“No man’s life, liberty, property, or constitutional rights are safe while the Colorado Supreme Court is in session.”  (again, with apologies to Mark Twain)

Clear The Bench Colorado has publicized the threat posed by the Colorado Supreme Court to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms in Colorado for some time (including an attempted exploitation of a court ruling to impose what amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax on gun sales and permits, the ban on responsible and licensed concealed-carry by the CU Board of Regents and an abortive CSU campus ban on concealed carry, along with debates and developments in both cases).  After the CU Board of Regents voted to appeal the Colorado Court of Appeals ruling which in April struck down the CU ban on licensed permit-holders carrying firearms on campus (Court tosses CU gun ban), we warned Coloradans that another attack on our constitutional and statutory rights was coming.

The threat materialized in October 2010 when the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari (agreed to hear) the CU Board of Regents appeal of last April’s Colorado Court of Appeals ruling (which upheld state law and the rights of Colorado citizens against CU’s assertion of a right to ban licensed concealed carry in any area “governed” by the Board, including areas open to the public).

On Wednesday (8 June 2011), the Colorado Supreme Court heard oral arguments from attorneys representing CU (on one side) and various individual citizens and other interested parties on the other.  The arguments lasted for one hour, and can be heard in their entirety via this link (audio recording, Regents v. Concealed Carry 10SC344).

The attorney for the CU Board of Regents argued that the CU Board has “constitutional authority” to “enact legislation governing the campus” - essentially, putting the CU Board of Regents “above the law” of the state of Colorado.  The attorney cited some past rulings by the Colorado Supreme Court which had established some legal precedent for this view.

However, as the Colorado Court of Appeals had previously noted in its April 2010 ruling, the CU gun ban policy violates “the clear letter and intent of the statute authorizing statewide standards and universal application for concealed-carry permits:”

18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions.

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section.

The Colorado Court of Appeals could not have been more clear in upholding that view, and went further in upholding the constitutional right of Colorado citizens to bear arms in self-defense:

Because the statute expressly applies to “all areas of the state,” we conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under the CCA. We further conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under Colorado Constitution article II, section 13, which affords individuals the right to bear arms in self-defense.

The law - both constitutional and statutory - is clearly on the side of the plaintiffs, wishing to exercise their legal right to responsibly carry concealed weapons after undergoing an extensive background check, practical and legal training, and acquiring a permit for that purpose.  The Concealed Carry Act applies to “all areas of the state,” except as specifically limited by the Act. The Regents lobbied to be included in the list of exceptions, but the legislature refused. The CU Board is now asking the Colorado Supreme Court to re-write the law to include the exception the Regents sought, but didn’t receive, when the legislation was passed.

Of course, it wouldn’t be the first time that the Colorado Supreme Court has legislated from the bench.  The fact that the Colorado Supreme Court even agreed to hear the CU Regents appeal of a very clear and well-grounded ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals does not bode well for the preservation of another set of Coloradans’ constitutional rights.

There is a great deal more at stake than the relatively narrow issue of whether responsible adults can be denied the exercise of their rights (licensed concealed-carry pursuant to state law) - as if that wasn’t important enough.  In hearing the case, the Colorado Supreme Court will also rule on whether state law, as a matter of principle and precedent, can be ignored by certain quasi-governmental entities (such as the CU Board of Regents).  Most importantly, the Colorado Supreme Court will rule on the standard of review for laws regulating the right to bear arms (or any constitutional rights) in Colorado.

