Replies

Constitution of the State of Colorado
ARTICLE II - Bill of Rights Art. II - Bill of Rights
Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
Section 6. Equality of justice. Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.
Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

You all know that I firmly believe that that Constitution and the Bill of Rights only limits Congress and the rest of the Federal Government from infringing upon our rights and does not limite (except where specifically mentioned) the several states. Therefore, your State's Constitution must include limitations upon your state and local governments to ensure they do not infringe upon your rights.

That being said, I do believe that the above cited sections of the Colorado Constitution more than sufficiently make Stanley's affirmative defense for him. Denver's laws can NOT infringe upon the rights guaranteed to Stanley in the Colorado Constitution. Too bad Mr. Grant didn't obey the Judge's inappropriate gag order on the U.S. Constitution by offering an affirmative defense based upon the Colorado Constitution. But then again, he probably knew he was going to lose this one and that the Judge was setting up the perfect grounds for appeal by precluding the U.S. Constitution.

Of course liberals, statists, and law enforcement types don't really care about what their state constitution says any more than they care about what the U.S. Constitution says. If the defendant had brought up the Colorado state constitution, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that he would have received the exact same treatment from the judge. They're not concerned with intent or justice, they just don't believe ordinary citizens should be allowed to have guns, period.

Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

So why did Stanley ignorantly invoke the Second Amendment in his loss?

Was he just an idiot or was he deliberately giving another victory to the HCI crowd? Or was he so anxious for a little media attention that he didn't care about consequences?