I was disturbed to see this report, and decided to see what was behind it. I have not been able to find the CO supreme court decision on line yet, but I have looked through the lower court opinion which was the subject of the appeal. Having done so, I was surprised to find that the decision, to leave the assault weapon ban in place, was at least arguably correct under the applicable law.
Under the CO constitution, Denver is a "home rule" city and as such has "supreme power to legislate on matters of local concern." The litigation was over whether (or to what extent) state laws overrode this local authority. Under CO law, Denver "is not inferior to the General Assembly with respect to local matters". If a matter is "local" in the legal sense, then the state legislature CANNOT override a local ordinance on that matter.
The "home rule" provisions have been in effect in CO for nearly a century, and there is a well developed legal framework for analyzing the tension between state and local laws which inevitably occurs. More than a dozen Denver ordinances were in question in this lawsuit, the trial judge analyzed each of them under the usual analytical framework, and concluded that some were preempted by the State (most concealed carry provisions, for example) and some were not (the assault weapons and Saturday night special rules, for example).
This may seem like a strange way to run a railroad, but it is the way CO has allocated its political authority for a long time. While you and I might disagree as to the proper conclusion to be drawn under the facts, this was NOT a case of a renegade judge imposing his tortured interpretation of law on a helpless public. The legal conclusions are consistent with the way state/local authority has been allocated in CO for generations. Denver apparently HAS the legal authority to impose an assault weapons ban, they exercised that authority, and there is nothing the state legislature can do about it. It is not up to the state supreme court judges to change that, it is up to the citizens of Denver. THEY are the ones whose elected representatives imposed these limitations on them.
The assault weapon law may be stupid and counterproductive, but the people of Denver are the ones who asked for it - and got it.
Sorry anon--well argued and steeped in stare decisis, but I'm a lot more elemental than you. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Rights are unalienable. The locals have no more legitimate authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms than they do to reinstitute slavery, engage in cruel and unusual punishment, require self incrimination, etc.
Any doctrine that does not recognize this is null and void.
But I do stipulate and cede that the courts would recognize your points over mine.
6/06/2006 9:31 PM
A divided Colorado Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling upholding Denver’s controversial ban on assault weapons and other gun control regulations despite arguments that state law trumps local ordinances.
The 3-3 vote, with new Justice Allison Eid abstaining, means Denver may resume enforcing ordinances put on hold after two state laws were enacted in 2003 that pre-empted most local regulation of firearms.
But because it was a tie vote, the Supreme Court did not provide an “ultimate ruling” on questions concerning when a home-rule city can issue ordinances superseding state law, said Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell. Once more, black robed activists trump freedom and dictate from the bench. The law is plain, but they ignore it because they can.
The correct political response is for Coloradans to press for impeachment and revenge themselves on the politicians who supported the nomination and confirmation of the outlaw jurists.
Yeah, right, like any but a handful will be motivated enough for that to happen.
2 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formI was disturbed to see this report, and decided to see what was behind it. I have not been able to find the CO supreme court decision on line yet, but I have looked through the lower court opinion which was the subject of the appeal. Having done so, I was surprised to find that the decision, to leave the assault weapon ban in place, was at least arguably correct under the applicable law.
Under the CO constitution, Denver is a "home rule" city and as such has "supreme power to legislate on matters of local concern." The litigation was over whether (or to what extent) state laws overrode this local authority. Under CO law, Denver "is not inferior to the General Assembly with respect to local matters". If a matter is "local" in the legal sense, then the state legislature CANNOT override a local ordinance on that matter.
The "home rule" provisions have been in effect in CO for nearly a century, and there is a well developed legal framework for analyzing the tension between state and local laws which inevitably occurs. More than a dozen Denver ordinances were in question in this lawsuit, the trial judge analyzed each of them under the usual analytical framework, and concluded that some were preempted by the State (most concealed carry provisions, for example) and some were not (the assault weapons and Saturday night special rules, for example).
This may seem like a strange way to run a railroad, but it is the way CO has allocated its political authority for a long time. While you and I might disagree as to the proper conclusion to be drawn under the facts, this was NOT a case of a renegade judge imposing his tortured interpretation of law on a helpless public. The legal conclusions are consistent with the way state/local authority has been allocated in CO for generations. Denver apparently HAS the legal authority to impose an assault weapons ban, they exercised that authority, and there is nothing the state legislature can do about it. It is not up to the state supreme court judges to change that, it is up to the citizens of Denver. THEY are the ones whose elected representatives imposed these limitations on them.
The assault weapon law may be stupid and counterproductive, but the people of Denver are the ones who asked for it - and got it.
6/06/2006 4:43 PM
Sorry anon--well argued and steeped in stare decisis, but I'm a lot more elemental than you. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Rights are unalienable. The locals have no more legitimate authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms than they do to reinstitute slavery, engage in cruel and unusual punishment, require self incrimination, etc.
Any doctrine that does not recognize this is null and void.
But I do stipulate and cede that the courts would recognize your points over mine.
6/06/2006 9:31 PM