried firearm & freaks - regardless of your any itent to "cause alarm," the mere act of "scaring sheep" is enough to illict a LEO response with you being called upon the carpet to explain "why you need a gun."

(mvpel's recent experience comes to mind immediately.)

(As an aside to my "radical nature," I find it highly amusing that a "man with a gun" is called upon to respond to a call about a "man with a gun" to "restore order" when none was necessary.

Having had my CCW removed due a 6/28/03 incident, I have yet to personally "explore the legalities" of open carry (too much ) - being a "level-headed good guy" with no wish to further explore the ramifications, nor scare the sheep unnecessarily, cause undue alarm at frequent shopping venues, nor unduly compromise my reinstatement (or its possible legal challenges to my initial difficulties). Perhaps a "radical hot-head," but no fool.

By all accounts, & through many machinations through my county Under & Sheriff, I should receive back my "right to CCW" by mid-week, so a fairly moot point - to some extent, but the nominal question remains.

Are there reports of folks still being hassled for open/legal carry here in Colorado, or is it mere posturing by those who still wish to impose their will upon us?

Having not yakked it up to any extent with RMGO on the subject at much length & really haven't a real read on the subject.

Just curious as to any anecdotal gee-whiz-stuff to date.

Further, CO's Colorado Constitution
"Article II Sec 13
Right to Bear 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."

Too, SB24-03 enacted "shall issue concealed carry," which kinda makes this ending phrasae all but obsolete.

Sorry for the long-winded approach, but figured I'd cover the bases & ask pertinent questions.

Thanks for any responses, etc.

& just an aside, I find it somewhat "amusing" that my prior law enforcement experience, military anti-terrorist/hostage rescue team member (a fairly elite entity), 45 years+ as an avid hunter doesn't allow "qualification" any longer under the new SB24-03 - not to mention several training sessions for many Ladies, etc. through Second Amendment Sisters - & many, many others, although not a "certified instructor." "Training" is defined as either within ten years, military service within three, or "retired cop."

However, my current training for a non-resident Florida permit is perfectly valid & acceptable for Colorao reciprocity. Go figure.

My CCW permit is valid until my county Sheriff's term expires (term limitations in '06), but I will then have to go through "re-qualification" (perhaps enter IDPA or IPSC) to re-obtain another CCW permit under the new guidelines.

& really, why even bother with another Colorado9 CCW hassle when obtaining one from Floida allows much more reciproccity without the (again) hassles of already "proving" I was once good enough for Colorado, but am no longer?

But back to the original post.

Any hassles/"violations" to be noted?

"Rick Stanley was picked up in Denver a few years back (pre SB25-03, I'm pretty sure), for open carry."

It was, & in Littleton (perhaps Auroa = I disremember), jkominek. I'm fuzzy on that last municipality, but in both cities has/is still forcing charges in both entities = home rule, which is speciically a non-entity any longr, but deoesn't stop 'em from enforceing (Denver's vehicle confiscation), or other entitiy's their own description of civil rights violations.

Nonetheless, CO's constitution specifically states what I mentined in a prvious thead-post & see no reason/why, or how a "home-rule' city could explicitly exclude the stated "law of the land" (Colorado, in this instance, but they did anyway).

I'm no real fan of R. Stanley's take on his methodogy on this, but fully support his means to do so - clearly, he was in the "right," although arrested, charged & has spent boo-coo hassles/dealing with what has always been a clearly delineated constitutonally guaranteed right under CO's supreme rule of law. I reiterate to constitutionality of the right to carry "in defense of ..... "

Sems the state constitution would trump any "home rule BS entity" but for some municipality's idea of what they can get away with, no? But thats just me ....

In Stanley's case (I disremember the presiding judge - Petterson?), but he specifically disregarded bringing up any constitutional efforts as a defense to the charges at hand - clearly a violation of his oath, not to mention the supreme rule of state law.

& please do forgive my dyslexia & tremblings in my postings - I do try hard to correct for it ... = & :banghead:

The Judge should be disbarred for failing to uphold his oath to the state's constitution, but that will never happen.

But again, just curious as to any further violations since SB25-03 has been passed.

Anything on the radar screen that suggests that some municipalities have successfully prosecuted violations of sb25-03/theh preemption law?

Thanks, gyp_c2, & others.

I fail to see, that in the Colorado constitution, that:
" CO's Colorado Constitution
"Article II Sec 13
Right to Bear 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."

& as mentioned, SB24-03 obliterated the "concealed carry law," while SB25-03 obliterated any municiplity enacting anything more stringent that state law.

Again, just curious as to any violations/legal challeges to specificaly SB25-03/the pre-emption act.

Yah!, gyp_c2.

Although my CO CCW wil be reinstated this mid-week, I still find it necessary to go for a Florida non-res permit, as it will allow much more latitude as far as reciprocity across state borders than will my CO permit.

"because of the fact that someones' kids/families are gonna' get hurt if theykeep letting the police go off half-coked like this. It would not take too much for some to slide off the razors edge and into the alcohol...I do have a general snse of forboding that I've not had before...I just hope it's something else that's causing it instead of this stuff about increased powers of the police to act first and prove later...New Hampshire and all the responses to that poor guys thread is the perfect example...Here are POLICEMAN, flat out telling us that the Billof Rights doesn't matter to them!!!"

Clearly, especially in the case of Colodao's bill of rights, it states that we have the right to carry (unimpeded, without causing undue alarm - I'd guess - although not stated about "scaring sheep") ....

I wonder where The Man gets off in accoscosting us in he the "granted privelidge" of carryingly openly, or, in the case of sb24-03 concealed, at all.

Again, sorry for the dyslexia-posts - I am truly tsruggling with this.

Perhaps a call to Ddudley in the next day or so wu=ill help clear aup some incinsistencies .....

BTW, "lawyering up" is not an option. I've been there, done that, & all itgot me was a $2K feee to get to pleade guilty to an "obstrution charge" for legally & open;y carrying a handgun. & BTW, the lawyer in question gave up his practice in disgust & is now flying lackhawks for SAR missions = a much more satisfyibg & honorable mission than pimping himself out through what was once thougt as the "legal system." Good for him!