Posted on 11/09/2004 11:50:57 AM PST by Ahriman
A judge has ruled that state legislation can't supersede Denver's gun laws because the state constitution gives home rule cities supremacy in issues of local concern.
A new court ruling upholding most of Denver's gun ordinances is invaluable on two counts: It underscores the importance of home rule and it highlights the obvious - Denver is not the same as a small town, and when it comes to guns it shouldn't be treated like one.
Deputy City Attorney David Broadwell said it this way in his opening brief: "Simply put, a bullet fired in Denver - whether maliciously by a criminal or negligently by a law-abiding citizen - is more likely to hit something or somebody than a bullet fired in rural Colorado."
District Judge Joseph Meyer agreed, writing in his opinion, "Uniformity in itself is no virtue." His ruling came in a suit filed by the city of Denver challenging parts of two 2003 state laws, one of which threw out all local gun laws, including those that ban assault weapons. The other involved uniform standards for obtaining concealed-weapons permits.
In essence, Meyer said the state's desire to have uniform gun rules in all 64 counties was superseded by Denver's decision, as a home rule city, not to have them. Home rule authority was established in the state constitution in 1912 and made "home rule municipalities superior to the General Assembly with respect to local matters," he said. "Under the home rule amendment, a home rule municipality has the supreme power to legislate in matters of local concern," the judge said. Deciding whether or not state laws pre-empt Denver ordinances depends on whether they address matters of local, statewide or mixed local and statewide concern, he said.
Meyer upheld city ordinances that ban assault weapons, prohibit the open carrying of firearms and bar minors from access to firearms, ruling those were local concerns. "Denver suffers rates of violent crime far in excess of statewide averages," the judge said in his ruling.
We agree and applaud the decision. In the face of gun violence, it makes sense for a city to regulate the carrying of firearms, assault weapons and minors' access to guns.
Bang!
I'm glad I don't live in Colorado!
"matters of local concern"
Gun laws are not just a matter of local concern.
Dear LBT: I think you are right. Maybe some Colorado attorney could pipe up and give us a quick, off the cuff opinion. Here in Texas we have home rule cities and exactly this tactic was tried by libs and failed miserably.
dang, and thats where the best gun shows are :-(
I wanna move to Denver so I can own Slaves again. After all, if basic human Rights disappear at the City limits, what is to stop them?
Tanner is technically not in Denver's city limits.
"Tanner is technically not in Denver's city limits."
:-) !!!!
I think the judge knows that too and is simply corrupt.
{"Denver suffers rates of violent crime far in excess of statewide averages," the judge said in his ruling.} So, the judge goes with the rules from the areas of high crime rates, instead of the rules from the areas with low crime rates. Sounds like another liberal judge with no sense.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
does this mean if you're not in a more populated area
you don't have to pass state vehicle smog tests or OHSA
rules, too?
This line of reasoning applies to the states vs. the federal government for constitutional reasons. But there's nothing in the constitution that says that city law trumps state law.
Cities have the right to control guns within city limits IF state law allows them that lattitude. States probably should be cautious about dictating to the cities. But they have the legal right to do so, I believe.
That principle was confirmed when the NY State legislature killed the NY City commuter tax.
We agree and applaud the decision. In the face of gun violence, it makes sense for a city to regulate the carrying of firearms, assault weapons and minors' access to guns.
These are 2 different things. Many cities have regulations against shooting a gun in the city limits, but it's predicated on the fact that the shooting is not in self-defense.
That is certainly an interesting way of phrasing it.
What part of UNALIENABLE RIGHTS does this judge fail to comprehend?
Slippery slope. When any sub-division of gov can be more restrictive than law allows the parent gov. SOME THING IS WRONG. Are we talking RIGHTS or Privileges here? I think as with most, the sheeple are confused. This is how people have lost their Rights and now don't know $h-t about squat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.