Posted on 11/09/2004 11:50:57 AM PST by Ahriman
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.