Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun lawsuit ruling a win for local control
Denver Post ^ | November 09, 2004

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In essence, Meyer said the state's desire to have uniform gun rules in all 64 counties was superseded by Denver's decision, as a home rule city, not to have them.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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: assaultweapons; bang; banglist; denver; gungrabbers; homerule; newbie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

1 posted on 11/09/2004 11:50:57 AM PST by Ahriman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bang_list; zechariah

Bang!


2 posted on 11/09/2004 11:52:20 AM PST by AdamSelene235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahriman

I'm glad I don't live in Colorado!


3 posted on 11/09/2004 11:53:28 AM PST by Darth Gill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahriman

"matters of local concern"

Gun laws are not just a matter of local concern.


4 posted on 11/09/2004 11:54:01 AM PST by Max Combined (There is in human nature generally more of the fool than of the wise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahriman
Short-term victory for the anti-gunners. It won't survive appeals.


5 posted on 11/09/2004 11:54:24 AM PST by LiberalBassTurds (Islam is a religion of peace. Strange every murdering psychopath in the world is attracted to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBassTurds

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.


6 posted on 11/09/2004 11:57:15 AM PST by JeeperFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235

dang, and thats where the best gun shows are :-(


7 posted on 11/09/2004 12:02:19 PM PST by stompk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ahriman

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?


8 posted on 11/09/2004 12:02:21 PM PST by Dead Corpse (My days of taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stompk

Tanner is technically not in Denver's city limits.


9 posted on 11/09/2004 12:03:44 PM PST by AdamSelene235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JeeperFreeper
Thanks JeeperFreeper. Read your profile and wanted to say thank you for your service to the nation, and your son's as well. Proud to meet you here on FR.

All the best.


10 posted on 11/09/2004 12:04:34 PM PST by LiberalBassTurds (Islam is a religion of peace. Strange every murdering psychopath in the world is attracted to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235

"Tanner is technically not in Denver's city limits."


:-) !!!!


11 posted on 11/09/2004 12:05:29 PM PST by stompk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Max Combined
My thoughts exactly. I suspect local concerns would be something peculiar to that city.

I think the judge knows that too and is simply corrupt.

12 posted on 11/09/2004 12:08:30 PM PST by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ahriman

{"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.


13 posted on 11/09/2004 12:09:10 PM PST by hyperpoly8 (Illegitimati Non Carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahriman

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


14 posted on 11/09/2004 12:12:24 PM PST by Malleus Dei ("Communists are just Democrats in a hurry.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahriman

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?


15 posted on 11/09/2004 12:16:47 PM PST by Rakkasan1 (Justice of the Piece: Hope IS on the way...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahriman

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.


16 posted on 11/09/2004 12:18:09 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahriman
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."

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.

17 posted on 11/09/2004 12:18:12 PM PST by cruiserman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahriman
"Uniformity in itself is no virtue."

That is certainly an interesting way of phrasing it.

18 posted on 11/09/2004 12:19:21 PM PST by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahriman
Uniformity, in itself is no virtue.

What part of UNALIENABLE RIGHTS does this judge fail to comprehend?

19 posted on 11/09/2004 12:23:49 PM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are really stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

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.


20 posted on 11/09/2004 12:27:14 PM PST by OldSgt. (USMC, Nam Vet, HMM-165)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson