Mountain States Legal Foundation
Colorado Car Tax (er, ‘FASTER’ vehicle registration “fee”) increase on trial this week
The Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle registration fee”) increase passed in 2009 (SB108, the so-called “FASTER” bill) is quite possibly THE most unpopular tax increase in Colorado history – made all the more repugnant by how it became law (exploiting a 2008 Colorado Supreme Court ruling which declared that “fees” don’t count as “taxes” to circumvent the constitutional requirement (under Colorado Constitution Article X, Section 20 – Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, a.k.a. TABOR) to receive prior voter approval for any ‘policy change resulting in net revenue gain’ to the state).
After two years of legislative inaction failed to repeal or roll back the unconstitutional and unpopular tax increase, the ‘FASTER’ Colorado Car Tax was challenged in court as a violation of the Colorado state Constitution (specifically, Colorado Constitution Article X, Section 20 – Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, TABOR).
That court challenge is on trial this week.
The court declined to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment which was filed earlier this year, despite documenting the fact that the “”Colorado Bridge Enterprise” established under the FASTER legislation as a “TABOR-exempt business enterprise” (Ed. – see, “Life in the FASTER Lane – updates on the Colorado Car Tax“) fails to meet the constitutional standard to qualify for exemption from TABOR requirements.
Plaintiffs had the first shot at introducing and examining witnesses in the trial, which began Monday and continues into Wednesday (at least) this week.
Penn Pfiffner, in his capacity as Chairman of the TABOR Foundation and plaintiff, sent out an update to people on the TABOR Committee mailing list earlier today:
Five witnesses; two heroes.
Plaintiffs (us) get to go first. One central fiction to keep in mind is the scheme declares that as you drive over certain bridges on the highway system, you are paying tolls to do so; tolls which are collected through a “safety surcharge.” The first two witnesses were Ms. Chris Sammons and Willie Wharton who both explained that they had to register vehicles and therefore pay the bridge surcharge “fee,” although those specifically identified vehicles never cross a single bridge. They did you proud, providing testimony that was calm, convincing, certain, occasionally humorous, and very credible. To me, they are my newest heroes. Both took a day off, drove in from Grand County (think, from beyond the western border of Rocky Mountain National Park), leaving very early to get to Denver on time. Willie had to spend one of his vacation days to do so, and the trial managed to fall during the very busiest time of his professional year. Chris had to put aside the demands of her ranch and small businesses, and miss a school function for one of her two teenagers. These two deserve our special thanks.
Mr. Manley also called as witnesses the chief financial officer of the Colorado Department of Transportation (and “coincidentally” the chief financial officer of the Bridge Enterprise Fund) and the executive director of the Colorado Department of Transportation (and “coincidentally” of the Bridge Enterprise Fund). They had to answer his questions about how the supposedly separate entities operate and coordinate, and supply information about funding issues.
The final of the five witnesses did not conclude his testimony before business wrapped up yesterday, and that is where the trial was to continue from this morning. Paul Wingard was there to prove expert information about the values of the bridges. Any TABOR enterprise is limited to taxpayer subsidy of 10 percent of annual income. The calculated limit in this case is met only because most bridges were transferred from the Department of Transportation to the Bridge Enterprise at a value of zero. Mr. Wingard brings a rare combination of experience and talents to the discussion. He is a professional engineer who has consulted in that profession, is a licensed contractor who built bridges, served as a senior administrator for a road and bridge department of a county government in Florida, and has participated in arm’s-length transfers of tolled bridges and a highway. We found him through Reason Foundation’s Bob Poole. Paul submitted a report about the values of the Colorado bridges being transferred.
More on this important constitutional challenge as the situation develops.
Bottom Line:
Colorado taxpayers have been forced to pay literally $100 Million per year in additional ‘FASTER’ taxes (under the label of “fees”) while simultaneously becoming obligated for over $300 Million in debt – all without a vote of the people, as required under Colorado’s Constitution.
The lawsuit seeks to prevent “continued enforcement and maintenance of the bridge safety surcharge” (i.e. stop the illegal collection of a portion of the Colorado Car Tax) and require that “all “[r]evenue collected, kept, or spent illegally” be refunded” – as mandated under the Colorado Constitution.
Now THAT would be a welcome “tax refund” for all Coloradans.
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.
The Colorado Car Tax – er, ‘FASTER’ “vehicle registration fee” increase – court challenge moves forward
The Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle registration fee”) increase passed in 2009 (SB108, the so-called “FASTER” bill) is quite possibly THE most unpopular tax increase in Colorado history – made all the more repugnant by how it became law (exploiting a 2008 Colorado Supreme Court ruling which declared that “fees” don’t count as “taxes” to circumvent the constitutional requirement (under Colorado Constitution Article X, Section 20 – Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, a.k.a. TABOR) to receive prior voter approval for any ‘policy change resulting in net revenue gain’ to the state).
After two years of legislative inaction failed to repeal or roll back the unconstitutional and unpopular tax increase, the ‘FASTER’ Colorado Car Tax is being challenged in court as a violation of the Colorado state Constitution (specifically, Colorado Constitution Article X, Section 20 – Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, TABOR).
The most recent development in the case (the ‘FASTER’ lawsuit was initially filed in May 2012) occurred last week with the filing of a ”Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment” in the case (a motion for summary judgment is filed based on the existing documentary record prior to trial claiming that all factual and legal issues can be decided in the moving party’s favor).
The Plaintiff’s Motion documents the fact that the “”Colorado Bridge Enterprise” established under the FASTER legislation as a “TABOR-exempt business enterprise” (Ed. – see, “Life in the FASTER Lane – updates on the Colorado Car Tax“) fails to meet the constitutional standard to qualify for exemption from TABOR requirements, on two main grounds:
A. The CBE Does Not Function As A Business Because It Has The Power To Levy A General Tax; and
B. The CBE Receives More Than Ten Percent Of Annual Revenue In Grants From CDOT
(including a $14.4M grant and the “gift” of 56 bridges from the Colorado Dep’t Of Transportation)
The Motion makes it crystal clear that the CBE “was created for the sole purpose of attempting to circumvent TABOR.”
Under FASTER, the CBE has forced Coloradans to pay “bridge safety surcharge” taxes approaching $100 million annually, without seeking the voter approval required by TABOR. See CBE 2010 Annual Report (“2010 Annual Report”) at 3.1 The CBE has also issued $300 million in new government bonds, again without a TABOR-required vote of the people. By taking these actions without a vote of the people, defendants have violated the rights of [Coloradans] to vote on the imposition of new taxes and debt, as guaranteed by TABOR.
The Motion further documents the self-evident statement that
The CBE is not a business enterprise exempt from TABOR because it generates revenue by levying a general tax, rather than by engaging in market transactions. TABOR-exempt enterprises may not levy taxes, because “[t]he ability to levy general taxes is inconsistent with the characteristics of a business.”
The purported “business” character of the CBE is belied by how it “makes” money:
The CBE’s revenue is not derived from “market exchanges taking place in a competitive, arms-length manner,” but rather from the bridge safety surcharge—a compulsory tax collected without regard to any benefits conferred to payers.
Calling the Colorado Car Tax a “fee” is also belied by the nature of how it is levied, on whom, and who “benefits” from the charge; calling it a “fee”
does not comport with reality because the surcharge shares none of the characteristics of a fee as defined by the Colorado Supreme Court and is not levied to provide “a specific service to the persons upon whom the fee is imposed and at rates reasonably calculated based on the benefits received by such persons.”
The surcharge is therefore a tax, and not a fee.
Colorado taxpayers have been forced to pay literally $100 Million per year in additional ‘FASTER’ taxes (under the label of “fees”) while simultaneously becoming obligated for over $300 Million in debt – all without a vote of the people, as required under Colorado’s Constitution.
The lawsuit seeks to prevent “continued enforcement and maintenance of the bridge safety surcharge” (i.e. stop the illegal collection of a portion of the Colorado Car Tax) and require that “all “[r]evenue collected, kept, or spent illegally” be refunded” – as mandated under the Colorado Constitution.
Now THAT would be a welcome “tax refund” for all Coloradans.
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.
New University of Colorado policies banning guns in residences flouts Colorado Supreme Court ruling, state law
The University of Colorado is once again violating the constitutional and statutory rights of students (and violating state law) with recently-announced policies imposing a ban on permitted concealed-carry of guns at some CU facilities:
In what it calls a contractual matter between landlord and tenant, the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs is putting freshman housing off-limits to concealed carry permits and also will ban permitted guns from large campus events.
The University of Colorado at Boulder announced virtually identical (and identically illegal) policies:
University of Colorado’s Boulder campus announced Thursday that it will bar guns from undergraduate residence halls and provide designated off-campus housing for those hoping to bring their weapons to the university.
The University of Colorado administration’s attempt to re-label the renewed CU Gun Ban as a mere “contractual matter” is a transparent attempt to end-run a recent Colorado Supreme Court ruling affirming the universal applicability of a state-issued concealed-carry permit – striking down CU’s earlier campus-wide comprehensive gun ban.
Unfortunately for CU’s attempt to circumvent state law via the too-clever-by-far mechanism of declaring the gun ban a “contractual matter between landlord and tenant,” as a state-supported institution governed by an elected Board of Regents, the University is not just a private “landlord” but is a quasi-public accommodation, subject to state law. Additionally, as noted in a previous guest commentary on this site (CU Regents Unwise to Consider Residence Hall Gun Ban),
The courts do tend to take a dim view of those who try to squash fundamental rights.
The line of argument pursued by the CU administration with the new policies of implementing a gun ban via “contractual” forfeiture of a fundamental legal right is deeply troubling, and would set a disturbing precedent if upheld in the inevitable legal challenge(s) to the CU Gun Ban policies. If a government agency or institution can obligate citizens to contractually “sign away” their rights otherwise obtaining under state law and/or the constitution, do those rights actually exist in any meaningful sense?
The casual disregard for this fundamental principle breezily displayed by CU’s chief legal counsel is also disturbing:
“Ultimately, I’m not going to say that the issue won’t have to be resolved by the courts.”
So yes, the CU administration is basically daring students to sue for their constitutional and statutory rights; let’s hope that someone takes them up on that challenge. It will be a costly proposition for the University (which the cash-strapped CU system can ill afford), but since the current CU Board of Regents refused to exercise their oversight authority to prevent it (“punting” to chancellors rather than providing guidance or policy direction at the April board meeting)
The authority to implement residence hall gun policies, the university stated in the release, was delegated to the chancellors at CU-Boulder by the Colorado Board of Regents last spring.
the University of Colorado will once again be wasting tuition and taxpayer dollars in court.
As noted by attorney Jim Manley of Mountain States Legal Foundation, who won the Supreme Court challenge to campus gun bans in Colorado,
the Colorado Supreme Court was very clear in its ruling that you cannot regulate concealed carry in any way that conflicts with state law.
CU’s Gun Ban policies needlessly endanger the safety of students, staff, faculty, and visitors by putting them at greater risk of criminal predation, as ”gun free zone” = “target-rich environment” for criminals.
Allowing responsible adults to exercise a fundamental constitutional right – affirming the right of licensed adult concealed-carry permit holders to responsibly exercise their inherent right of armed self-defense – is not only good law, it is good policy.
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.
The Colorado Car Tax – er, ‘FASTER’ “vehicle registration fee” increase – challenged in court as violation of state Constitution
The Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle registration fee”) increase passed in 2009 (SB108, the so-called “FASTER” bill) is quite possibly THE most unpopular tax increase in Colorado history – made all the more repugnant by how it became law (exploiting a 2008 Colorado Supreme Court ruling which declared that “fees” don’t count as “taxes” to circumvent the constitutional requirement (under Colorado Constitution Article X, Section 20 – Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, a.k.a. TABOR) to receive prior voter approval for any ‘policy change resulting in net revenue gain’ to the state).
After two years of legislative inaction failed to repeal or roll back the unconstitutional and unpopular tax increase, the ‘FASTER’ Colorado Car Tax is being challenged in court as a violation of the Colorado state Constitution (specifically, Colorado Constitution Article X, Section 20 – Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, TABOR).
Despite being a central issue in the 2010 elections (Democrat Governor Bill Ritter chose not to seek re-election in large part because of the tax increase’s unpopularity; Senate sponsor Dan Gibbs also chose not to seek re-election; and House Sponsor Joe Rice was defeated by now-Representative Kathleen Conti largely on the strength of her campaigning on the Car Tax issue), the legislature has failed to overturn the clearly unconstitutional tax (or address other unconstitutional aspects of the legislation, including establishment of unaccountable “government-owned enterprises” to administer the tax – er, “fee” – collections and revenues).
It has long been clear that the proper venue for overturning this highly unpopular, regressive, and unconstitutional tax increase is NOT via the legislature (which is unwilling or unable to act) but via a court challenge. Unfortunately, as long as the actively anti-TABOR “Mullarkey Majority” (and its successors) ruled the Colorado Supreme Court, prospects for a reasonable hearing on the merits (and interpretation actually based on the Colorado Constitution, as written) have been bleak.
