Tyranny In America: Shocking Video Of Police Officers Arresting A Concealed Carry Holder With His Permit

Conservative US ^ | 04.28.2020 | Natalie D.

[justme4now]

“He is a permitted carrier.”

Yes, he is “permitted” according to the second amendment!
I can’t believe that some folks on here think that just because some governor or mayor passes an unconstitutional law that we should follow it!

And if I’m not mistaken, don’t the police take an oath to uphold the constitution?

“Permit” my @$$!

All so called gun laws are unconstitutional!
All of them!

[MinuteGal]

Please ping me if you hear the upshot on this case (if you'll excuse the expression).

Leni

[Big Red Badger]

Don’t Forget warped
Thinking on
Sex and Drugs.

[Redwood71]

“And if I’m not mistaken, don’t the police take an oath to uphold the constitution?”

Yes they do. But I just answered another question asked of me about states rights concerning the US Constitution. One of the duties of the state is to determine the best actions toward health and safety according the Article IV under states’ powers. They are within their rights to determine a need for a gun free zone and can enforce it.

If you think the law oversteps their powers under state rights, then you should contact the gun lobbies and/or the NRA to voice your thoughts. There is a good chance they already know of this and have taken a stance, which appears not to pressure the decision by the state or have not publicly come out with a descent. Check with them.

rwood

[justme4now]

I'm sorry but the constitution does apply to states as well as to the feds

For more than seven decades after the United States v. Miller decision, what right to bear arms that the Second Amendment protected remained uncertain.

This uncertainty was ended, however, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Supreme Court examined the Second Amendment in exacting detail.

In a narrow 5–4 majority, delivered by Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that self-defense was the “central component” of the amendment and that the District of Columbia’s “prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense” to be unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court also affirmed previous rulings that the Second Amendment ensured the right of individuals to take part in the defending of their liberties by taking up arms in an organized militia.

Because the Heller ruling constrained only federal regulations against the right of armed self-defense in the home, it was unclear whether the court would hold that the Second Amendment guarantees established in Heller were equally applicable to the states.

The Supreme Court answered that question in 2010, with its ruling on McDonald v. City of Chicago
A case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

[Redwood71]

Denver’s law was challenged in 2003. It was the landmark case Denver v. State of Colorado. The judge sided with Denver. The court noted that “the State’s interest in allowing the general open carry of firearms is insubstantial and is far outweighed by Denver’s local interest in regulating firearms more strictly in an urbanized area.”

This rule is codified under CRS 29-11.7-104. It provides that a local government may enact an ordinance prohibiting the open or concealed carry of a firearm in a specific type of building or area. As long as signs are posted at the public entrances to the building or specific area. At present, these limitations apply in Denver. But any Colorado jurisdiction may enact similar restrictions.

So there is precedence with the listed court case. The actual district court case you can find at:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Opinion_Docs/03cv3809order.pdf

If the area was marked/posted. he was wrong for having a gun in the area. The police shouldn’t be blamed for doing their job as directed. But the determination has been challenged in the Colorado Supreme Court and wasn’t changed.

rwood

[justme4now]

Did you actually read what I had posted?

A District Court now overrules the Supreme Court?

Only in Obama and his minions world!

[Redwood71]

“Did you actually read what I had posted?”

A state supreme court made a ruling at least 10 years ago and nothing has been done to change or even challenge it. And actions have been done to enforce the state law like establishing no gun areas that stay within the carry licence in Colorado which is not all encompassing. They are not saying he can’t carry a weapon. They’re saying he can’t carry it there for health and safety purposes. And that’s within states’ rights in Article IV.

“A District Court now overrules the Supreme Court?”

They did. And they made it stick. So there must be a reason. He went to jail. He will have his day in court.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/co-gun-laws/

Open carry is legal in Colorado for any person who is at least 18 years old and who can legally possess a firearm, except in Denver county and other posted areas. Local governments may enact regulations prohibiting open carrying of firearms in a building or specific area within the local government’s jurisdiction, as long as signs are posted to that effect.

