Monday, May 19, 2003

Denver is getting ready to fight for its constitutionally granted 'right' to infringe on its citizens constitutionally acknowledged Rights.

"The problem was municipalities were passing so many different laws, it was becoming de facto gun banning, said Sen. Jim Dyer, R-Arapahoe County, sponsor of the legislation.
But Denver has a different viewpoint. As a result, the city is getting ready for a court battle that likely will go all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court, and other communities are cheering Denver on."

Of course other cities are cheering them on. It's not those cities who have to foot the legal bill. In fact isn't it a bit ironic that Denver is using tax money collected from the same citizens it is attempting to disarm?

"The City and County of Denver cannot and will not give up on the fight to preserve its authority to regulate how and where firearms may be carried within the city,' Webb vowed."

To Webb this means Denver should be able to restrict which room in your house you may keeep your gun in & only if it's an 'approved' gun.

"I have directed the city attorney's office to take legal action to confirm and preserve the city's historic authority to regulate where firearms may be carried, regardless of whether a person has a permit."

That's like saying because the Klu Klux Klan has historically persecuted black people that they should be allowed to do so indefinitely.

"The new law actually caught many by surprise. Everyone expected the conceal-carry bill - a regular in the legislature for the past decade.
Most thought it would pass this year, and it did.
But Dyer's bill was different. It let people carry guns within hand's reach in cars - a definite violation of city law in Denver and many other communities."

Chances are if more people carry handguns within arms reach in their cars, then these carjackings we've been experiencing might stop. But Denver is more concerned with its ability to create unjust laws than it is about public safety.

"It also requires cities that ban the open carrying of firearms to clearly post the specific places where guns are prohibited - whether it be a park or a city building or recreation facilities.
The idea behind the law was to eliminate what Dyer described in his bill as 'a confusing patchwork of laws' that makes Coloradans subject to criminal and civil penalties in some jurisdictions for conduct that is lawful in others."

That seems totally unresonable - posting signs where local laws are contrary to state laws. Why just think of how much money a city could lose if people knew what the local laws were & therefore didn't break them, especially if the laws interfered with a Right protected by state laws, or if a local law was to the detriment of public safety contrary to common sense?

"Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell has been preparing for the legal battle that will challenge the pre-emption law as well as parts of the new conceal-carry law.
'It's going to be fairly soon - a couple of weeks,' Broadwell said."

Broadwell. I hope every convenience store owner in Denver who values his/her Right to Self Defense finds a picture of Mr. Broadwell & posts it in their store so everyone , especially employyes, can recognize him & then throw him off the premises. Let him buy gas from someone he's not attempting to put in mortal or legal jeopardy.

"Cynthia Stone, a spokesperson for the anti-gun coalition Colorado Ceasefire,...said among the city ordinances that would be wiped out would be the ban on assault weapons and Denver's safe storage law.
She cited the recent tragic shooting in suburban Centennial of Sahil Ahmed, an 11-year-old sixth- grader at Thunder Ridge Middle School.
Ahmed, who had won a battle with leukemia, was shot to death accidentally by a 15-year-old acquaintance who found an unlocked semiautomatic handgun in his parents' bedroom."

Of course she failed to mention that the tragic shooting could have happened despite Denver's gun control laws. A 15 year old who should have had some basic firearms instruction commited this act in front of an 18 & 19 year old who should have had some firearms training. A 15 year old should be responsible enough to not play with a loaded gun. A 15 year old can get a permit to drive a car with an adult present in the vehicle. A 15 year old should have known better, but chances are said 15 year old was simply told guns were bad or dangerous instead of being instructed properly in their use. I would recomend even for the most hard core anti-gun pacifist to receive at least rudimentary safety training involving firearms & insist that their children, even pre-teens go through the same sort of training for the sole purpose of preventing negligent shootings such as this one. For more reading on Sahil Ahmed, I recommend this write up by Ari Armstrong.

But Ms. Stone prefers to use tragedies as justification for her position, so I doubt any sensible approach to preventing these rare but tragic occurances would sway her.

In short Denver is using tax money to try to keep the state from slapping their wrist & forbidding them from denying their citizens Rights. The city council & mayor's office are reprehensible.
The sad part is, even though Webb is term limited & will be out of office soon, the two candidates for mayor have vowed to continue his fight against freedom.

"Mares: Says state should not be able to dictate to the city. Held a news conference in March asking the legislature to drop the bills.
Quote: "Denver and every other city should be allowed to make rules around the safety of their citizens that they deem appropriate."
Hickenlooper: Says he would "absolutely" continue the legal action against the laws that Mayor Wellington Webb has promised is forthcoming.
Quote: "I think historically it's pretty clear that in most of these issues we have a right to self-determination"

& Denver looked so nice in the brochure. It seems that I may have to put my attempts to teach these heathens out here the proper way to cook a hushpuppy (no, not the shoe) on the backburner so to speak until I can get them straightened out on more important things - like how not to ignore two constitutions in order to enact bad policy that violates a persons' Rights. I have a feeling I'll have to put in over-time for this one.

No comments: