excellent! thanks for posting.
While I don't open carry or plan to open carry, I never want the that right to be diminished.
RR
Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
excellent! thanks for posting.
While I don't open carry or plan to open carry, I never want the that right to be diminished.
RR
I still don't think I'd try it in Denver.
"There are no finger prints under water."
Denver is its in its own world in its own mind. With the hippy judges we have now I wouldn't count on them standing by the letter of the law.Originally Posted by Sturtle
Who are you to want to escape a thugs bullet? That is only a personal prejudice, ( Atlas Shrugged)
"Those that don't watch the old media are uninformed, those that do watch the old media are misinformed." - Mark Twain
Perhaps if the law were carved into the side of a tree or something...
"There are no finger prints under water."
They would charge me with a crime, because I wouldn't bother looking for a spot without a hippy hugging it.
Last edited by DOC; 09-15-2009 at 18:43.
Who are you to want to escape a thugs bullet? That is only a personal prejudice, ( Atlas Shrugged)
"Those that don't watch the old media are uninformed, those that do watch the old media are misinformed." - Mark Twain
easy think Ritter, a shallow non thinking, non intelligent gov. who is not in touch with the people of Colorado
O' and of course Hickenpooper who snowed the peeps into thinking he was a NON polititcian
I agree 100%. Thanks for posting this--nice to see a judge uphold his duty to defend the constitution!
Lets see it all over the country.
I remember how stupid (YES STUPID) I thought the judges here are when they were dictasteing the case of Denver's AWB. They said its ok to ban the storage of guns here because if one was fired its more likely to hit something. Well that would be great if they were argueing the negligent discharge of firearms in the city. But the law was about scary looking gun bans and if Denver was above the state premption law. Well since Denver can put up Parking Meters without state approval. I guess they can do whatever they want to even violate state laws and bill o rights. They should have decided this better because now they think they can do whatever they want. They would have been doing Denver a favor. Like telling a friend that they are getting to drunk before they take their shirt off and go home with the ugly shemale.
Who are you to want to escape a thugs bullet? That is only a personal prejudice, ( Atlas Shrugged)
"Those that don't watch the old media are uninformed, those that do watch the old media are misinformed." - Mark Twain
The key take away here was that the ruling was not on the second amendment. Rather, it was on the fourth amendment. Since the plaintiff had not broken any law and the officers had no probable cause for a search or seizure, the officers acted beyond the scope of their authority to remove him and temporarily seize his property.
I will bet that the ruling would have come out less favorably if the theater was posted and the plaintiff was carrying in violation thereof. If the city, county or state had a law against open carry, he likewise would get no love from the judge on fourth amendment grounds. That is abundantly clear reading the decision.
I'd caution folks about reading this as a blanket ruling on the second amendment's keep and bear clause. There is absolutely nothing in the summary judgement to support that.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=7856
I can't remember if we are in the same district as NM?
Who are you to want to escape a thugs bullet? That is only a personal prejudice, ( Atlas Shrugged)
"Those that don't watch the old media are uninformed, those that do watch the old media are misinformed." - Mark Twain
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote