Colorado: "Webb: City will defend home rule against state gun laws"

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cuchulainn

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
3,297
Location
Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
Will he stand in the schoolhouse door?

from the Denver Post

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E61%7E1204732,00.html

Webb: City will defend home rule against state gun lawsBy Cindy Brovsky and Julia C. Martinez
Denver Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - Denver is ready to fight any new gun law passed by the legislature if it erodes the city's power as a home-rule government, the city's mayor said Tuesday.
Mayor Wellington Webb asked the City Council to unite behind a resolution that opposes the state's encroachment on home rule and that could help in a possible court case in the future.

"This is not about anti-gun or pro-gun but (about whether the) new gun laws violate Denver's status as a home-rule city," Webb said during his weekly briefing to the City Council. "We should withstand any attempts of any government to take away (that home-rule power)."

Webb's remarks followed the passage of two gun bills by the Colorado Senate this week. Senate Bills 24 and 25 would pre-empt local control over concealed weapons and toss out dozens of local gun ordinances, including those covering assault weapons, open carrying of guns and the discharge of firearms.

Democratic Sen. Doug Linkhart of Denver took the lead in fighting both measures at the Capitol. On Tuesday, Linkhart made one final appeal to the Senate to reject the concealed-weapons bill, SB 24.

"I think this bill will not make us safer," said Linkhart, who is running for Denver City Council. "This bill will make Denver particularly a much more dangerous city in which to live."

Linkhart urged fellow lawmakers to "let cities be different."

The bill passed 23-12 with five Democrats voting with Republicans: Sens. Bob Hagedorn of Aurora, Jim Isgar of Hesperus, Alice Nichol of Denver, Stephanie Takis of Aurora and Abel Tapia of Pueblo.

Both measures now move to the House. The concealed-weapons bill is scheduled for a hearing Friday.

Webb suggested the council vote on the resolution during its regular meeting Monday.

Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell said the city won't know if a lawsuit is warranted until the legislature takes final votes on the bills and Gov. Bill Owens signs them.

"What we may or may not do rests on the final contents of the bill passed by the legislature and signed by the governor," Broadwell said. The city has lobbied successfully against concealed-weapon laws debated in the legislature in the past.

Denver Auditor Don Mares, a candidate for mayor, said the legislation would circumvent Denver's "responsible gun laws."

SB 25, given final approval in the Senate on Monday, would have especially damaging consequences, he predicted.

"This bill would pre-empt all of Denver's gun-control laws that were passed to curb gang violence and save the lives of our citizens," said Mares, a former state legislator.

Several City Council members said they would support the mayor's request. Council President Cathy Reynolds directed her staff to write the resolution immediately.

"I always have felt we need to make sure home rule is intact as intended," Councilwoman Elbra Wedgeworth said. "We are protecting the desires of our citizens."

Councilman Dennis Gallagher, a former state senator, said the city has a right to be independent.

"I remember when I was in the legislature that it always was a hassle because Denver had a right to make their own laws," he said. "Maybe Denver needs to review some of its laws, but it should be Denver - and not the state - making any changes."

All contents Copyright 2003 The Denver Post or other copyright holders.
Click to expand...
 
I'm confused. Does "Home Rule" mean that, or is it somehow optional for Denver to be bound by Colorado law or not? If they are not bound to follow state law, then why do they care what law the State passes? Help anybody?:confused:

TC
TFL Survivor
 
Denver does and always has done whatever the hell they want to do.The Colorado constitution can go to hell as far as Denver is concerned.Its time that Denver be made to tow the line.Last year,the Denver city attorney said that the second ammendment has no bearing on Denvers rules!
 
It's just anti-gun political posturing. Every now and then some city-government twit gets delusions of intellectual competency and jumps up with this sort of nonsense.

Austintatious got into a fuss once with the Texas Lege. I forget the cause. The local Representative met with a few movers and shakers, explaining all about money. Green stuff. State funding for all manner of stuff in Austin.

Things got very, very quiet.

:D, Art
 
As a former Colorado resident, I remember that Denver was responsible for sending the imbecile Pat Schroeder to Congress for several terms, as well as electing Federico Pena as mayor. At the time, we called him Mayor Pinhead in loving tribute to his stupidity. In contrast to the relative conservatism of the remainder of the state, Denver has always been quite liberal, and very much in the thrall of the Democrat party. I was thankful that I lived in the 'burbs and elsewhere, and NOT in Denver city limits.

In answer to the comment regarding home rule, as I understand it, the existence of home rule provides local government with a good deal of latitude regarding the ability to pass a variety of tax ordinances, and gun control legislation. As an example, there are certain municipalities within the state that have made full auto weapons illegal. Bennett, Colorado was one of these, for whatever reason. Without home rule, that would not have been possible.

FWIW,

emc
 
http://www.stanley2002.org/releases/release5_16_02.htm

"As I understand it," stated Bryant, "Judge Patterson just said that because I live in Denver, the Bill of Rights, and the constitution of Colorado, Article II, do not protect any of my rights from the government of Denver. Is that your understanding, also?" Bryant asked. "Is the city government free to deny all the rights secured to me by the Constitution of the United States, and the constitution of Colorado, so long as they only do it here, in Denver?" Bryant questioned further.

"Yes," said the city's attorney. "The Constitution has no force or effect in Denver, because this is a home rule city."

Bryant then told him, politely, that that was an absolute abomination. He stated he pays taxes, to pay thousands of dollars each year so that this lawyer could protect his rights. "And there you are telling me I have no rights at all? I am outraged."

Bryant then stated to the attorney that he would do everything in his power to alert the citizens of Denver to this travesty and he would take this issue directly to the voters.

