• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Weapons were drawn tonight! Serious situation ends well.

Saxxon

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
222
Location
Northglenn, Colorado
I don't have the listing here, but I think you will find it soon enough. The section has several clauses, the first bans one form of carry (a), the second bans the other (b). Then there are 2-3 clauses and at the bottom the last clause states that (a) & (b) are invalid if the person has a CCW recognized by the state (or statewise CCW, again I don't recall the entire text).

Again, that is how the law reads, how Denver enforces it is another matter. They may still go the whole nine on a CCW holder open carrying; however having seen the law as written, sans something else - it should be a loser for them under their own statutes apart from state law.
 

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
I don't have the listing here, but I think you will find it soon enough. The section has several clauses, the first bans one form of carry (a), the second bans the other (b). Then there are 2-3 clauses and at the bottom the last clause states that (a) & (b) are invalid if the person has a CCW recognized by the state (or statewise CCW, again I don't recall the entire text).

Again, that is how the law reads, how Denver enforces it is another matter. They may still go the whole nine on a CCW holder open carrying; however having seen the law as written, sans something else - it should be a loser for them under their own statutes apart from state law.
-----------------------
Howdy Again!
That doesn't give much to go on, and I surely won't pin anything on any law I can't cite by number or quote pretty much verbatim. I believe that for most people, open carrying in Denver is ill-advised to an extreme. When (and if) I might be confronted, because I tend to OC in Denver territory, I can quickly pull the information I need to quote precisely what the law states - exactly the number of the law, the language of the law, and put an errant officer on defense when they are unable to articulate a specific law that I've violated.

I have no wish to be critical of anybody else on the forum, and that is not the intent of what follows, but serves as an example of what I'm referring to.
Let us pretend your conversation with me was in the capacity of law abiding citizen (me) and you are the contacting officer. You've seen me open carry in Denver, and decide to make contact because you 'know' open carry to be illegal. You make contact and refer to a specific municipal code that you believe I've violated. But I counter with:
DRMC 38-117(f)(2) which reads "while traveling into or through the city to or from another jurisdiction, regardless of the number of times the person stops in the city or the other jurisdiction" is in conflict with state law and is preempted by state law. If you will review the Meyers decision, 10th circuit court, you'll see that I am within my rights. Now the cop who claims I am in violation of the law looks feeble and foolish for attempting to hassle a citizen who can articulate the law, while unable to do so as a law enforcement officer. They now are confronted with the very real possibility that they may be on the wrong end of such transaction.

Using the incident in Colorado Springs as another example, her is how it may otherwise have gone:
The officers state what the law is (whether correctly or incorrectly) and I ask them to cite reference. Unable to provide a specific reference, I fire back with my own insight as to what the law states:
"I respect your opinion officer, but if you will just check CRS 29-11.7-103 and 29-11.7-101, you will see readily see that your local ordinances are preempted by the State of Colorado and supported by the Meyer's decision." You may get some "Ah, another curbside lawyer" type cracks from the cops, but trust me, they'll suddenly have massive doubts about their own position, especially when they are not able to articulate what law you're breaking. They have their cheat sheet, but if they look at the language of the Colorado Revised Statutes I've quoted, they are on defense, and real uncertain about their own position. Once again, the cop who claims I am in violation of the law looks feeble and foolish for attempting to hassle a citizen who can articulate the law, when they are unable to do so as a law enforcement officer. Just to add fuel to the fire, I will reference the suit filed against the City of Loveland by Billy as another evidence to their wrongful, and illegal, detention of a law abiding citizen.

Some have thought that I've been a little hard on newcomers to our forum because I really stress knowing the language of preemption. It isn't my intention to be hard on anybody, ever, except when pushed in the wrong direction by an officer who is sworn to uphold the constitution, but is behaving in a manner contrary to the law when confronting me. The best defense is a strong offense. When a cop tries to play a bad hand, it is vital that the bluff gets called out, and your own aces drop to the table in front of his wondering eyes. The time to articulate the law to an officer who has no earthly idea what the law says, is at the scene and before the handcuffs come out.
So yes, I may be hard on newcomers because their liberty may depend on being better educated on laws relevant to open carry and their ability to turn back a challenge and come out on the winning side. Throwing inappropriate language at them is not at all helpful, F-bombs merely make the speaker look bad, whereas a clearly spoken, unambiguous articulation of specific references under law can be devastating, especially where a large number of witnesses can back the demeanor of the OC'er and his ability to offer legal references contrasted/compared to the inability of LEOs to do likewise. They come off looking foolish and feeble.

It is as vital to know the law as it is to know the 4 basic rules of safe pistol handling.
You cannot truly be a safe carrier if you cannot defend against an unlawful arrest.
I have pounded on the subject of preemption pretty heavy in the last couple of weeks, because that's where most carriers who get into trouble fall short. They cannot cite the law of preemption when confronted by an officer who is attempting to arrest them on bad information.
And do not spend a great deal of time telling the cops anything at all.
Anything you say can, and likely will, be used against you.
They are there to make an arrest, not to chit-chat with a law abiding citizen.
When they are unable to quote you on anything apart from your accurate statements as to the language of the law, and that's all you'll say to them, they end up looking bad in front of a city attorney, their own chain of command, and worst of all, in front of a judge! Judges don't much appreciate foolish cases being thrown into his courtroom, when their dockets are usually full enough with legitimate cases. No cop wants to be dressed down by an angry judge.

I've pounded the language of preemption on this forum hard enough that it has become something of an inside joke, where certain folks will gently jibe about my preaching the language found in relevant CRS. What needs to be understood is that it is of vital importance that an OC'er can clearly articulate what the law says and reference the relevant language when needed. We carry handguns for our own legitimate self defense, but that sidearm lacks ammunition when the carrier hasn't loaded knowledge of the law along with a full magazine.

Thanks for a terrific discussion.
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 
Last edited:

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
There ya go... =)

--Rob

Howdy Rob!
I subbed up to your YT channel. You have a couple of pretty good viddies on that thing.

I am still thinking we ought to do a series of videos on OC in Colorado, and have them available at the top of our forum with stickies so anybody with a question on a specific topic can simply watch a vid. What do you think of that notion?

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 

Bellum_Intus

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
540
Location
Rush, Colorado
Howdy Rob!
I subbed up to your YT channel. You have a couple of pretty good viddies on that thing.

I am still thinking we ought to do a series of videos on OC in Colorado, and have them available at the top of our forum with stickies so anybody with a question on a specific topic can simply watch a vid. What do you think of that notion?

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

I'm game.. =)

Once I get my training stuff going, I'll be doing more videos as well..
I can do some OC Q&A as well, I plan on adding OC to the CHP classes I'm developing now.

I've got a busy rest of the Month.. P.O.S.T handgun qualification is Sunday, then HG102 Qualification on the 18th, and my NRA400 class on the 24/25th.. ugh..
Seems now that I'm teaching, I'm taking WAY too many classes haha!

-Rob
 
Top