Skip to main content

Castle Rock Colorado repeals an open carry ban in parks and public buildings. Town council voted 4-3 on second and final reading tonight.

The three dissenters asked that the issue be put to a vote of Castle Rock's voters instead of pushing forward with the repeal tonight. They also said the repeal would not be the end of it - they will try to get the issue on the ballot this November. Good for them.

It seems the four members who voted in favor are heavily influenced by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, Colorado's "no compromise" gun lobby that the NRA characterizes as "extreme". One of the four is the mayor of Castle Rock, who also is an owner of the nearby Centennial Gun Range - go figure.

They also disregarded the recommendation of the chief of police and the majority of the police staff and city workers, the public safety commission and majority of the planning commission.

The reason given for overturning the ban? "The Constitution". Pure gun lobby rhetoric, going back to the "birth of the country" etc., etc. Apparently, they aren't familiar with the Supreme Court, which time and again has upheld restrictions on the Second Amendment. In other words, yes, you can restrict gun laws and be acting within the law. It's a judgement call. Unfortunately, it seems Caste Rock's citizens are governed by some folks with poor judgement - but hopefully they will all get to voice their opinion via a vote this November and let the chips fall where the may.

"Let the citizens decide. It's more than just the seven opinions up here that need to be heard." — dissenting council members

Originally posted to We Shall Overcome on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 09:43 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA, Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), and Firearms Law and Policy.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Good. (5+ / 0-)

    Gun owners should be required to openly carry their firearms. The people surrounding them should know they have a potential whackjob in their midst.

    Frankly, open carry should be the issue instead of banning guns at all. This will be far more successful and save more lives.

    •  No open carry in other Western democracies (7+ / 0-)

      And gun deaths there don't approach ours by factors as high as 10000.

      I think your idea... uh... well... sucks.

      "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

      by Mogolori on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 11:25:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah, but I prefer open carry (3+ / 0-)

        to concealed carry.  I at least want to know who's walking around with the ability to kill me.  I do believe guns should be forbidden from certain kinds of establishment . . . but apparently my side has, with the passage of time, ever less support among those charged with interpreting the Constitution.   (Still no guns allowed in Congress or in SCOTUS, curiously enough, the hypocrites.)  Oh well.

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 06:50:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A flaw in the logic (0+ / 0-)

          The argument has a strong appeal to the right to be informed/aware of risks.

          One flaw in the logic is this:
          Responsible gun owners would carry their hunting rifle in a case, until they reach their hunting destination. That's one kind of concealed carry. A gun in a secure case between home/car, between car/gunsmith, etc. A gun in a secure case while traveling. All of those are by definition, concealed carry.

          But the bigger flaw is this:
          While it would be good for cops to know where all the legal guns are, criminals who break a requirement to carry openly will know where all the legal guns are, and could plan their attack to take those guns first, giving them an instant cache of arms with which to carry out an extended attack. Rare? yes, but that's the flaw in the logic that open carry would enable you, personally, to know where all the guns are.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:40:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  See ya Castle Rock! (21+ / 0-)

    Even though we spend much time and money there, we have decided there is NO WAY IN HELL we will feel safer  or would be willing to place my nephews in danger there too so we'll drive the extra miles back to Southern Denver. Sad, because Castle Rock is a wonderful, unique, and friendly town that has felt welcoming and safe until now. BYE!

    21st Century Freedom in the USA: "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" - Joseph Stiglitz

    by coloradorob on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:01:28 PM PST

  •  Study: more state gun laws = less gun violence (10+ / 0-)

    21st Century Freedom in the USA: "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" - Joseph Stiglitz

    by coloradorob on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:11:15 PM PST

    •  There's a lot of good stuff about it here, too: (10+ / 0-)

      Gun laws really do matter. State gun laws fill enormous gaps that exist in our nation’s federal laws, and help to reduce gun violence and keep citizens safe. In part because these laws help to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and aid law enforcement in solving gun crimes, many of the states with the strongest gun laws also have the lowest gun death rates.

      "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

      by We Shall Overcome on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:16:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But (6+ / 0-)

        We want dangerous felons and crazy people to have guns.  Why else does the US persistently fail to institute background checks?   Obviously a lot of people want it that way

        •  People like Eric Holder? (4+ / 0-)

          Since we have tens of thousands of felons each year who criminally attempt to buy guns in gun stores, fail a federal background check (thus demonstrating their intent to illegally buy a weapon), yet are not prosecuted.

          Even the poll on Gabrielle Giffords' "Americans for Responsible Solutions" has the item "Step up Justice Department prosecutions of felons and others who attempt to purchase firearms but are not lawfully permitted to. In 2009, the FBI referred 71,000 cases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), but U.S. attorneys prosecuted only 77."

          So as you say "obviously a lot of people want it that way" when it comes to current background check laws, make sure you have at least one finger pointed at the administration which has deliberately chosen to not enforce those laws for the last several years.

          •  Wow, maybe we should demand the firing squad for (0+ / 0-)

            Holder then? (snark, of course) Yes, they fucking want it that way. To allude that someone going into a gun store to make the initial purchase of that brand new bright shiny gun is so goddamn important as to require that they jump through the hoops and pass a background check but yet allow for the sale of that very same gun to take place even on the sidewalk outside of the very same gun store to anyone that simply has the cash, no background check needed just trips me out. So much for the criminals and mentally ill concern.
              These folks were denied the purchase of the gun of their choice and yes, there is a law against it. Do we have room and resources for those 71,000 you want Holders sorry ass to prosecute?
              If the concern is so great that these folks denied the weapon they had in mind when they went through a background check can much more easily find a unwitting, unknowing, and more likely. uncaring law abiding responsible gun owner to sell them a gun, legally not requiring same said gun owner to ask jack shit other than "do you have cash".
              But we only need enforce laws already on the books, correct? There is no law, at least not here in gun happy Florida that requires anything from a law abiding responsible gun owner to as much as inquire if the buyer has a record, or as much as get a name.
              Nothing wrong with that?

            Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

            by teabaggerssuckbalz on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 04:09:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  ^Can someone do a "rant to English" translation? (5+ / 0-)

              Those 71,000 people were denied the purchase of a firearm because their background checks showed they were convicted felons who are not legally allowed to own guns, making their intent to purchase inherently illegal. And the feds were just notified of this and now have a verified ID and address for the person. Pretty damn low-hanging fruit for law enforcement, wouldn't you think?

              I do not think it is too much to ask that we maybe work on prosecuting known criminals trying to buy guns before we start working on prosecuting me for not doing a background check on my father or brother if I want to buy one of their firearms.

              Your beliefs on which of these two courses of action will do more to reduce gun violence may vary. Perhaps if we pass a universal background check, the magical law fairy will whack Holder on the head with her wand and make him start enforcing it more than he is the existing law?

              •  Certainly (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                if we were serious about it, we would make it a crime both for felons to attempt to buy a gun and also for anyone to sell them a gun.  

                •  As it turns out, it already -is- a crime (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose, KVoimakas

                  The ATF guidelines under the Gun Control Act of 1968 make it illegal for a private seller to sell a gun to someone that person knows or merely believes is not allowed to own a firearm.

                  So the situation that you want (making it a crime) is the way it has been for the past 56 years, with penalties of up to 5 years in prison for violation.

                •  I like that, it was exactly my point: (0+ / 0-)

                  if we were serious about it, we would make it a crime both for felons to attempt to buy a gun and also for anyone to sell them a gun.
                    It is not the sale to ones mom or brother I see an issue- the issue is whether you know mom or brother is a felon and do it anyway. And selling to anyone who happens to have the asking price with no requirement to check anything or even record a name?
                    The sonofawhore that killed my kid not only had warrants, he was named Florida's most wanted and had a huge bounty on his head. The murder weapon as well as another he was caught with upon his arrest were purchased, not stolen off of the street, they were purchased from a law abiding responsible gun owner.
                     So this horseshiit Shamash refers to:

                  The ATF guidelines under the Gun Control Act of 1968 make it illegal for a private seller to sell a gun to someone that person knows or merely believes is not allowed to own a firearm
                  is well, horseshit. If you are not even required to ask and you do not know the person from Adam, where is that law effective in any way whatsoever? It may be the law but to what purpose does it serve selling a gun to a total stranger? I have had very upstanding citizens who have known me for years that have no idea I was a convicted felon hand me their toys to look at, including a very prominent judge who offered me one for sale. Felons do not have the word "convicted" predominantly displayed and worse, no legal requirement exists to even ask.
                    All this harping about criminals and guns is nothing but a farce, they buy guns, too, they buy the overwhelming percentage from responsible law abiding gun owners i;m betting- unsuspectingly in most cases.
                    Buy hey, it sure helps the sales of guns and that's the real reasoning to keep things just the way they are...
                    I happen to love guns, I grew up with them and have no issue with then personally. I owned some damn nice ones over the years. What I do have issue with is this idea of every one carrying them around waiting for the chance to use them. I cannot see where selling them to anyone with enough cash in hand to buy them being a good thing while simultaneously bitching about 'criminals' having them. You should be pissed off as all hell that you have to jump through the governmental hoops necessary to legally purchase the same gun any 'criminal' can buy no questions asked.

                  Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

                  by teabaggerssuckbalz on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 07:34:18 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, but! (2+ / 0-)

      I saw a Winger jpeg on Facebook that cherry-picked city with lax gun laws has less shootings than city with tight-gun laws.

      Although, I don't know if they though about how things i the latter city could get bloodier with laxer laws.

      Unless they're really bought into a cowboytastic stand your ground fantasies.

      "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

      by Stude Dude on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:48:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Freedumb at it's finest. (4+ / 0-)

    Only Punxsutawney Phil can save us now.

    by jwinIL14 on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 11:12:12 PM PST

  •  meanwhile - here in SC (8+ / 0-)

    we are one signature away (Gov Haley neeeds to sign the bill into law) to allow guns in bars and restaurants ... sigh

    Faux News ruined my state

    by sc kitty on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 11:58:44 PM PST

  •  Since the voters put these guys in power (7+ / 0-)

    they would likely vote to allow "open carry".

    To be honest most of the time the push for open carry is to remove the penalty for "brandishing" while carrying concealed. Meaning, the CCW holder is walking around and the gun becomes visible invariantly.  Some laws classify that as brandishing, and can get a person arrested for bending over to pick up something.  (if the cops get called and if they get all high attitude "i'm the law")

    Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

    by DrillSgtK on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 03:15:13 AM PST

    •  Thank you. I had not realized... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shamash, LilithGardener

      ... this was a concern.  

      I see open carry mainly as intent to intimidate.

    •  Bullshit, cite me a single case of what you claim (0+ / 0-)

      to be brandishing that was prosecuted. Nice try.
        Brandishing involves one hell of a lot more that incidental or accidental display.

      Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

      by teabaggerssuckbalz on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 04:58:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  An example of such a problem (0+ / 0-)

        “brandishing” or “improper exhibition” or “defensive display” or “unlawful display” (or whatever your state and jurisdiction calls it) depends specifically on your state and jurisdiction. Very generally, however, for an operating definition “brandishing” means to display, show, wave, or exhibit the firearm in a manner which another person might find threatening. You can see how widely and differently this can be subjectively interpreted by different “reasonable” individuals and entities. The crime can actually be committed in some states by not even pointing a firearm at someone. In some states it’s a Misdemeanor crime and in others a Felony. So, focus, think rationally, know your state’s law, and be careful out there.

        Florida’s Improper Exhibition of a Firearm Statute

        brandishing knifeFor example, in my state of Florida, it is an offense under Florida law to display a dangerous weapon in an angry, careless, or threatening manner. Improper Exhibition of a Firearm and/or Improper Display of a Weapon are crimes governed by Florida Statute 790.10. The offense stems from the common law crime of brandishing. So Florida statutes do NOT call it “brandishing”, but “improper exhibition” of dangerous weapons or firearms. In the Florida Criminal Code “improper exhibition” of a firearm is defined as an individual having or carrying the following weapons in an unsafe, rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense:

        Dirk (knife or dagger)
        Sword cane
        Electric weapon
        Electric device
        Other weapon
        An individual is considered to carry the firearm in an “unsafe” manner if they carry it in the following ways (Certainly each of these are open to various definitions and frustrating subjective interpretations):

        Threatening manner
        3 Main Elements of Improper Exhibition of a Firearm or Weapon in Florida:

        The crime of Improper Exhibition of a Firearm or Weapon contains the following three elements.

        A person had or carried a dangerous weapon or firearm (as listed above);
        The person exhibited the dangerous weapon or firearm in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner (as listed above); AND
        The person did so in the presence of one or more persons.
        Another subjective factor is also usually involved, based on my limited and lay background. In addition to acting in an unsafe manner, the prosecution usually needs to prove that the people who witnessed the improper exhibition behavior thought it was unsafe at the time (in their terms.) Very subjective!

        To me the intent of this statute is to encourage safe handling of guns, avoiding carelessness with guns, and protecting innocent bystanders from the possibility of serious bodily injury or death. We know there are well- documented cases of guns being accidentally discharged when used in a safe manner, so the likelihood of accidental discharge increases if the guns are operated in an unsafe manner. In Florida, the individual must carry the weapon in an unsafe manner in the presence of one or more persons in order to be convicted of improper exhibition of a firearm.

        What About Carelessness and Willfulness?

        Most criminal offenses in Florida require a showing that the person committed the act willfully, intentionally and with knowledge.  But, the improper exhibition statute emphasizes that the person acted “carelessly.” The determination of whether the person was careless or not or committed the act willfully in exhibiting the firearm could be ultimately subjectively decided by the jury at trial.

        It is my understanding and hope that charges should be determined on an “objective” rather than a “subjective” basis. The “objective” basis involves the circumstance of your actions with the firearm being done in an irrationally attacking manner, or being done in a way that generates an unreasonable risk of injury to other individuals or property. So unless your circumstances occurred like this, it seems to this non-lawyer that there would not be a basis for this criminal charge. While the prosecution in most jurisdictions has the burden of proving all three of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, I would expect that a good defense attorney can probably cast doubt on any one element and the prosecution’s case might fail. But, again, I am not an attorney.

        But even in questionable cases the individual could be arrested, taken to jail, booked, required to post bond, forced to hire a criminal defense attorney (minimal retainer about $25,000), and then appear in court for pre-trial hearings in order to fight the charge. Much time and many costs involved. Overly-aggressive prosecutions do occur and some prosecutors believe any firearm charge must be prosecuted aggressively. Florida law allows a person who possesses a valid license to carry a “concealed” weapon, but some do not realize that it is a first degree misdemeanor to “carelessly” exhibit the firearm to another, even with the concealed license. This misdemeanor crime is one of the most commonly prosecuted firearm charges in Florida, although it is unclear how many times these prosecutions involve careless acts or intentional acts. So, focus, think rationally, keep it concealed, and be careful out there.

        Florida Statute Change: Inadvertent Display of Concealed Weapon by License Holders

        Recently, the Florida Legislature amended Florida Statute § 790.053 related to the open carrying of a weapon in favor of FL Concealed Carry Weapons License holders. The law change prevents prosecutions of those with a valid concealed weapons license who briefly, openly, and inadvertently display a concealed weapon, as long as it is done in a non-angry or non-threatening manner. Of course, this is subjective and open to interpretation and the court cases will follow. Here is the law change which is bolded:

        Section 1. Subsection (1) of section 790.053, Florida Statuetes, is amended to read:
        790.053 Open carrying of weapons.— (1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

        How could an inadvertent display occur? Be careful with these possible common situations:

        A person has a firearm in a holster on his belt. The wind blows his jacket away from his body and a bystander sees the firearm on his belt and becomes concerned.

