Post by Voice of freedomhttp://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,
D
Post by Voice of freedomRMN_15_ 3309401,00.html
I think it's a huge outrage! Not only do we have the 2nd
Amendment but
COLORADO Bill of Rights Article II, Section 13. The right
of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home,
person and property, or in aid of the civil power when
thereto legally summoned shall be called in question; but
nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the
practice of carrying concealed weapons.
Try reading your own constitution, Choice of Serfdom:
[begin excerpt]
Colorado Constitution
Article II, Section 13. Right to bear arms.
The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of
his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power
when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question;
but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify
the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
Source: Entire article added, effective August 1, 1876, see
L. 1877, p. 30.
ANNOTATIONS
Am. Jur.2d. See 79 Am. Jur.2d, Weapons and Firearms, §§ 4-8.
C.J.S. See 94 C.J.S., Weapons, §§ 3-8.
No absolute right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is
not absolute, and it can be restricted by the state's valid
exercise of its police power. People v. Garcia, 197 Colo.
550, 595 P.2d 228 (1979).
The conflicting rights of the individual's right to bear
arms and the state's right, indeed its duty under its
inherent police power, to make reasonable regulations for
the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of
the people prohibits granting an absolute right to bear arms
under all situations. People v. Blue, 190 Colo. 95, 544 P.2d
385 (1975).
The right to bear arms is not absolute as that right is
limited to the defense of one's home, person, and property.
People v. Ford, 193 Colo. 459, 568 P.2d 26 (1977).
Right to bear arms is not absolute. Douglass v. Kelton, 199
Colo. 446, 610 P.2d 1067 (1980); People v. Pflugbeil, 834
P.2d 843 (Colo. App. 1992).
Convicted felons' rights subject to limitation. Defendants
cannot invoke the same constitutionally protected right to
bear arms as could others where the right of a convicted
felon to bear arms is subject to reasonable legislative
regulation and limitation. People v. Blue, 190 Colo. 95, 544
P.2d 385 (1975).
Municipal ordinance making it unlawful to possess a
dangerous or deadly weapon was unconstitutionally overbroad.
Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 501 P.2d 744 (1972).
Affirmative defense. A defendant charged under section 18-
12-108 who presents competent evidence showing that his
purpose in possessing weapons was the defense of his home,
person, and property as recognized by this section thereby
raises an affirmative defense. People v. Ford, 193 Colo.
459, 568 P.2d (1977).
Trial court properly excluded affirmative defense based on
this section and a proposed jury instruction where the
defendant's offer of proof was insufficient to support the
proposed affirmative defense. People v. Barger, 732 P.2d
1225 (Colo. App. 1986).
In considering a challenge to the validity of an ordinance
regulating the exercise of the right to bear arms, a court
need not determine the status of the right to bear arms
under Article II, Section 13. The trial court erred in
reaching the question of the status of the right guaranteed
under Article II, Section 13, and in holding that the right
is fundamental. Robertson v. City and County of Denver, 874
P.2d 325 (Colo. 1994).
Trial court erred in reviewing ordinance regulating the
exercise of the right to bear arms under the strict scrutiny
standard. The right to bear arms may be regulated by the
state under its police power in a reasonable manner.
Robertson v. City and County of Denver, 874 P.2d 325 (Colo.
1994).
Ordinance is related to a legitimate government interest and
is a valid exercise of police power where assault weapons
are weapons of choice for drug traffickers and other
criminals and where they account for thirty percent of the
weapons used by organized crime, gun trafficking, and
terrorists and over twelve percent of drug-related crimes
nationwide. Robertson v. City and County of Denver, 874 P.2d
325 (Colo. 1994).
Applied in People v. Nakamura, 99 Colo. 262, 62 P.2d 246
(1936); People v. Taylor, 190 Colo. 144, 544 P.2d 392
(1975).
[end excerpt]
You guys fail to read the case law even when it's provided,
choosing instead to put blind faith in your propagandists...
Suckers.
Post by Voice of freedomLots of states have that affirmation of the 2nd Amendment
as part of their state Constitutions.
Then Denver comes along and has "home rule" laws that they
think makes them exempt from the U.S. and state
Constitutions!
But what if they decide to abolish free speech, shut down
churches or gas Jews? Are they exempt with that too?
It's outrageous tyranny and I think home rule should be
done away with because of it!
Please contact your legislators and tell them you want home
rule violations of the Constitution to end and to abolish
home rule in Colorado!
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel