Alphecca

What on Earth does states' rights have to do with this? Colorado is the state. Denver is just an uppity little city that ought to have its home rule charter revoked by the state legislature.

Not just state highways...I-70 and I-15 (I think-it may be I-25) both pass through Denver. These are huge east-west and north-south routes.

Cities are creatures created by states. Colorado can just revoke Denver's charter if they want to.

And since when does 'home rule' trump a basic right?

Lastly, is this the same judge who barred the use of both the Secomd Amendment and the Colorado Constitution as a defense? (Or is this the same case and I haven't been paying attention?)

I remember a similar concern was raised several years ago about the NRA's national matches. A local Ohio town that the interstate passed-through to get to the Match had tougher gun-carry regulations than Ohio's. The legal(?) interpretation was that being on an (Federal) interstate highway with no intention of entering the town would protect those on their way to the NRA Match.

We have similar "intent" regulations here in NJ about hauling unloaded firearms in your trunk. They're all very slippery slopes. Technically, the only time you can have a hangun (unloaded) in your vehicle is when going to-and-back from the range or gunshop/smith. And it must be in a locked case and locked in your trunk. If you stop for gas or at the convenience store in either direction, your in violation.

And we have no concealed carry-permits.

It was the Rick Stanley case in which the Constitution couldn't be used as a defense. The two are unrelated. This one was brought (AFAIK) by Denver itself in response to the legislatures passing of the preemption bill two years ago or so. Then the state has to come in and defend it. Unfortunately, the state is represented by the attorney general, who in this case is Ken Salazar (our soon to be new Senator. Sorry, everybody else). I don't know much about Salazar, but I know he doesn't like guns. As the AG, he had his office issue a 'finding' about the concealed carry law and universities which is a complete load. So I would be utterly unsurprised if he told his little attorney drones to botch the defense in this case.

Another unfortunate fact is that my state, CO, has just elected a majority of democrats to the state house. We voted for Bush over all, but a lot of the individual counties went left. I, personally, am blaming the influx of Californians and hippies. Must get hippy beating stick tuned up soon.

A couple of thoughts . . .

First, have you actually read the Colorado Constitution?

Does it state that State law is the supreme law of the land (like the US Constitution)?? or does it actually allow for cities to adopt their own laws.

As much as I might be distressed by the end result of this case, I'm not convinced it was a bad legal decision - though I will leave that determination up to the folks in colorado. In case your interested, you can read Article XX of the Colorado Constitution - Home Rule Cities and Towns - here:

http://i2i.org/Publications/ColoradoConstitution/cnart20.htm

If the citizens of Colorado wanted to grant these rights to Denver, then they have no one to complain but themselves. However, considering that Denver existed as an incorporated city prior to the existence of the state of colorado (I believe this is the case, correct me if Denver was formed after Colorado entered the union as a state) then shouldn't we also ask what right does Colorado have to impose its laws on Denver?????

Denver was incorporated after the creation of the Colorado Territory, but before Colorado became a state. I didn't realize that Denver was granted home rule in the Constitution. I believe however that those chunks (and thus Denver's current charter) were added in 1903.

However, it does look like the constitution permits Denver to make whatever stupid laws it wants, and have them override state laws. And then section 8 of XX says that anything else in the constitution that conflicts with XX is inapplicable?! WTF?

This seems to be completely mad.

A parellel can be drawn between states' rights & the home rule thing. Where it differs is very few people argue that a city can violae a constitutional provision that protects an individual Right.

I-70, I-76 & I-25 all run through Denver, as well as some other major roads.

But here's the thing: since Denver is a home ruled city as provided in the state constitution, does that mean it could mandate a city wide religion? Or prohibiti a certain religion within city limits? Could it set up check points where fealty must be sworn to a particular God to enter?
I believe the answer to be no, since a person religion or lack thereof is something beyond the powers of a city, state or country to dictated. I reach the same conclusion concerning the Right to Arms.