The attorney replied that that's fine with him, but until the law is changed he will enforce it as written. He stated that as things stood right now, the Constitution has no force or effect in this city, and it's been that way since 1906.
Click to expand...
 
Having been a resident of Denver for many years (before I finely moved) and in working closely with the Denver Police and other officials. I quickly learned that Denver pretty well can and does do what it wants to do. I doubt very much, if pushed to the limits of constitutionality, that Denver would survive unlimited power to be a "country" unto itself and therefore not be bound by the U.S. Constitution and other Federal laws. And the people, though liberal in many ways, are no less conservative in other ways and will only tolerate so much crap before taking matters into their own hands. Denver has seen its fair share of rioting because of police and gov't actions that imposed too heavily upon the people. So, while Denver beholds its "home-rule" standing to the largest extent it can....it also knows that there are limits as well.
 
Home Rule Explained

It took me a couple years, but I finally found a good explaination of what home rule means. Here it is in a nutshell.

If CO has a "restrictive" law (like a law limiting the amount of pollutants a factory can emit), denver being a home-rule city CANNOT enact LESS restrictive laws (allow more pollution), but they CAN enact MORE restrictive regulations (require that you emit less polution than the state's standards).

If CO has a "permissive" law (free speech), denver being a home-rule city CANNOT enact LESS permissive laws (restrict speech), but they CAN enact MORE permissive regulations (free speech plus, whatever that would be).

The latter is a bad example (because really there it's the fed gov't saying we have that right, and the home-rule state of CO that isn't allowed to restrict it).

It's really hard to think of a "permissive" law because most laws are written like this: "it's illegal to carry a gun unless you have a permit". Most people consider that restrictive, as it is restricting us from carrying guns w/o permits. However, as I understand it, if they word the law right (so it is permissive in nature) or specifically state preemption (just saying "cities cannot enact legislation that restricts this ability to carry") then that makes the law "permissive" in nature, and then the cities cannot make a law that is "less permissive".

This is why getting a pre-emption law passed works, because the preemption language makes the law "permissive" (like it is defining the minimum of rights/permissions, instead of the maximum). If my thinking is clear on this, if there is preemption language in the bill, cities MIGHT be able to make laws that are more-permissive. I'm not sure on that though, as I'm sure it's possible to make the language of a colorado law such that it defines both the minimum and maximum of permissions/restrictions, and thus there is no way to go either direction. If that is the case, I expect colorado laws to increasingly set the high and low bars (and set them really close) so they can control the cities better. (i.e. "you may carry if you have a permit, and this is effective everywhere (permissive), however, you must have a permit to carry(restrictive)")

I hope that helps. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm 95% sure on the first part, but that last paragraph is just my personal thoughs and extrapolation on how things appear to work.

This also explains why states cannot allow carry at a post office (the feds have "restricted" it, so we cannot be "less restrictive").
 
Welcome to THR, latzke! :D

And thanks (I think) for clearing up that CO home rule stuff. I'll read it a few more times to see if it sinks in.... :D
 
Thanks blackhawk, good to be here.

For what it's worth, I found that explaination in a discussion on Colorado case law someplace on line (btw, IANAL). I think some guy was caught in denver with an illegal weapon or was for some reason not allowed to have the weapons he had (but what he was doing was legal outside denver).

He was convicted of the crime, but on appeals got off because his lawyer argued (and the state appealant judge agreed) that denver could not have such a law because it conflicted with state law.

Later, the CO Supreme Court saw the case because denver appealed and reversed the appealant court decision saying that denver could have that law because the colorado law was restrictive (just didn't restrict that, though denver did) and didn't specifically permit it (so denver could restrict it).

I think the dude remained "not guilty" because the appeals court decision = not guilty and the Supreme Court's ruling would have been double-jeopardy (trying him again for something he was found innocent of). However, the CO S-Court ruling, and it's explaination of home rule does set the standard for Colorado law.
 
"I think this bill will not make us safer," said Linkhart, who is running for Denver City Council. "This bill will make Denver particularly a much more dangerous city in which to live."
Click to expand...

Leftists don't think: they emote.

Welcome, Latzke! Your explanations are appreciated.
 
No, the city's stance is flat-out wrong.

'Kay, here's the sitrep:

Colorado's constitution of 1876 very clearly set up an individual right to arms, including an absolute right to open-carry a handgun, BUT limits could be placed on concealed carry.

The "home rule process" was set up later, early 20th century I think, and while it gave such towns a lot more control, it contained a clause saying that citizens of such cities CANNOT be stripped of any pre-existing rights under the state (or Fed) constitutions by "home rules".

Hence all of the Denver-specific rules that violate the RKBA are illegal. Every - single - one - of them.

I did all the research on this when Rick Stanley's thing first blew up. Since then, the Colorado Supreme Court has mentioned in another case that when Rick Stanley's challenge to the "home rule gun laws" comes up to them, he WILL win. I've seen a copy of that opinion, Rick brought it with him to Counterattack.
 
just how well would Denver's subjects like to fund every little part and parcel of government themselves. The state should cut all funding and tell them fine run it yourselves.
 
just how well would Denver's subjects like to fund every little part and parcel of government themselves. The state should cut all funding and tell them fine run it yourselves.
Click to expand...

If Denver ever had to pay its own way, there'd be some major changes in that... that... Well, I'll watch my language.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
City of Denver sues State of Colorado
Replies
13
Views
1K
general
G
A
  • Locked
(CO) Local gun laws in peril
Replies
4
Views
457
Dan Morris
D
E
  • Locked
(CO) Local gun laws in peril
Replies
4
Views
492
Blackhawk
B
J
  • Locked
(CO) Court weighs city's ability to write local firearms laws
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
jimpeel
J
G
  • Locked
Denver council to eye 2 new state gun laws
Replies
11
Views
628
Jim March
J
Back
Top