No Open Carrying Of Guns In Colorado Springs City Hall

I promised everybody I'd keep an eye on this story. This newest chapter broke as I was driving home from work this afternoon. It's from the local ABC affiliate's web site. - Wayne

* * * * * * * * * *

NO OPEN CARRYING OF GUNS IN COLORADO SPRINGS CITY HALL

Colorado Springs Council Split in 5-4 Decision Approving Ordinance

There will be no further brandishing of weapons in Springs City Council meetings.

The Colorado Springs City Council voted five to four Tuesday to ban open firearms in city buildings.

Council memebrs decided carrying a gun openly in city buildings was an infringement on peoples rights.

The proposal was prompted by resident Don Ortega who's been taking his shotgun to City Council meetings since last month.

Council member Tom Gallagher criticized Ortega and his actions for bringing his gun to Council and prompting the issue. "Mr. Ortega, you are an arrogant, stupid, irresponsible man, and you caused this and I want everybody to know that. You didn't have the decency to respect the people around you and therefore demonstrated you are an irresponsible gun owner." Gallagher voted against the ordinence banning open carry of weapons.

<more>

http://www.krdotv.com/DisplayStory.asp?id=6215

(Edited to remove all caps from text.)

Feel better now?

BTW No weapons or explosives are allowed in any county courthouse in my state, Condealed or otherwise.

Because the county courts are considered part of the state court system. They fall under different rules than municipal buildings.

It's gonna be hard for Ortega to conceal a shotgun. He was on local talk radio this afternon, and the host asked him why he didn't just get a handgun and apply for a CCW permit. Ortega said the only gun he owned was the shotgun. And to hear the guy talk, you came away with the impression that he's a taco or two short of a combination plate, if you catch my drift......

That's why shotguns under 18" are restricted under the NFA of 1934.

Saw down the barrel, stick it under a coat.

That would make it hard to pedal, I would think.....

:-)

there are some pretty short shotguns out there...

concealed permit itself may out of reach for this man. I Dont know what they cost in a big city state like Colorado.

It seems they are picking on the one man with this ban that does not include concealed weapons.

Don't they see the smiley face!

He only added that recently.

I wish everyone that posts to this board could hear Don Ortega speak. He's been on radio and TV here in Southern Colorado, and is hardly a good representative for pro-gunners. Kinda like Jerry Falwell holding himself as being representative of all Christians, which we know he isntt......

Looks like it's an ordinance against "open carry", not concealed - Wayne

* * * * * * * * * *

Springs bans guns at City Hall

City property excluded from open-carry law

COLORADO SPRINGS - Don Ortega showed up at Tuesday's City Council meeting with his shotgun - as expected. And, as expected, it was the last time he can legally bring the gun when he comes to City Hall.
The City Council passed an emergency ordinance banning open-carry firearms on city property. The council voted 5-4, with Mayor Lionel Rivera breaking a 4-4 tie.

"I have a responsibility to do what is best for the entire community. By supporting this ordinance, that's what I think I am doing," Rivera told the crowded meeting room. "Rights are something every citizen of Colorado Springs has."

In recent weeks, Ortega has created a stir by bringing his double-barreled shotgun to City Council meetings. For Tuesday's meeting, he painted the gun bright yellow, with a big smiley face on the side. "To make it viewer-friendly," he explained.

Tuesday's meeting was the third to which Ortega brought the shotgun, which he says he carries for protection. As usual, he unloaded and disassembled the gun during the meeting and stayed in the back row, under the watchful eye of security. When he went to the front to speak, he did not carry the gun.

He was one of about a dozen people to speak. Most opposed the ban and also Ortega's actions, which prompted the council's vote on a gun ban.

Said ban opponent Ed Bircham, addressing the council, "You can't just cave in to one individual. It will be a scar on the city for the longest time."

Charles Prignano called a ban "ripping the Second Amendment out of the Constitution. The right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed."

Jan Doran supported a ban, saying, "It is not about our right to bear arms, it is about being responsible and respectful. We are not the Wild West."

When it came to the vote, the council members were firm in their convictions.

"Mr. Ortega, you are an ignorant, stupid irresponsible man. And you caused this," Councilman Tom Gallagher said, who voted against the ban. "Because of your actions there is a possibility that thousands of decent law-abiding citizens will lose their rights, and that scares me."

