Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Ohio case on open carry | Main | Federal bill to block confiscation during emergencies »

Colorado Supreme Ct. upholds city AW ban

Posted by David Hardy · 5 June 2006 12:10 PM

The Rocky Mtn News reports that the Colorado Supremes upheld a Denver ban on "assault weapons."

It's a rather technical "upheld" since the court split 3-3, meaning the lower court result survives, but an evenly split decision has no precedential value.

If the news report is correct, the suit was between the State and the city, and the lower court result upheld some of the regulations and struck down others. The legal core seems to have been conflict between pre-emption statutes and a city's "home rule" powers (I assume the latter are in the state Constitution; otherwise the later enactments would trump the earlier ones).

[UPDATE: I checked the opinion, and it gives little clue, just recites that Justice Eid did not take part, three judges were for affirmance and three for reversal, so lower court is upheld].

{Further update: I found a .pdf brief in the case on Steve Halbrook's webpage--look in righthand column under "Lawsuits." A quick read suggests that the Colo. pre-emption law had the same problem ours in Arizona used to have, before it was amended. The statute lays out the gun laws -- no concealed carry without a permit, etc., and then says no municipality may adopt laws inconsistent with this chapter. The city in an Arizona case successfully argued that more regulation isn't "inconsistent" with less regulation. If the state says you can't carry concealed w/o a permit, then the only thing "inconsistent" with that would be a city law saying you CAN carry concealed without a permit. Saying you can't carry openly, either, is not "inconsistent" because the state statute never expressly says you can carry openly. It just doesn't outlaw that. Yep, it's a word game, but good enough for the city to win here, and in Colorado to make it a 3-3.]

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Robert R. | June 5, 2006 3:20 PM | Reply

Does this mean that local governments can now ignore the Colorado state law requiring background checks for all firearms sales at gun shows?

J.E. Andreasen | June 6, 2006 5:41 PM | Reply

Is this decision reflective of a very poorly worded pre-emption statute? Or, is this another state supreme court that just doesn't give a rat's a$$ what the words plainly say and the legislature plainly intended?

If the former, it may be remediable for a little while by revising the wording. If the latter, it's just another log on the "Claire Time" fire.

I just love the look on the state-drones' faces when they finally push people too far. Almost worth the punishment of getting there.

Leave a comment