        A woman has a firearm in her purse. While standing in line in the grocery store the woman reaches into the purse to get a wallet and the person in line behind her sees the firearm in her handbag and becomes concerned.

        A person with a concealed weapon repositions the weapon in a manner that makes it visible to another person.

        A person leaves a firearm in a handbag that is within reach of a child or teenager and another person becomes concerned and calls the police.

        If an issue of self-defense is raised at trial, it is  my layman’s understanding that the judge will usually instruct the jury that if it finds that the defendant committed the offense of improper exhibition of a weapon in necessary self-defense, the juror must find him or her not guilty of the crime charged. If the individual was displaying the weapon in a threatening manner in order to protect his or her personal safety, then I would expect that the display was not careless, rude or angry. Situational!

        Penalties for Improper Exhibition of a Firearm

        In Florida, it is a first degree misdemeanor offense punishable by a maximum prison term of 1 year and a maximum fine of up to $1000, if you are found guilty of an Improper Exhibition of a firearm.

        Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

        by DrillSgtK on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 08:13:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The legal onus is right here, well defined and (0+ / 0-)

          does not include incidental, nor accidental display: unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
            I live in Florida as well, I have a very good friend whom serves as lead judge in my county, as well as two other sitting criminal case judges 'under' him. I had an incident happen whee a gun was indeed displayed in an intentional, angry, and threatening manner that was not in the realm of self defense. When nothing was done after calling the police on the offender I made a point of calling all three.
            The person in question three weeks later shot three neighbors, killing two. A total nutcase hothead fuck who had a habit of doing some pretty dumbass confrontational shit simply because he had the three pounds of cold blued steel testicals that the law allowed his sick ass to carry around hidden from those he saw fit to confront (in my case he placed very racist KKK shit beneath my windshield while parked at a hardware store and I caught him doing so) to back his sorry cowardly chicken shit ass.
            Now that Mr. Responsible Law Abiding Gun Owning Citizen became Mr. Dumbass Facing Death Penalty he is crying SYG, PTSD, and of all goddamn things, the Bush Doctrine.
            Had the police done their job instead of coddling yet another asshole legally carrying a gun those two people would be alive today and the third would not have been shot 11 times.
            Brandishing is not unintentional. I carry a large knife every time I walk my dog due to the number of close calls with loose pit bulls around this neighborhood. Since I cannot legally carry a firearm I wanted to know the legal ramifications of not only carrying said knife, but also, what they were should I have to use it on aggressive, loose pit bulls. The law is very clear, I can not only carry the thing but have every right that a person carrying a firearm does to use it under the same scenarios that are legally covered under SYG. I cannot wantonly display it, I cannot whip it out in an angry manner, nor a threatening manner just walking around.
            Before the retorts about pit bulls here, spare me. I live in a subdivision that is laid out in a bunch of intersecting circles and it really doesn't matter what direction I walk, there are pit bulls. Two of the locations have multiple dogs and both have gotten loose and attempted attacking me and my dog four times now. As long as those dogs are contained when Animal Control arrives after I call, they won't do shit. I have a legal right to walk upon every street in this country should I choose to do so. A dog owner has a legal responsibility to contain their dog upon their premises. I will protect my person and my dog, period.
            I feel no need to carry any weapon under any other time or place other than this one scenario, walking my dog and don't. I choose the knife as opposed to a stick for one simple reason- if I ever do have to use it it unquestionably proves the physical proximity if any bogus claim is made to the contrary later, a stick does nothing to a dumbass pit bull.
            The ones that attacked my neighbor and killed her dogs I hit repeatedly with a 3' floor jack handle while her son beat them with an old school bumper jack- it did nothing but slow them down. A big sharp knife? Well, hopefully I never have to find out.

          Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

          by teabaggerssuckbalz on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 07:01:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  That's interesting. Link, pls (0+ / 0-)

      Would be a great topic for a diary. Please give the Firearms Law and Policy group a shout if ever write that diary.

      It would help all of us to understand such problems in differential enforcement.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:14:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Down with representative government! (4+ / 0-)

    When did letting decisions be made by a group of elected representatives of the people ever have anything to do with the way we do things in this country?

    Oh wait...

    Everyone reading this, please raise your hand if you think the measure should have been sent out to "let the citizens decide" (like the losing council members wanted) if the vote had gone in favor of the ban...

  •  NRA wins again; humans lose nt (5+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 03:43:08 AM PST

    •  One-sided regulation? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose, Kasoru, ban nock, IndieGuy

      If you believe that the 2nd is a right that can be regulated and limited by the government (federal, state or local), then it follows that this level of regulation is not necessarily going to be as strict as you would prefer. However, not meeting your standards does not make it undemocratic.

      It's not like the Castle Rock council was a bunch of wingers outlawing abortion and reinstituting slavery. "Open carry" is not a federally outlawed practice, and they are choosing to "regulate" guns in a manner that was voted on by a majority of an elected town council. A council whose members, as DrillSgtK pointed out, were voted into place by a community which was probably well aware of their leanings on the gun issue. Certainly a more democratic process than something like an executive order...

      And if the voters of Castle Rock have a problem with it, I agree 100% with the diarist that "they will all get to voice their opinion via a vote this November."

  •  ya know.. (6+ / 0-)

    I think we can all agree that a person will "open carry" in their desire to intimidate others. It sure works with the police.

    However, it is my personal opinion that such a person..with a need to intimidate others, is exactly the kind of person who should not have a fucking gun..

       I would like to add that it is clear to most that open carry is usually limited to areas where the skin color is pale.
      I am old enough to remember when The Black Panthers did their open carry.


    •  Are you speaking from experience? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose, ban nock, Kasoru, IndieGuy

      Has it always been your intent to intimidate others when you "open carry"? Because I have "open carried" and I'm pretty sure of what my desire was at the time. And it was not to intimidate people.

      So unless you are some sort of mind reader that can probe far beyond my (and everyone else's) conscious reasoning on the matter, it would seem you have jack in terms of the basis for your statement, and no, we do not "all agree" on it.

      But, bonus points for use of the logical fallacy circulus in demonstrando, which for those wondering is "assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach". In this case, the "we can all agree" sentence.

      •  ah (0+ / 0-)

        Maybe that was NOT your intent.. but can you believe that those around you would take it that way?

 about so we can't all agree on that..

        Isn't it probable that people around someone carrying ..say an automatic weapon would feel intimidated.. or say fearful..

        I never open carry because as a non-hunter I have never owned a gun even though we raised a family in a part of Denver that has on occasion gun related violence.

          Has Colorado's background checks impacted you in any way?
        When you open carry is a 15 clip mag enough safe enough?

           Would you agree that trigger locks on guns
        kept in the home is not an unreasonable idea as a law?

          I get you are all for Freedoms... but is seems you are only concerned about your freedom and not necessarily others...
           also.. that even though you may be a responsible gun enthusiast whose desire to own multiple guns is not based upon racial fear... I am sure you know a number of folks that have this fear...


           by the way... cool Latin phrase

        •  What others believe was not your statement (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kasoru, FrankRose

          You said "I think we can all agree that a person will "open carry" in their desire to intimidate others." That has bupkis to do with what others believe about my intent. You're now making the "scary black man" argument. "I think he was lookin' at my woman..."

          Either your original statement stands, or it does not. Since you have changed the subject and focus of your argument, I would say that it does not.