<more>


http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1567210,00.html

And many pro-gunners in the Colorado Springs area have been phoning in to local talk radio in support of what the City Council did. Don Ortega is being cast in the part of "village idiot" for forcing the issue.......

I have KVOR on right now - they'll be talking about this until 10:00 when El Rushbo pollutes the airwaves. I'll post anything significant that comes up during the discussion.

That Gallagher is a guy with the NRA's hand far far up his wazoo....it sure IS awful that "thousands of decent law-abiding citizens will lose their rights" to trudge around city hall all day with loaded shotguns.

Imagine, Colorado could have enjoyed a law-abiding citizen shootout and lots of wounded bystanders if not for this one "ignorant, stupid irresponsible" gun owner.

....by one or more local gun groups in the elections last April. A few of these groups are feeling betrayed today, because the people they helped put into office voted in a way that they thought was in the public interest.

It will be interesting to see if any recall movements materialize as a result of this vote.......

I certainly hope so.

is less and less popular.

... the gun control movement ruled the day.

Are of no consequences

which is why the RKBA crowd has to resort to underhanded crap...

"Large majorities back most general measures for controlling guns, policies to increase gun safety, laws to restrict criminals from acquiring firearms, and measures to enforce gun laws and punish offenders. In general, a majority endorse all measures to regulate guns, increase gun safety, and reduce gun violence, except for policies that entail a general prohibition on owning guns.
88% want to make gun-safety training mandatory before a gun may be purchased. 79% support requiring a police permit before a gun can be purchased. 78% favor requiring background checks for sales between private individuals. 77% endorse the mandatory registration of handguns and 70% want handgun owners to be required to re-register their weapons at regular intervals. 77% also agree that “the government should do everything it can to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals, even if it means that it will be harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase handguns.” 74% want to require that all new handguns be personalized so they can only be fired by their legal owner. 73% favor both a background check and a five-day waiting period before a handgun may be purchased. 69% endorse limiting handgun purchases to one per month per buyer. 63% back the idea that all handgun owners should at least be licensed and trained in the use of their weapons. 52% favor allowing concealed-carry permits only for those with special needs such as private detectives.
A near majority of 49% backs having handguns limited to law enforcement personnel..."

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/ 

came to this years MMM event?

Try original thought - you may enjoy it.

Do you even have one?

:-)

(sigh)

Don't even try to pull out that "majority" horsecrap based on the NROC survey.
It was funded by The Joyce Foundation, and as we all know they have many worthy causes, along with being anti-RKBA.

Your logic
Gun industry funded research - everything biased and false

My Logic
The Joyce Foundation research (Gun Grabbers) - everything biased and false

I just went to the Joyce Foundation;s web site, and saw NOTHING about their opposition to RKBA. Would you care to provide a link to your "evidence"?

Evidently the "proof" is that the Joyce foundation isn't made up of gun nuts...

http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/gunviolence/gunviolencemain-fs.html

Efforts focused to "develop and coordinate a media strategy for a national effort to reduce gun violence."

Joyce was the leading FUNDER of gun control advocacy. (Aug. '98 and May '99 issues of Foundation Watch and Organization Trends).

http://www.joycefdn.org/pubs/pubsmain-fs.html

Look at their annual reports under “approved grants”, category gun violence.

$800,000 to the Violence Policy Center in 2002
$1,000,000 to the Violence Policy Center in 2000

As we well know VPC's headline statement is "BAN HANDGUNS NOW".

Joyce is significantly funding the "Violence Policy Center (VPC) in Washington, D.C.. This group is working with the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.
VPC is so strident that it publicly criticized President Clinton in October '97 for allowing and accepting a voluntary agreement from eight gun manufacturers to supply new handguns with safety locks. They complained the deal undermined the “tougher” mandates it is pushing in Congress. (OH LETS NOT THEM TO PUT SAFETY LOCKS ON THEM)

In '96 Joyce recruited and established "HELP for Survivors." This group is for the sole purpose of testifying before state legislatures and joining in suits against gun manufacturers.
They directly encouraged Chicago Mayor Richard Daley to file his own $433 million lawsuit in '98. Their stated intent is to make HELP as powerful as Mothers Against Drunk Driving to elliminate guns.

