In doing so, however, the lawyer is attempting to ask this jury, and this county criminal court, to rule on the Constitutionality of this particular ordinance. This is a power that is reserved to the Federal judiciary.
Nope, the defendant is asking the jury to just read & consider the constitutional law as it may apply to his case. The judge is not required to 'rule'. He may give his opinion, at his option. -- And, --- the jury decision is not binding to any other case.
As such, the judge was correct to rule that issues of Constitutional law cannot be brought up as a defense in this case. To rule any other way would be a usurpation of the Constitution.
This 'usurpation' theory of yours should be good. Can you explain? -- Two bits you won't even try.
Now that Stanley has apparently been convicted, he has every right to challenge the Constitutionality of this ordinance in the proper forum. I hope he wins, too.
I wonder. -- See my Catch 22 for the odds on outcome of any 'challenge'.
You can donate the two bits to FR.
Lawyer Grant asked, "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?"
Aside from the fact that he is quite probably in contempt of court for putting words in the judge's mouth, he's quite obviously asking (prospective!) jurors to judge the Constitutionality of the ordinance that his client admitted violating. One would assume he'd have tried to make the same argument in trial, had he been allowed to do so.
The problem is that jurors are not empowered by the state or US Constitution to make such a judgement. That power is granted to the state and Federal judiciaries, respectively.
The judge in this case is permitted to determine whether Constitutional arguments are germane to the case at hand, just as he is permitted to sustain or overrule objections, or rule on the admissibility of evidence.
In this case Constitutional arguments are not germane to whether Stanley violated an established criminal ordinance. In a criminal trial, established ordinances must be and are assumed to be Constitutional.
A criminal trial is not supposed to determine the Constitutionality of the law under which the charges were made. That sort of legal power lies in the hands of the appelate courts.
"Usurpation" occurs when a body undertakes to exercise a power that does not properly belong to it. By stupidly attempting to turn a criminal trial into a trial of the Constitutionality of the ordinance, they were asking the court to usurp the powers of the appelate courts.