Bang!
I'm glad I don't live in Colorado!
"matters of local concern"
Gun laws are not just a matter of local concern.
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?
{"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?
"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.
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.
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.
Dumbass ruling.
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...