Joyce is carefully building coalitions, activating medical professionals, "influencing" policy research, increasing public awareness thru "selective" materials, and building a front on the consumer product itself.

Taken at face value only, some people would see such foundations as heroic, but looking below the service this is a carefully constructed and obviously calculated, hands-on assault on the RKBA!

And the NRA is a civil rights group. Tell me another one...........

You asked for evidence, you got it.
I never claimed the NRA wasn't biased. HELL yea they are.
The point to this whole thing was the validity of the supposed "majority" of people demonstrated in a biased survey.
Everyone has a bais, and they will all proclaim "evidence" reflecting that bias.
If you don't like or can't handle the truth, don't ask the question.

Therefore, as far as you're concerned, they're the enemy.

To your way of thinking, that's the truth. I beg to differ.

Therefore, as far as you're concerned, they're the enemy.

To your way of thinking, that's the truth. I beg to differ.

Everyone has a position, and no matter what it is, it does not preclude one side or the other from bending the truth.

Especially when one side contains such notorious liars as Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, and John "Cook the Books" Lott.

come up with anything more original than that same old song and dance?
MrB has used that one at least 1000 times.
Maybe you should recognize the fact that I never reference those individuals for that very reason.
I still have yet to see anything in your posts to discredit my statements about the Joyce Foundation influencing the surveys bias.

They're experts at the old song and dance. And too many pro-gunners mindlessly hum along with whatever they say.......

goodness I'm not one of those mindless hummers.

I've heard the CDC, the New England Journal of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Universities, the media, the NAACP, the American Academy of Pediatricians, The Journal of Emergency Room Physicians, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association and the UN all described as RKBA enemies over the years.

has a price.
You obviously don't have a clue what it takes to recieve grant money!

Johns Hopkins Universities, give us enough research money and we'll prove anything so I can get tenure.

American Bar Association, bwaaaaaaaa, they would sell out their own mothers for nickle!

The media I thought we ALL agreed they were right wing biased!!

The NAACP, get rich quick scheme lawsuits without basis.

"The media I thought we ALL agreed they were right wing biased!!"
Funny, that's not what I heard gun nuts howling...

"The NAACP, get rich quick scheme lawsuits without basis."
Yeah, they sure raked in the loot getting those disenfranchised voters put back on the rolls in Florida, didn't they?

Who the hell are you trying to kid?

your way to honest and smart for that.

""The media I thought we ALL agreed they were right wing biased!!"
Funny, that's not what I heard gun nuts howling..."

The Right Wing DOES have an incentive to see that the Second Amendment goes down the same road as the 4th Amendment. Look at the record. While there isn't universal support in the Right Wing for gun control (they know it's a weapon they can use against us), a LOT of them HAVE supported restrictions, including the RW media. The #1 example of this is the EO issued by Bush Sr. in 1989. Why do you think the bogus laws have not been repealed, when there's a Republican majority in both houses of Congress and a Republican in the White House?

It's because they KNOW that when push comes to shove, they NEED the people to be disarmed. Think 2000 was bad? Wait 20 years....they'll pull shit that makes 2000 look GOOD. Patriot was just a START. And when they do, they'll need the people who might resist them as weak as is possible. This means disarmed.

This is why I can't understand why any TRUE progressive would want the people disarmed. The Second Amendment is there to serve as a last-ditch defense against a tyrranical government. Which "side of the aisle" do you think is most likely to try to install a fascist government? I sure as fuck hope it isn't the Dems...and given the events of the past 3 years, it seems obvious that it isn't.

Do you honestly think that standing on a street corner with your pwecious widdle gun is gonna save the country? I doubt it........

Nope.

5 million people with real weapons?

It'll certainly give the Government something to think about. Look at how quickly and inexpensively they've "pacified" Iraq.

How many people have died over there since the day Pretzelboy landed on that aircraft carrier????

Bush says "the war is over!" yet US soldiers continue to die, because the Iraqi people are ARMED, and still have the means to resist. If the Iraqi people were disarmed, how would they resist? Harsh and abusive language?