The Colorado Court of Appeals held (correctly, in my view and the view of most legal scholars) that the standard of review for assessing the law, and CU’s attempt to ignore state law via an illegal gun ban (and for reviewing any law regulating any constitutional right) is the ”reasonable exercise” standard (in other words, is the law a “reasonable exercise” of the government’s authority to restrict a constitutional right).  The CU Regents argue (and the Colorado Supreme Court’s Mullarkey Majority has in the past agreed, on other issues) that the standard for legal review should be the ”rational basis” standard of review (which gives virtually unlimited deference, and leeway, to the ability of government to pass laws restricting the individual exercise of fundamental constitutional rights).  Adoption of that standard in this case would set a very dangerous precedent, and would effectively nullify the Colorado Constitution’s recognition of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

This case - and so many others of this nature - isn’t about guns; it’s about freedoms.  Allowing the government to pass laws further restricting our rights (or allowing courts to unilaterally impose new laws or restrictions by re-writing or interpreting our rights out of existence) runs counter to the very foundations and ideals of this country.

Our Constitution is the Citizens’ rulebook for government - restricting the powers and authority of government to rule our lives.  It is what distinguishes us as Americans from the historical example of every other nation on earth: we are Citizens, not subjects.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts.  We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone -  we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions.  Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Ultimately, though - it’s worth the effort.

“No man’s life, liberty, property, or constitutional rights are safe while the Colorado Supreme Court is in session.”  (With apologies to Mark Twain)

Clear The Bench Colorado has tracked the threat posed by the Colorado Supreme Court to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms in Colorado for some time (including attempts to levy what amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax on firearms sales and permits, the CU Regents ban on responsible and licensed concealed-carry and the more recent attempted CSU campus ban on concealed carry, along with debates and recent developments in both cases).  After the CU Board of Regents voted to appeal the ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals which in April struck down the University of Colorado ban on licensed permit-holders carrying firearms on campus (Court tosses CU gun ban), we warned Coloradans that another attack on our constitutional and statutory rights was coming.

On Monday, the opening salvo of that attack arrived, as the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to consider the CU Regents appeal of last April’s ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals (which upheld state law and the rights of Colorado citizens against CU’s illegal concealed carry ban covering all campus areas).

The CU Board of Regents legal brief to the Colorado Supreme Court is due in approximately 40 days; the brief of the respondents (SCCC, represented by the Mountain States Legal Foundation) along with any amicus curiae (”friend of court”) briefs are due 30 days after that.

The composition of the court (and thus, the likelihood of the law being followed in ruling on this case) may experience a change as a result of the intervening elections…

As Clear The Bench Colorado noted at the time, the Court of Appeals ruling was both legally sound and clear in its rejection of the CU Board’s assertion of extra-constitutional authority:

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the University of Colorado has no authority to bar students or visitors from lawfully carrying guns on campus. [Ed. emphasis added]

Note that the CU Board of Regents is asserting its authority to ban licensed concealed carry not just by students, but by ANY responsible adult who has undergone the background checks and training (and mounds of paperwork) to apply for and receive a license to carry concealed - on ANY CU property.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruling in the case highlights the critical importance of judges who rule in accordance with the law (especially the Constitution, which exists to protect the rights of individuals and limit the power of government) and underlines the fact that Colorado does have many such judges at various levels (including Judge Christine Habas, who ruled - correctly - that the Mill Levy Tax Freeze” was unconstitutional before being overturned by the Mullarkey Majority).  Unfortunately, we just don’t have enough of them (good judges, that is) on the Colorado Supreme Court.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruling in the case also substantiated our assertion that the CU and CSU bans violate “the clear letter and intent of the statute authorizing statewide standards and universal application for concealed-carry permits”

18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions.

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section.

The Colorado Court of Appeals could not have been more clear in upholding that view, and went further in upholding the constitutional right of Colorado citizens to bear arms in self-defense:

Because the statute expressly applies to “all areas of the state,” we conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under the CCA. We further conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under Colorado Constitution article II, section 13, which affords individuals the right to bear arms in self-defense.

The Colorado Supreme Court decision to hear the CU Regents appeal of this ruling puts another set of Coloradans’ constitutional rights at risk.

