Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 5/16/2002 9:11:22 PM EDT
Click [url]www.stanley2002.org/release5_16_02.htm[/url] for the scoop. This verdict is no surprise, considering the behavior of the presiding "judge" (and I use the term loosely). Silver lining... the judge has virtually assured that this verdict will be overturned on appeal IMHO.
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 9:26:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 10:12:10 AM EDT
BTT
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 10:27:39 AM EDT
Unbelievable. A City Attorney arguing that the U.S. Constitution has no effect in the city of Denver. I guess no 4th amend. guarantees of unreasonble searches in Denver either.
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 11:14:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 11:21:26 AM EDT
What are the possible penalties?
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 2:30:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 2:34:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 2:45:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2002 2:46:29 PM EDT by KBaker]
Originally Posted By kikomax: Unbelievable. A City Attorney arguing that the U.S. Constitution has no effect in the city of Denver. I guess no 4th amend. guarantees of unreasonble searches in Denver either.
View Quote
[size=4][red][b]OK, LISTEN UP![/size=4][/red][/b] Too many of us don't understand this: [b]THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS THE ONLY "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" NOT INCORPORATED UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT AGAINST INFRINGEMENT BY THE STATES. [/b] Look it up. [b]Every[/b] other one, including the [i]3rd[/i] Amendment has had a legal decision that restricts the States from infringing. Two cases established that the Second Amendment protects only agains [i]FEDERAL[/i] infringement: [i]U.S. v. Cruikshank[/i] and [i]Presser v. Illinois[/i] (which used [i]Cruikshank[/i] as precedent.) They've never been overturned. Until they are, we're screwed.
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 2:59:04 PM EDT
I've got a good idea for this "judge": [img]http://www.nara.gov/nara/nn/nns/west081.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 3:04:40 PM EDT
Aw, c'mon, it's not that bad once you get out of Denver and Boulder. Don't give up on Colorado yet! BTW, what part of the state are you in? Matt
Originally Posted By thedave1164: Yep, I am getting out of here soon I hope. I would have never thought Colorado could be so full of liberals. I guess they migrated here after they screwed up the places that they left. this sucks
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 3:15:23 PM EDT
FWIW...I read in the paper today that it's 1 year and/or $999 fine... Matt
Originally Posted By thedave1164:
Originally Posted By DScott: What are the possible penalties?
View Quote
6 months and/or $999 fine,IIRC
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 4:18:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: Too many of us don't understand this: [b]THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS THE ONLY "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" NOT INCORPORATED UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT AGAINST INFRINGEMENT BY THE STATES. [/b] Look it up.
View Quote
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (U.S. Constitution, Art. VI, Para 2.)
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 5:34:29 PM EDT
Nobody has mentioned the Colorado Constitution, which is part of Stanley's argument against Denver's ban on carrying any gun, openly or concealed: http://[url]64.78.178.12/cgi-dos/statdspp.exe?LNP&DOC=0-4-16[/url]
Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and [b]bear[/b] arms in defense of his home, [b]person[/b] 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.
View Quote
This clearly implies that openly carried weapons are protected, but Denver has annulled this. From Stanley's press release:
Secondly, Grant argued, the Second Amendment and the Constitution of Colorado Article II, Section 13, both protect Rick's right to keep and bear arms. On this latter point Mr. Grant argued forcefully, citing a precedent (People vs. Ford) which is controlling in this case. In response to Grant's argument about People vs. Ford, Judge Patterson replied that precedents of the Colorado Supreme Court, and indeed the constitution of Colorado, are not applicable within the city and county of Denver, because it is a home rule city. Patterson then proceeded to reject all of Grant's motions, and declared the court to be in recess while the bailiff went to get the jury.
View Quote
Judge Patterson appears to be Judge Lawless.
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 6:00:15 PM EDT
Well, Judge Lawless may actually have some backing for his incredible arguments: http://[url]i2i.org/Publications/ColoradoConstitution/cnart20.htm[/url] --- Begin quote --- [b]Section 6. Home rule for cities and towns.[/b] (Denver is a home rule city) ... snip ... It is the intention of this article to grant and confirm to the people of all municipalities coming within its provisions the [b]full right of self­government in both local and municipal matters[/b] and the enumeration herein of certain powers shall not be construed to deny such cities and towns, and to the people thereof, any right or power essential or proper to the full exercise of such right. The statutes of the state of Colorado, so far as applicable, shall continue to apply to such cities and towns, [b]except insofar as superseded[/b] by the charters of such cities and towns or by ordinance passed pursuant to such charters. ... snip ... As amended November 5, 1912. (See Laws 1913, p. 669.) ... snip ... [b]Section 8. Conflicting constitutional provisions declared inapplicable.[/b] Anything in the constitution of this state in conflict or inconsistent with the provisions of this amendment is hereby declared to be inapplicable to the matters and things by this amendment covered and provided for. Added November 4, 1902. (See Laws 1901, p. 106.) --- End quote --- On its face, this appears to be unfettered majority rule! On the other hand, the Colorado Supreme Court has used the state RKBA provision to invalidate municipal ordinances.
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 6:14:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AlClenin: I've got a good idea for this "judge": [img]http://www.nara.gov/nara/nn/nns/west081.jpg[/img]
View Quote
Gives new meaning to the term "hanging judge"
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 7:04:22 PM EDT
Anyone wonder why the Dems are holding up judge appointments? Hey ChrisLE, how's the rifle? (I was the guy who posted the link) SRM
Top Top