The Bush Junta or it's sucessor totalitiarian state can suspend elections, declare martial law, and station troops all over the country. As long as the people are armed, the people retain the ability to strike back. People think morale for the troops in Iraq is low? IMAGINE what it would be like if the Bushistas did this here, and the US people started resisting. Hell, if just five percent of registered Democrats resisted, it would be Iraq times a thousand. It would be costly in human terms, but NO unjust government can stand when half the population passively resists the government, and even a tiny minority of the people actively resist. It's that whole "swimming in a sea" thing.

The party that does all it can to tear down any gun control is secretly trying to disarm the people because they want to take power on behalf of folks like the NRA , the guy who makes Bushmaster assault rifles, etc........

Clear as mud....

The gun industry has funneled more than $14 million to the right wing since 1990. The Turd from Texas is a handpuppet for the gun industry and his crooked attorney general is an NRA life member.

"Why do you think the bogus laws have not been repealed, when there's a Republican majority in both houses of Congress and a Republican in the White House?"
Gee, perhaps because there's overwhelming support for those laws that RKBA fanatics say are bogus.

You can't have it both ways. If all of the Republicans are all paid spokespeople for the NRA, do you really think they'd give a shit about public opinion?

You've created a paradox. If the Republicans control the country (which they do) and they don't repeal the gun laws (which they haven't), and yet the Republicans are paid spokespeople of the NRA, what's going on? Shall I put it in even simpler terms?

The Legislative and Executive branches are currently controlled by Republicans. (true or false)
All Republicans are Right Wing. (true or false)
All Right wingers are against gun control. (true or false)
People who are against gun control will repeal gun control laws. (true or false)
Therefore, gun control laws have been repealed. (true or false)

Spot the disconnect?

"If the Republicans control the country (which they do) and they don't repeal the gun laws (which they haven't)"
Who is it trying to heep the AWB and the Brady Bill from being renewed?


Most Republicans are right wing....most right wingers are opposed to gun control.....Most Americans are IN FAVOR OF gun control....Republicans are not enforcing gun control laws...Republicans are trying to keep the assault weapons ban and the Brady law from being renewed...Republicans are keeping bills to control guns bottled up in committee so they don't come to a vote....

to defend self and property is a "civil right". The state constitutions that existed before the Constitution was ratified do not make a distinction between rights.

Depending upon the definition of "civil right" and you and I had this discussion before, if speech et al are civil rights, then so is the right to defend self and property. The most efficient and effective tool to exercise that right is a firearm and the handgun is #1. Any attempt to deny an individual a right to keep and bear arms in defence of self and property is an infrigment on an individual's civil rights.

Constitution of New Hampshire - January 5, 1776, Ratified US Constitution June 21, 1788
2. All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin. June 2, 1784

The Constitution of Virginia; June 29, 1776, Ratified US Constitution June 26, 1788.
SECTION 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Constitution of New Jersey; July 2, 1776, Ratified US Constitution December 18, 1787
ARTICLE I RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776, Ratified US Constitution December 12, 1787
I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Constitution of North Carolina : December 18, 1776, Ratified US Constitution November 21, 1789
Section 1. The equality and rights of persons.
We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on June 15, 1780, Ratified US Constitution February 6, 1788
Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

You see the NRA as a civil rights group. I see them as a group crippled by brain-dead leadership.

by saying "You see the NRA as a civil rights group".

The fundamental issue is whether the states that I cited legally recognized that the righ to defend self and property is an inalienable right.

Take MA for example, what do you think the following statement from the MA constitution means?
QUOTE
Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property;
UNQUOTE

Please parse that statement and tell me how it doesn't mean what it says.

The relevant law says unless "had civil rights restored" and "restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > Sec. 921. --Definitions
QUOTE
(a) As used in this chapter -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
….. (20) The term ''crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year'' does not include -
…..….. (A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or
…..….. (B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.
….. What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

AND

(33)
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
….. (B)
….. ….. (i) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless -
….. ….. ….. (I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and
….. ….. ….. (II) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either
….. ….. ….. ….. (aa) the case was tried by a jury, or
….. ….. ….. ….. (bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.
….. ….. (ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
UNQUOTE

civil rights

pl.n.

The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

Notice it doesn't specify the Second.......

trying to appy a dictionary definition.

My understanding of the law I cited says that when a persons "civil rights" are restored, it includes a person's RKBA unless RKBA is specifically excepted out of the restoration of "civil rights".