There is a great deal more at stake than the relatively narrow issue of whether responsible adults can be denied the exercise of their rights (licensed concealed-carry pursuant to state law) - as if that wasn’t important enough.  In hearing the case, the Colorado Supreme Court will also rule on whether state law, as a matter of principle and precedent, can be ignored by certain quasi-governmental entities (such as the CU Board of Regents).  Most importantly, the Colorado Supreme Court will rule on the standard of review for laws regulating the right to bear arms (or any constitutional rights) in Colorado.

The Colorado Court of Appeals held (correctly, in my view and the view of most legal scholars) that the standard of review for assessing the law, and CU’s attempt to ignore state law via an illegal gun ban (and for reviewing any law regulating any constitutional right) is the ”reasonable exercise” standard (in other words, is the law a “reasonable exercise” of the government’s authority to restrict a constitutional right).  The CU Regents argue (and the Colorado Supreme Court’s Mullarkey Majority has in the past agreed) that the standard for legal review should be the ”rational basis” standard of review (which gives virtually unlimited deference, and leeway, to the ability of government to pass laws restricting the ability of individuals to exercise their constitutional rights).  Adoption of that standard in this case would set a very dangerous precedent, and would effectively nullify the Colorado Constitution’s recognition of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

This case - and so many others of this nature - isn’t about guns; it’s about freedoms.  Allowing the government to pass laws further restricting our rights (or allowing courts to unilaterally impose new laws or restrictions by re-writing or interpreting our rights out of existence) runs counter to the very foundations and ideals of this country.

Our Constitution is the Citizens’ rulebook for government - restricting the powers and authority of government to rule our lives.  It is what distinguishes us as Americans from the historical example of every other nation on earth: we are Citizens, not subjects.

Our courts - sworn to uphold our Constitution and act as protectors of our constitutional rights - must occasionally be reminded of that fact.

Stick to your guns - Defend YOUR constitutional and statutory rights, and exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on retaining the 4 (er, 3 remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right of self-defense, your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business from government abuse of eminent domain powers, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, not rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”

Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote in November 2010 to keep these unjust justices from returning for another 10-year term!

A rash of recent thefts may have been inspired by a Colorado Supreme Court ruling…

The Colorado Supreme Court’s ‘Gang of Four’ under their ringleader Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey (who’s skipping town rather than face justice in November) have gotten away with a series of crimes against our Constitution over the last few years, including:

• ‘Mill Levy Tax Freeze‘ property tax increase (”Freeze!” Property tax, reach for the sky!)
• ‘Dirty Dozen‘ tax increases (2010) and the 2009 tobacco tax increase (”Hand over your Tax Credits & Exemptions“)
• ‘Colorado Car Tax’ (It ain’t a mugging - er, tax; it’s a “fee”)
• ‘Telluride Land Grab’ (What’s yours isn’t yours if WE say so)
• ‘Mary-Mandering’ legislative districts (grabbing redistricting power from the legislature, where it belongs)

The crime spree isn’t over yet; the ‘Gang of Four’ is targeting yet more tax increases and has gun rights in their sights, too.

The Colorado Supreme Court’s rampant lawlessness has apparently inspired other, more petty crimes. Recently, your uncaped crusader for justice was the victim of such a crime: my license plate was stolen (right off my car!)

How is this petty crime linked to the Colorado Supreme Court, you ask?

As I discovered this morning when at the DMV to obtain replacement plates, such thefts are far from rare; indeed, there has apparently been a rash of such thefts, since the Colorado Car Tax (er, vehicle registration “fee” increase - brought to you courtesy of the Colorado Supreme Court) went into effect a year ago.  Most of the thefts seem to be inspired by the desire to avoid the punitive “late fees” - an over $31.5 Million ‘Highway Robbery’ aided and abetted by the Colorado Supreme Court.

Unintended consequences?

Criminologists (and parents) know that if bad behavior goes unpunished, it will only get worse.

Colorado has seen an intensifying pattern of bad behavior by our state supreme court over the last ten years of the Mullarkey Majority’s reign.  Colorado Citizens have the right - indeed, we have the duty - to hold those behaving badly accountable, at the ballot box.

