Boulder AR-15 Ban

[.455_Hunter]

From the Meyers Decision:

"The City argues that regulation of assault weapons and Saturday night specials is a purely local issue based on the unique characteristics of Denver described above. Further, the City's ordinance banning assault weapons has been in effect since 1989, while the sale of Saturday night specials has been banned since 1975. The State has never chosen to legislate in this area. The State responds that this area, like all gun control, is an area of mixed state and local concern and that the state statute preempting conflicting City ordinances predominates.

I hold for the City on this issue. Subsection (a) of the assault weapons ordinance states the City Council's findings as to why assault weapons pose a threat to the health, safety and security of the citizens of Denver and that the increasing use of assault weapons for criminal activities has resulted in a record number of related homicides and injuries to both citizens and law enforcement officers. Like open carry, there is little need for statewide uniformity given the unique characteristics of Denver, and the impact of the ordinances on people living outside of Denver is minimal. The exceptions under the assault weapons ban allow the legitimate transportation of weapons by nonresidents through Denver, and the ban on Saturday night specials only applies to sales by dealers within the City and County of Denver. My evaluation of the totality of the circumstances is that Denver's interest in limiting the impact of assault weapons and Saturday night specials in Denver far outweighs the State's insubstantial interest in uniformity of gun control laws, especially since the State has never chosen to legislate in this arena before.

For the reasons stated above, I find the State has failed to demonstrate a significant interest in requiring every city and town to allow assault weapons and Saturday night specials. Thus, I conclude that the City has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that C.R.S. §29-11.7-103, insofar as the state relies on it to preempt the ordinances at issue here, is an unconstitutional infringement on the home rule powers of the City and County of Denver as guaranteed by Article XX, § 6 of the Colorado Constitution"

My reading of this does indicate that a local government entity like a home rule city such as Boulder does have the ability to enact like ordinances similar to Denver's.

For whatever reason, its is my understanding (I am not a lawyer) that Boulder does NOT have the same home rule rights as Denver. If so, they would already tried this sort of thing many times in the past. There a bunch of new members on the council, and I am not surprised that the topic has reared up again. If the exceptions allowing the legitimate transportation of the supposedly banned weapons by nonresidents through the municipality, it would a least keep the stupid from impacting those of use who must travel through Boulder, but have no say in its laws.

[O2HeN2]

Probably a useless gesture in terms of coming from a Joe Citizen like me, but I already contacted State AG Office this morning highlighting that the proposed actions are in direct conflict with CRS 29-11.7-103:

Regulation - Type Of Firearm - Prohibited.

A local government may NOT enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or
possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any
such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and
unenforceable.

What's missing from the above is a class 1 felony and 10 year minimum sentence for anyone trying to violate the above law. You know, the kind of punishments they apply to us serfs.

O2

[O2HeN2]

For whatever reason, its is my understanding (I am not a lawyer) that Boulder does NOT have the same home rule rights as Denver.

Same boat - I'm not a laywer. I THINK it had something to do with the fact that the city of Denver existed before Colorado was a state.

O2

[.455_Hunter]

Same boat - I'm not a laywer. I THINK it had something to do with the fact that the city of Denver existed before Colorado was a state.

O2

The funny thing is that so did Boulder, Golden, etc. There is something more to it beside just date of the city, I am just not sure.

[kidicarus13]

On the topic of concealed carry in Boulder Open Space from the Bouler City Attorney Tom Carr:

This is a complex area of Colorado law. Under the Colorado Constitution, home rule cities such as Boulder have an exclusive right to legislate over matters of local concern. The Colorado Supreme Court has never decided whether the regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide or local concern. There was one case involving Denver on which the court split 4 to 4. The attorney general ruled that this meant that the case had no precedential effect...

[.455_Hunter]

On the topic of concealed carry in Boulder Open Space from the Bouler City Attorney Tom Carr:

This is a complex area of Colorado law. Under the Colorado Constitution, home rule cities such as Boulder have an exclusive right to legislate over matters of local concern. The Colorado Supreme Court has never decided whether the regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide or local concern. There was one case involving Denver on which the court split 4 to 4. The attorney general ruled that this meant that the case had no precedential effect...

Yet, the rules for firearms on City of Boulder Open Space (straight from the website) read...

Discharging or carrying firearms (concealed or otherwise), crossbows, fireworks, explosives or projectile weapons of any kind are prohibited except as expressly mandated by Article 12 of Title 18 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended.

Guess what Article 12 of Title 18 of the CRS is? Yup, the Colorado CCW law. Carr already knows the answer, but they are hoping that if the throw enough shit against the wall, maybe something will stick.

If Boulder was truly able to disregard state law and restrict concealed carry on city property, the sign going into the council chambers would say more than just "No Open Carry".

[kidicarus13]

I don't like what Boulder is trying to do, I am just trying to understand why they think they have a leg to stand on in hopes someone more legally savvy than I can do something to stop it.

[.455_Hunter]

I don't like what Boulder is trying to do, I am just trying to understand why they think they have a leg to stand on in hopes someone more legally savvy than I can do something to stop it.

Yes! +1000

Legal experts please chime in!

The City Council would have possessed the votes to do this after ANY mass shooting since 2003, but never did. What has changed that they now think they have some POTENTIAL legal traction?

[Great-Kazoo]

I don't like what Boulder is trying to do, I am just trying to understand why they think they have a leg to stand on in hopes someone more legally savvy than I can do something to stop it.

"They" don't need a leg to stand on. "They" are playing off Emotions, feels and every other text book liberal buzz word.

[kidicarus13]

Emotions, feels

Are those buzzwords or what happens when you tap your foot inside a bathroom stall at the airport?