To me the law is in place and has been for many years. It is the responsibility of the person carrying to conform to the laws. He didn’t, and he was arrested. Trying to tell me what is wrong with the law when neither one of us was in on the discussion on the law originally, doesn’t help much as I can only guess at why it has in the past, and is currently, legal. But it is.

Maybe this will help:

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/co-gun-laws/

Does Colorado have preemption laws related to concealed carry (i.e. Does state law supersede local laws regarding the possession of handguns)?

Partial. Local governments may prohibit the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government’s jurisdiction. A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase or possess under state or federal law. A local government may not restrict a person’s ability to travel with a weapon in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance.

[Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-11.7-104]

[Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-11.7-103]

[Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-12-105.6(2)(a)]

Arguing with me on the legality of it is useless. I’ve shown you where it came from, who did it, and that it has not to my knowledge been challenged so it still exists. I hope you find your answers. Good luck.

rwood

[justme4now]

It is only because of misinformation or ignorance that people put up with unconstitutional rulings made by black robed tyrants.

I can't say it any clearer than this: If it isn't addressed in the US Constitution then there are separate powers reserved for the states!

The Second Amendment is part of the US Constitution and Cannot be ignored or changed, simply because some state or district judge rules on it!

All you have to do is look at the different rulings between leftists judges and true constitutionalist judges!

Leftists claim that the constitution is a living and changing document and that is how they try to justify these "activist" Judges.

As I have already said, (numerous times) .. the Supreme Court has ruled, more than once that the US Constitution applies to the states as well as the federal government!

Somewhere, Clarence Thomas addressed the over-reach of these 'district judges' and said that they needed to be reigned in!

So, simply saying that some black robed tyrant has ruled that the US Constitution doesn't apply to the states does not make it a legal ruling or a law!

People have the right .. No, people have the responsibility to defy these judges!

Our Rights come from God .. not from man and not from activist Judges!
Our Rights are enumerated within the Bill of Rights!

Like the Ten Commandments, the Bill of Rights is not open to discussion, modification or the choosing of one or two.

The Ten Commandments are not the Ten Suggestions:
Likewise: The Bill of Rights is not the Bill of Choices.

It is up to every Freedom-loving American to restore it to its proper place.
If not now, when?
If not here, then in another place more worthy.

(Full disclosure: I stole that last part from another Freeper! Just don't remember who?)🙄

[Redwood71]

“People have the right .. No, people have the responsibility to defy these judges!”

Send me a comment from the Denver County Jail, please. God isn’t going to put you there, a judge is for what you are proposing.

There are always loopholes in everything. But open defiance of the law, whether you think it’s right or not, at best will get you put in jail, and at worst, killed. If you openly carry in Denver and defy the officers trying to enforce the law, and you even start to indicate you’re going after the gun, you won’t feel the last 5 that go in.

You want to argue it, get a lawyer and go to court. And if you don’t, you can get a lawyer to get you out of jail.

Think about that this law has been in position for a number of years and hasn’t been tossed. And there are enough gun activists to try it a number of times.

So it you don’t like a law, get it changed. But if you openly fight against it on the street, you won’t win. Nothing can get accomplished. And until the city, state, or federals courts start the actions to toss it, it’s in effect and has to be followed or it is criminal. That’s how our system is designed to work.

Maybe this will help:

https://www.shouselaw.com/colorado/weapons/guns/CO_open_carry.html

rwood

[justme4now]

Too bad that our country is adrift with folks like yourself.

“It’s the law whether it’s constitutional or not and since I am afraid of any negative consequences in not toeing the line .. I’ll obey!”

We were fortunate enough to have lived , at least a part of our lives in liberty!

Is there any unconstitutional law, if passed by an activist judge would you Not follow?

[CodeToad]

“They have to follow orders.”

No, they do not. Ask the Germans.

[Grimmy]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

18 U.S. Code § 242.Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(b), title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)