If that is the correct meaning of "civil rights" in the Federal law dealing with firearms, then RKBA is a "civil right", isn't it?

but only one is relevant to the dicussion at hand.

Legal Information Institute (CORNELL LAW SCHOOL):
A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege
Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to vote, freedom from involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places.
Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class.
Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a persons race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin and in some instances sexual preference.

The www.dictionary.com definition is a "coined" phrase definition that was derived from the civil rights movements.

An added note - it also fails to include the 5th.
The 5th was the foundation from which the 14th was built (Federal 5th States 14th).

civil rights seems to mean "civil rights restored" includes an individual's right to "ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms".(see below)

I understand that a particular word or phrase can mean quite different things in separate laws if each law uses a different definition.

If a court were asked to interpret the meaning of "civil rights" for a specific law, wouldn't the court first look to usage particularly definitions in that law?

Wouldn't a court then conclude that regardless of what other definitions may or may not exist, the law as passed by congress meant for "civil rights" to include a person's right to "ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms"?

QUOTE
What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
UNQUOTE

and if the RKBA isn't a right of the people to keep and bear arms, why does the Second amendment mention it in those terms?

would you care to define civil liberties? I'll save you the trouble...

"Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference."

I wonder...does self-defense count as a fundamental right? Care to guess?

As one additional point, DoJ's "Civil Rights Division" administers TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > Sec. 924. -- Penalties.

I take that as pretty strong evidence that RKBA is a "civil right".

Hal Stoelzle © News

A gun-toting Don Ortega talks with a reporter Tuesday in the Colorado Springs City Hall before going upstairs to attend a City Council meeting. Ortega's habit of bringing the gun to City Hall prompted council members to ban the open carrying of guns in municipal buildings.

Springs City Council approves weapons ban

After man carries shotgun into City Hall, they rethink stance on public buildings

By Dick Foster, Rocky Mountain News
August 13, 2003

COLORADO SPRINGS - The City Council voted Tuesday to ban the open carrying of guns in municipal buildings, a decision prompted by the actions of a man who's been showing up at City Hall with a shotgun.

Uneasy city employees and some citizens called for the ordinance after Don Ortega began bringing his 12-gauge Stoeger shotgun - its stock painted bright yellow with a matching happy face - to City Council meetings.

Colorado's new relaxed gun laws allow open carrying virtually anywhere it is not specifically banned.

Seven of nine Springs council members had stood squarely for gun rights and overturned previous bans on weapons in public buildings and city parks last April.

But faced with Ortega's shotgun in its own chambers, the council did a turnabout on a 5-4 vote to prohibit the open carrying of arms in city buildings.

It did not ban carrying guns in city parks or anywhere else. And it did not prevent people with concealed-weapons permits from carrying a concealed weapon.

<more>

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_2178481,00.html

Who did he kill?

Isn't that like locking the barn door after the horse gets out?

we don't have to wait for them to commit crimes.

Thanks for being such a WONDERFUL contestant, and what do we have for him, Don Pardo?

What is your proof that the man who started the whole controversy was any danger?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??

is sufficient to instill reasonable doubt, and besides,

I don't really need to bother.

Innocent until proven guilty.

that is your standard right?

By those who worked in Colorado Springs City Hall, four City Council members, and the mayor.

And that's why the new ordinance was passed.

for those in power they need only perceive a threat...for those out of power, they must prove a threat.

Why should public employees feel less safe than those in the private sector?

Oh, and BTW, to answer your question: for the same reason public colleges can't restrict freedom of speech on their grounds.

Private businesses can outlaw firearm possession on their property, because they are privately owned.

Public places are up to the people, and the good people of CO have spoken on this issue. They wanted CCW and they have it. Now if a couple of politicians don't like it, they can get real jobs.

The asshole Republican legislators have caved to the demands of the goddamned gun lobby, and now we're stuck with this asinine law.

Unless it's rules unconstitutional. Which may happen, because Colorado is a "home rule" state and several of the home rule cities (such as Denver) are going to court over this, because imposing a state-wide carry law violates home rule.

You just don't like what you have heard, don't confuse the two.

How did the Repuke legislature get there - the people. How did the gun lobby get so powerful - the people.

If you think the majority of people in CO don't support sensible gun laws like Right To Carry, start a petition to repeal it....let's see how far you get.