Don’t let them get away with continued bad behavior - exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, now 3) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice; soon minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax (er, “fee”) increases, your right to defend your home and business from being taken away through abuse of eminent domain, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO“ vote against retaining these incumbent unjust justices in office for another 10 years!

Media coverage of the issues of judicial retention (both the performance review process and the upcoming November elections) and the process for reviewing and nominating applicants for judicial appointments (particularly for the Colorado Supreme Court opening created by Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey’s announcement of her intent to retire rather than be held accountable by voters in the November elections) has picked up considerably following the Denver Post’s recent publication of our response (“Demand accountability from judges, too”) to an earlier article bemoaning critiques of the courts (“Criticism of retiring Judge (sic) Mullarkey unfair”).

The Denver Post kicked off the week by acknowledging in print for the first time since February (”Four Colorado Supreme Court justices face a tough vote in elections“) that “four state Supreme Court justices [may not] survive an attempt to remove them from the bench this election” - and obliquely credited Clear The Bench Colorado with raising awareness of the issue:

This election, the group Clear the Bench Colorado is advocating voters reject all four Supreme Court justices up for retention because of rulings it believes are unconstitutional.

(Technically, only three Colorado Supreme Court justices are likely to be subject to a retention vote following Chief Justice Mullarkey’s announced intent to retire, but we’re not going to quibble).  The Denver Post story was also picked up by a number of media outlets across the state, both print and online.

Throughout the week, Law Week Colorado reported on a seeming epidemic of judges at various levels who have announced their intent to leave office rather than stand for retention this year - beginning with Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Sean Connelly (after only 2 years on the bench), followed by Larimer County Court judge Cynthia M. Hartman (also after only 2 years in office) joining the earlier announced retirement of Douglas County Court judge Michelle Ann Marker, bringing the number of announced retirements to four total (including Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey).  Although four announced retirements in one cycle may not seem to indicate an avalanche of impending judicial vacancies, the pace and timing of the announcements has struck several seasoned observers of the Colorado judiciary as unusual.

Curiously enough, embattled former prosecutors (and current Larimer County District Court judges) Jolene Blair and Terrence Gilmore have NOT elected to leave office, filing paperwork last week declaring intent to run for retention, and will face the voters in November.  Likewise, Colorado Supreme Court Justice Nancy Rice also announced (today) her intent to seek retention in office for another 10-year term.

Another national observer of legal news and affairs (Chicago-based Legal Newsline, a self-described “Internet-based newswire dedicated to 24/7 coverage of state supreme courts and state attorneys general”) joined in with coverage of the upcoming Colorado Supreme Court retention elections from afar (”Group wants lineup of Colorado Supreme Court radically changed“) - demonstrating the national scope of interest in the issue.  (Not to mention that Clear The Bench Colorado has been on the radar of the left-wing Huffington Post and the George Soros funded and “progressively” oriented ‘Justice At Stake’ group for several months already).

Finally, an analyst critiquing a column in yesterday’s Boulder Daily Camera (“Gunning for Guns” by Mike Ellis), which at least presented a defense of constitutional rights by someone admittedly “nervous around guns,” correctly points out (as we have indicated numerous times) that the campus gun bans at Colorado State University and the University of Colorado are matters of state law involving concealed carry (NOT, strictly speaking, 2nd Amendment issues, even following the McDonald v. Chicago “incorporation” decision) and therefore subject to ultimate decision by the Colorado Supreme Court (and not the Supreme Court of the United States).  Lose these cases here in Colorado, and you’ve lost for good.  The commenter notes:

People on both sides of the gun rights/gun control debate (and even people who aren’t particularly interested in the gun rights/gun control debate) need to be clear on what the Supreme Court’s incorporation of the Second Amendment does and doesn’t mean.  In many ways, what it does mean is something that must now be sorted out by the lower courts.  But what it doesn’t mean is very clear-it doesn’t mean that all restrictions on the possession of firearms are now null and void.

