Posted on 11/09/2004 11:50:57 AM PST by Ahriman
"Under the home rule amendment Constitution, a home rule municipality an individual has the supreme power to legislate in exercise matters of local concern self defense," the judge said would be hard pressed to ignore.
There. That's better.
It will be overturned on Appeal. This has already been tried and failed. It is just a matter of going up through the courts . We need to get all lefty judges off the bench no matter what level. It is imperative if we are to retain our constitutional rights.
When are we going to dispel this delusion once and for all?
The Second Amendment - Commentaries
Some folks just don't get it. Their crime problem is because of their gun restrictions. If they want to reduce crime, they should re-instate open or concealed carry. Works every time it's tried.
And while we're about it, I believe His Honor will find that the supreme power was granted by the Supreme Power to the people. He seems to have forgotten that he, the state, and the home rule municipalities are just the hired help, most decidedly NOT the middle men.
Sorry, Denver courts have ruled neither the Colorado or US Bill of Rights applies to Denver.
It will be denied cert. The government doesn't have to grant its subjects any rights at all.
Rick Stanley appealed the home rule clause all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court and Circuit Court of Appeals in his Denver Open Carry Case.
Denied Cert. Game Over.
ping
During the selection process Defense Attorney Paul Grant posed several questions to this Police Officer.
When asked by Grant if she could really apply the laws as explained by the judge, she replied, "yes".
Then Mr. Grant asked her to confirm if she really was a police officer with the city and county of Denver. She replied, "yes".
Mr. Grant then asked her if, "...when becoming a police officer, she had taken an oath to support the Constitution of Colorado and the Constitution of the United States of America?"
"Yes, I did." the officer replied.
Grant then asked her a hypothetical question; "If the judge were to instruct you that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 13 of the Constitution of Colorado are applicable to this case, would you be able to follow that instruction?
Pandemonium erupted halfway through Grant's question with the City Prosecutor objecting at the top of his lungs to the form of the question, as the Judge pounded his gavel for attention.
At this time Judge Patterson dismissed the jurors for lunch. After they left the courtroom Judge Patterson began to lecture Mr. Grant.
"I already sent you an order in this case. The order has been mailed to your offices. You are not to mention the Constitution during this proceeding. Do you understand?" Grant replied that he did not.
Patterson said, "Then I'll explain it again.You are not to reference the Constitution in these proceedings. You will not address it in voir dire, you will not address it in your opening remarks, you will not ask any questions about the Constitution when you summon your witnesses, and you will not talk about the Constitution when you give your closing arguments. Do you understand my instructions?", questioned Judge Patterson.
------------ That's what home rule is about, folks.
"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."
More simply put, we don't have restrictions on shooting people in Denver so we must not allow possession of firearms.
"prohibit the open carrying of firearms"
Ok, so I'll just carry concealed. PERMITS? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN PERMITS.
IMPEACHMENT. Failing that. Break out the Tar and feathers.
Yeah, Rick made a comment along those lines and is now serving 7 years for threating a judge.
Dumbass ruling.
Would not have been a problem if the State would have just left him alone. Second Amendment Rights and all that.
Here in Oregon, legal subdivisions (and State agencies, FTM) are not allowed to legislate regulations in excess of existing State regulations. If there *is* no State legislation or Constitutional protection, then they are free to deprive us of our rights at will, but if the State does legislate, they cannot expand their authority beyond what the State has assigned to itself.
At least, that's how I understand the situation... but I thought *that* made Oregon a "Home Rule" State. (NTS I can't always keep the legal definitions straight...)
Oregon's gun rights organizations have been constantly (and successfully) challenging, and suing when necessary, (FI) school districts and other nests of scurrying rodentiae when they attempt to restrict CWL holders from carrying on school property. The point is that State legislation explicitly states where concealed weapons may be carried, and therefore scrawny pencilnecked leftist anti-gun school principals, mayors, city councils, etc. etc. CANNOT legally disallow concealed carry on school grounds.
Sounds like Colorado needs a similar arrangement... it will probably be easier to put the necessary legislation in place if Schnozzlepuss Streisand leaves Colorado for Europe or Mars or Hell and takes her money and her fruity friends with her...
Some day they are going to regret this decision.
It works in their favor now but I'm sure there are cities
or towns that might just go the other way. I hope so.
You dont understand. We HAVE a similar arrangement, its just that Denver has again ruled that it is exempt from State Law.
I was born in Denver, but would not even consider living there!
Home is Nevada, for the rest of my days.
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.