[Bad~Rodeo]

Rick performed an act of civil disobedience by openly carrying a loaded weapon, in a holster, in violation of Denver Revised Municipal Code section 38-117.5(b). Stanley believes that this city ordinance is unconstitutional. It infringes citizens' rights protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is also in direct violation of Article II, Section 13 of the Colorado constitution.

He will win....

[Mulder]

He will win....

Only if the judicial system follows the law and the Constitution, which has been rare in recent history.

[Libloather]

The Liberteens are flippin' out...

[VA Advogado]

Yeah, sure. About 3% of the electorate goes for these dated stunts.

[maranatha]

bttt

[supercat]

He will win....

IANAL, but IMHO that depends whether he attempted to raise the following two factual issues:

1. He was carrying the firearm for self-defense.
2. His pistol was of a type suitable for use in a well-functioning militia.

Precedent requires (1) for state-constitution challenges and (2) for federal constitution challenges. To be sure, these should not normally be difficult facts to show, and it's fine (actually good) if the judge deliberately prevented the lawyer from introducing them. Nonetheless, attempting to produce them may be a key requirement for securing a remand.

When seeking a remand after a conviction, it is necessary to show not only that mistakes (or worse) were made, but that they may have materially affected the outcome of the trial. Since precedent in state and federal court requires the above facts for constitutional RKBA defenses, if the defendant didn't attempt to raise them the appeals court might hold that even a fair judge and jury would not have accepted that defense.