The Colorado Supreme Court may very well rule against CU’s gun ban, but it won’t be on the basis of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; it’ll be on the basis of Colorado state law.

Indeed, a large number of issues are “sorted out” by state-level courts (far more than ever ultimately make it to the Supreme Court of the United States). The Colorado Supreme Court - and particularly, the Chief Justice - exercises enormous power (”clout”) over the lives of Colorado citizens.  The current majority has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not exercise this power with restraint or consideration for your constitutional rights - ruling consistently against individual protections and in favor of expanded government power.  Upholding tax increases (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, or the “Dirty Dozen” new tax laws) imposed without the required vote of the people, enabling taxes to be collected under the guise of “fees” (such as the Colorado Car Tax), expanding eminent domain abuse to seize people’s property, and grabbing the (legislative) power to draw up voting districts (aided by the recent “Mary-mandering” bill) - this court is acting like rulers, with you as the subjects; re-writing the laws, instead of upholding them.

Be a citizen, not a subject - exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Clear The Bench Colorado has tracked the threat posed by the Colorado Supreme Court to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms in Colorado for some time (including attempts to levy what amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax on firearms sales and permits, and of course the CU Regents ban on responsible and licensed concealed-carry and the more recent CSU campus ban on concealed carry, along with debates and recent developments in both cases).  Today, in another momentous development in Colorado Politics, the CU Board of Regents voted to appeal the ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals which in April struck down the University of Colorado ban on licensed permit-holders carrying firearms on campus (Court tosses CU gun ban).

As Clear The Bench Colorado noted at the time, the Court of Appeals ruling was both legally sound and clear in its rejection of the CU Board’s assertion of extra-constitutional authority:

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the University of Colorado has no authority to bar students or visitors from lawfully carrying guns on campus.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruling in the case highlights the critical importance of judges who rule in accordance with the law (especially the Constitution, which exists to protect the rights of individuals and limit the power of government) and underlines the fact that Colorado does have many such judges at various levels (including Judge Christine Habas, who ruled - correctly - that the Mill Levy Tax Freeze” was unconstitutional before being overturned by the Mullarkey Majority).  Unfortunately, we just don’t have enough of them on the Colorado Supreme Court.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruling in the case also substantiated our assertion that the CU and CSU bans violate “the clear letter and intent of the statute authorizing statewide standards and universal application for concealed-carry permits”

18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions.

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section.

The Colorado Court of Appeals could not have been more clear in upholding that view, and went further in upholding the constitutional right of Colorado citizens to bear arms in self-defense:

Because the statute expressly applies to “all areas of the state,” we conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under the CCA. We further conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under Colorado Constitution article II, section 13, which affords individuals the right to bear arms in self-defense.

The lawlessness of the CU Board members voting with the majority - voting to violate the clear letter of the law, and voting to violate the legal rights of its students along with the rights of any citizens who might find themselves within the (open to the public) campus area - is betting on a similar lawlessness on the Colorado Supreme Court, which has consistently demonstrated a contempt for the clear letter of the Colorado Constitution and for the rule of law, generally.  The case serves as a powerful reminder that our constitutional and statutory rights are under constant threat of being “interpreted” out of existence by the current majority on the Colorado Supreme Court.

Stick to your guns - Defend YOUR constitutional and statutory rights, and exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on retaining the 4 (er, 3 remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right of self-defense, your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business from government abuse of eminent domain powers, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, not rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote in November 2010 to keep these unjust justices from returning for another 10-year term!

Clear The Bench Colorado has tracked the threat posed by the Colorado Supreme Court to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms in Colorado for some time (including attempts to levy what amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax on firearms sales and permits, and of course the CU Regents ban on responsible and licensed concealed-carry and the more recent CSU campus ban on concealed carry, along with debates and recent developments in both cases).  Today, in another stunning development in Colorado Politics and another great victory for individual rights and the rule of law, the CSU Board of Governors rescinded the (illegal) ban on licensed concealed firearms carry on campus (finally complying with state law).