          •  ok (0+ / 0-)

            c'mon... this post if off so we can write
            you live in Weld County... you associate with other who loves their guns... You Know that many of them use their fear of race as a reason...

            Greeley is a Republican place... voters facts bear this out...
            Why is there not a push for open carry there.

            My argument is the same...
            The visual cognitive response to a person openly carrying a gun is fear...especially here in Colorado...

            You do not live in Castle could not afford it..or be employed there.. me neither...

              That of course does not prevent us from expressing our opinions... Voter facts demonstrate that Aurora is Republican (yep NRA) Do you really believe open carrying would happen there?

              Jefferson County..ah Columbine ... you think it would carry there?

            My point remains the same... Under what need does anybody in Colorado have to carry an open weapon?

              As for the scary black man?  ... C'mon in Greeley it would be the scary brown man..

               My original statement had to do with intent...
            I agree that i was wrong to state  that I knew what
            "open carry" folks had as intent.. I would hope that you recognize that maybe their intent is intimidation..

              Quick quiz

            In 2002-2003 you knew our Govt was lying about Iraq

            You, like me served in a combat zone.. (Me 1971 resulting in medical discharge 1972 )

            You like me have forced our govt to arrest us for non-violent protest?

            just one example
            (I did not live in Boulder but Denver)

            I do know just a little about freedom and what it costs to maintain..
            I do know just a little about a  neighbor child killed because an adult did not have a fucking trigger guard on a gun in their nightstand. No charges of course...

            I do know that outside of a shooting range.. guns are meant to kill...and outside of target practice or hunting are the result of FEAR...

               off topic... And yes.. i am aware of your position that the water needed for Fracking is ok because ..well Weld County etc has water to spare...I get you consider yourself a librtartian...
               So...You still did not address how the regulations here for background checks..Freedoms! and mags harmed you...Freedoms!

                You did not address my point of trigger locks and holding adults responsible... I could give a shit on how many guns you own. But I do believe that open carry is unnecessery. ...

            It does puzzle me.. you are obviously a person of intelligence... you are aware that the NRA is just an efficient lobby for gun and ammo manufactures ..
            Yet you almost by rote repeat their talking points...

            You know Colorado is only going to have more regulations... but hey Idaho is nice...

  •  I think the 4 are terrified of an election. (5+ / 0-)

    Guns are radioactive here in CO for now. You could pass open carry for bazookas.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 07:10:33 AM PST

  •  Seems to me the voters HAVE spoken. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener, FrankRose

    If they disagree with this decision, they'll speak again at the very next election. That's sort of the whole point of representative democracy, isn't it?

    I mean, it's not like this was some sort of imperial decree, or dictates from a king or anything. These folks were elected, just like President Obama was elected. They've done what they think is their job, just as Obama has done. If the voters agree, they'll reelect them - just like we did with Obama (and probably would do again if we were given the chance). Otherwise they'll toss 'em out on their asses.

    •  Point of fact (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      They've done what they think is [they need to do to keep] their job, just as Obama [and every other politician] has done.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:22:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Castle Rock is a conservative town (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    extremely Republican, the very definition of an exurban GOP stronghold.  This is the area that provided Tom Tancredo with his overwhelming election victories as a congressman.  Really, the last hope of Republicans in the state as every other area of significant population trends Democratic (as seen in this diary comparing raw vote totals from 2004 to 2012.

    We shouldn't be surprised, any more than when a small liberal city significantly increases the minimum wage.

    •  Excellent perspective, and if the current (0+ / 0-)

      city planning commission resigns in protest over this move, they will be handing the keys to the city over to this City Council to appoint new, planning commissioners, who will support rezoning, etc. in favor of GOP policy/development objectives.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:24:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  True - but it was only by 4-3, barely a majority (0+ / 0-)

      and the dissenters are trying to out it on the ballot in November, at least they said as much at the hearing. Seems there is a schism within the conservatives.

      "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

      by We Shall Overcome on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 12:15:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site