I bet you won't start, because you know how far you will get.

How did the Repuke legislature get there - the people.

The people in this state who stupidly vote for people based on whether or not they have an "R" after their name on the ballot.


How did the gun lobby get so powerful - the people.

The gun lobby got powerful by spreading lies about the Democratic Party.


If you think the majority of people in CO don't support sensible gun laws like Right To Carry, start a petition to repeal it....let's see how far you get.

I bet you won't start, because you know how far you will get.

I wouldn't start because I would want to face the verbal and physical threats others have received from pro-gunners in this state.

1. Dems voted for the CCW bill too

2. No it didn't get powerful via speading lies. IF that were true, the Million Moron March and the Brady Bunch would be powerful, not the NRA.
The NRA is powerful because it has about 5 million members, many in your state. They are also known as "the people."

3. Hey, now the CCW passed, you could get and carry a gun legally. but you would still be wasting your time trying to overturn CCW

1 - It can be political suicide being perceived as "anti-gun" here in Colorado, thanks to NRA propaganda.

2 - As far as I'm concerned, the Million Moms and the Brady's are spreading the truth.

3 - I have no desire to get a gun - not now, not ever.

2 - As far as I'm concerned, the Million Moms and the Brady's are spreading the truth.

Propaganda, that is full of inaccuracies (I would actually characterize most of these inaccuracies as being 'intentional', or as we call 'em around here 'Lies'), is what you consider to be 'truth'.

That is a shame that someone who comes off as fairly intelligent and thoughtful would not be able to see that bullshit for what it really is. Or is it more along the lines of wishful thinking? You want to believe what they say so you ignore their lies in order to believe it.

1 - If it is "political suicide" to be considered anti-gun in CO, it is because the people support gun rights in CO, otherwise they wouldn't even hear what the NRA states. So that is the power of the people.

2 - Have you donated to the truthful cause? They are hurting for it

3 - Great, I respect your right NOT to own a gun. Now don't go and fuck with my right or anyone else's right to own a gun.

I don't recall having read a DU thread on this topic either.

The Colorado constitution made an RKBA exception by saying "nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons". See selected quotes below.

Other states have similar statements in their constitutions and still passed state CCW laws. Can you provide a link to an article discussing the legal reasons why each Colorado home rule entity has the right to approve or deny a CCW law.



QUOTE
Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
AND
Section 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.
UNQUOTE

I just heard it on the radio yeaterday. The news report said that the City of Denver was filing suit against the new law because they felt the state-wide standard violated the home rule provision.

If I can find a link, I'll post it.

Denver did file a lawsuit to overturn CCW in the city. Do a search at Packing if you're interested.

I'm not trying to raise a point here, as I am totally unfamiliar with "home rule".
If the CCW were a state issued license/permit, would it not be the same as a drivers license. If so, could theoretically Denver also nullify the drivers license and require a "Denver" drivers license?
Maybe you have a better example.

As I said not trying to debate, just trying to get a better understanding of how the "home rule" system works. We do not have that down here in Texas / little Colorado (as my friends from Crusty Butt call it)

Which government entity can pass the most stringent law?

CO seems to be saying that Denver has authority under home rule to limit CCW, i.e a policy more restricted than the current state law.

On the other hand, if the state prohibited CCW permits, would Denver have authority under home rule to permit CCW, i.e. a policy less restricted than the state law?

That seems analogous to taking the "state's right" discussion and making it a "county's right" issue.

isn't wandering around with a loaded shotgun in his mitt?

My back injury precludes me from playing baseball.....

:-)

and then we'll hear the RKBA crowd yakking: "No gun law would have prevented it!"

the place, this law is going to stop him?
No, but a load of 00 buck (or three) will.

as RKBA "logic."

Go refuel.

It's just that most of the time, people who hold your position get banned from DU before we finish the thread.

By the way, did you catch the "enthusiast" who couldn't resist working an anti-Hillary slur into the title of a gun thread?

Why, is there a "like Hillary" rule now? :-)

The last real semi-original arguments I remember from the anti-gun-nuts were from 'thinktank' back around first of the year. The rest of the time it has simply been a regurgitation of the same old drivel, the same arguements that have been countered and destroyed so many times.