So while I generally approve of the idea of local control, I don't when said locality attempts to step on a natural & inherent Right. I do not believe Denver's constitution grants autority to trample individual Rights under the home rule provision. I do believe that the judge made a results based decision rather than one based upon the law or the constitution, but I'm allowing for a more reasonable explanation until I get hold of the relevant documents.

Bottom line is Denver does not have the power to infringe upon an individual Right, no matter how a judge misreads the home rule section of the constitution. It's not a question of imposing state law on Denver, it's a question of Denver imposing local laws that hurt individual Rights (which pre-existed the city & state).

Publicola,

Your generally right. For our purposes, the more important, overriding question, is whether Denver's regulations violate the U.S. Constitution which serves as the Supreme Law of the Land. If it does, then it gets thrown out.

However, that was not (from what I gather) before the Colorado Court which was only examining whether or not the Denver regulation was permissible in light of the state pre-emption law.

Could the court have examined the 2nd Amendment issue - probably. However, it would likely only raise the issue if one of the parties addressed it - courts generally refrain from acting sua sponte.

Thing is the Co constitution has a pretty strong assertion of the Right to Arms.

Now it is possibe that the state didn't raise it & the judge didn't delve into it, but c'mon - these are pretty obvious conflicts with the colorado constitution - especially denver prohibiting open carry or carry in a vehicle.

Then again as I keep saying I haven't seen any of the briefs or the decision yet. I doubt I'll be surprised by anything in them, but it's possible that the judge did rule appropriately - if he decided to ignore the colorado constitution.

Did challenges to Denver's unconstitutional gun laws ever make it to the CO Supreme Court? Since it sounds like they're allowed to pass whatever law they please, if the CO SC has upheld these crazy laws in the past, then they're perfectly valid again.

(Where the hell is RMGO on this?)

Our country was founded on the principle that no government can tryannize over its citizens. And you are saying that Denver is imposing a tyranny on you as a driver through the city. But aren't you imposing a tyranny on Denver if you feel it should accept the less restrictive state laws.

Denver in Colorado is like Burlington in Vermont. Its more concentrated urban population may require tighter safety regulations than the rest of the state. But these should apply only to its residents, and not affect you or any other passer through, with one exception-- the actual firing of a gun.

I belive that gun laws should be only general safety regulations, not specifics of types or even of quantities. I would propose treating guns exactly as we treat that other lethal weapon we routinely use-- the automobile. Licensing drivers guarantees all of us that everyone has some ability to drive. Registraion is for active vehicles only. We can have any number of cars in our front yards but don't have to register any of them just as long as they are not on the public roads. I think we should have gun education in high schools just as we have driver education.

Woldn't this work well for guns also?

If Denver's ordinances only applied to Denver residents, that would be fine since an individual could decide if he wanted to live there. Unfortunately, it applies to anyone travelling through the city. There-in lies the rub...

Actually it wouldn't be fine if it only applied to Denver residents.

But ot back up for a second, I wouldn't be the one imposing on Denver to follow state law. Denver is the one imposing on me by enacting laws stricter than the state, & the state is impoing on me by enacting any laws based on prior restraint (i.e. mere possession).

It is not tyranny to tell a city or state that it may not impose in matters of individual concern, such as an inherent Right like the Right to Arms.

As for safety training in schools - I'm in favor of that. But licensing or even requring proof of said safety class is an imposition on a Right.

& the arguments about Denver needing stricter gun control laws because of its population density - BS. As a practical matter prior restraint based gun control laws simply don't achieve their purported ends. As a principled matter if I live in or pass through a city of 500,000 my Rights should be respected just the same as if the population was 5,000.

I've got a copy of Meyer's opinion & I'll be posting more specific concerns relating to this case in the next few days (Lord willing & the blood pressure don't rise). Still, Denver should be avoided by any & everyone who values the Right to Arms. until they change these immoral laws of theirs.