As the CSU spokesperson explained, the Governing Board really had no choice, in light of the recent Court of Appeals ruling in Students for Concealed Carry on Campus v. Regents of the University of Colorado. There, the unanimous three-judge panel ruled that Colorado’s Concealed Handgun Act, which is explicitly preemptive, had no implicit exception for state institutions of higher education. The University of Colorado has not yet announced whether it will petition the Colorado Supreme Court for certiorari in that case.

Although this may be the start of a new trend (a view taken in an editorial by the Colorado Springs Gazette, “College gun bans may start crumbling“) - and we would join them in applauding such a development - we must remember that our constitutional and statutory rights are under constant threat of being “interpreted” out of existence by the current majority on the Colorado Supreme Court, which has consistently demonstrated a contempt for the clear letter of the Colorado Constitution and for the rule of law, generally.  This victory for individual rights remains just one legal challenge away from being set aside - and that challenge may yet be coming:

The CU Board of Regents has not rescinded its ban and may appeal the appellate court’s decision to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Stick to your guns - Defend YOUR Constitution, and exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on retaining the four unjust justices of the Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right of self-defense, your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business from government abuse of eminent domain powers, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, not rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote in November 2010 to keep these unjust justices from returning for another 10-year term!

Clear The Bench Colorado has tracked the threat posed by the Colorado Supreme Court to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms in Colorado for some time (including attempts to levy what amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax on firearms sales and permits, and of course the CU Regents ban on responsible and licensed concealed-carry and the more recent CSU campus ban on concealed carry, along with debates and recent developments in both cases).  In a stunning development in Colorado Politics and a great victory for individual rights and the rule of law, the Colorado Court of Appeals yesterday struck down the University of Colorado ban on licensed permit-holders carrying firearms on campus (Court tosses CU gun ban).

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the University of Colorado has no authority to bar students or visitors from lawfully carrying guns on campus.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruling in the case highlights the critical importance of judges who rule in accordance with the law (especially the Constitution, which exists to protect the rights of individuals and limit the power of government) and underlines the fact that Colorado does have many such judges at various levels (including Judge Christine Habas, who ruled - correctly - that the Mill Levy Tax Freeze” was unconstitutional before being overturned by the Mullarkey Majority).  Unfortunately, we just don’t have enough of them on the Colorado Supreme Court.

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruling in the case substantiated our assertion that the CU and CSU bans violate “the clear letter and intent of the statute authorizing statewide standards and universal application for concealed-carry permits”

18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions.

(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section.

The Colorado Court of Appeals could not have been more clear in upholding that view, and went further in upholding the constitutional right of Colorado citizens to bear arms in self-defense:

Because the statute expressly applies to “all areas of the state,” we conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under the CCA. We further conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under Colorado Constitution article II, section 13, which affords individuals the right to bear arms in self-defense.

However, although the case represents a substantial victory for individual rights and the rule of law, it is just one battle; the war is far from over, as the Denver Post article points out:

After Thursday’s ruling, the lawsuit may go back to district court, or CU can appeal the decision to the Colorado Supreme Court. The university could also repeal the ban if it so chooses.

Ken McConnellogue, spokesman for the University of Colorado system, said school officials are weighing options. Regents will likely discuss the matter at a regularly scheduled board meeting next week.

CU is being urged by a “national anti-gun group” to appeal the case, which may yet end up before a Colorado Supreme Court with a demonstrated track record of hostility to the constitutional rights of individuals in Colorado to bear arms in defense of themselves and others.

Stick to your guns - Defend YOUR Constitution, and exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on retaining the four unjust justices of the Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right of self-defense, your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business from government abuse of eminent domain powers, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, not rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote in November 2010 to keep these unjust justices from returning for another 10-year term!