However, due to recent changes in the composition of the state’s highest court (blatantly partisan and anti-TABOR Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey quit rather than face voters in 2010 and Mullarkey ally Justice Alex Martinez quit the court to take a Denver city job last Fall), along with the impending retirement of Mullarkey’s heir as Chief Justice (Michael Bender), a lawsuit challenging the ‘FASTER’ Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle registration fee”) increase might now have a chance.
Apparently judging the time to be ripe, the TABOR Foundation – represented by the Mountain States Legal Foundation – filed suit today (21 May 2012) challenging the constitutionality of the 2009 ‘FASTER’ Colorado Car Tax. From the organization’s press release:
“In clear violation of TABOR, the General Assembly enacted and CDOT implemented a scheme to levy taxes and raise revenues without a vote of the people of Colorado,” William Perry Pendley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, said in a statement.
The lawsuit targets not only the over $100 Million in (unconstitutionally-imposed) new taxes levied, but also the $300 million in new government bonds imposed by the Colorado Bridge Enterprise (one of the constitutionally dubious quasi-government “enterprises” established under the ‘FASTER’ law).
The Foundation seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and an order requiring refund of all revenues collected, along with the payment of interest, as required by TABOR.
The TABOR Foundation’s lawsuit highlights the fact that legislative action alone is frequently inadequate in preserving rights and freedoms – bad laws can (and should) be struck down by citizens (working alone or in groups) defending their rights in court. The fact that it took years before the conditions were conducive to a court challenge also highlights the fact that elections to legislative or executive office are not the only votes that matter – underlining the critical importance of the judicial accountability movement spearheaded beginning in 2009 by Clear The Bench Colorado.
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.
Colorado Supreme Court upholds Colorado Court of Appeals rejection of CU Gun Ban
The Colorado Supreme Court rightly rejected the specious argument advanced by the attorney for the CU Board of Regents (which voted 5-4 to appeal the Colorado Court of Appeals rejection of CU Gun Ban), who 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 supreme court holds that the Concealed Carry Act’s comprehensive statewide purpose, broad language, and narrow exclusions show that the General Assembly intended to divest the Board of Regents of its authority to regulate concealed handgun possession on campus. Accordingly, the supreme court agrees with the court of appeals that, by alleging the Policy violates the CCA, the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus have stated a claim for relief. Because the supreme court affirms on statutory grounds, it does not consider the Students’ constitutional claim.
The court upheld the Colorado Court of Appeals April 2010 ruling that 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.
Interestingly, the Colorado Supreme Court chose not to address the claims for relief under Colorado Constitution article II, section 13, (which affirms an individual right to bear arms in self-defense) – leaving the Court of Appeals ruling on the constitutional right intact while avoiding giving that language the imprimatur of a Colorado Supreme Court ruling.
The courts – both the Colorado Supreme Court in Monday’s ruling, and the Colorado Court of Appeals in its more sweeping April 2010 ruling were right on the law, and reinforced the right policy, too.
There is NO compelling state interest to bar responsible adults (Colorado CCW permits can only be obtained by people 21 years or older, with a clean criminal and mental health background check passed, who obtain training in both physical and legal aspects of using firearms) the exercise of a fundamental right.
From a “safety” standpoint, barring guns from college campuses places students, staff, faculty, and visitors at greater risk of criminal predation, as ”gun free zone” equals “target-rich environment” for criminals.
Further, there has been NO documented instance of a concealed-carry permit holder misusing firearms on any Colorado college campus, as noted in the amicus brief filed by the Colorado sheriffs opposing the CU Gun Ban.
Allowing responsible adults to exercise a fundamental constitutional right – affirming the right of licensed concealed-carry permit holders to responsibly exercise their inherent right of self-defense – is not only good law, it is good policy.
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.
Colorado Supreme Court hears arguments in CU Gun Ban case; are Coloradans’ gun rights in the crosshairs?
“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.
CU Gun Ban overturned by Colorado Court of Appeals; next stop Colorado Supreme Court?
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!
Updates on the Unconstitutional College Campus Gun Bans – headed for a showdown at the Colorado Supreme Court?
Clear The Bench Colorado has previously noted that a recent decision by the CSU Board of Governors to deprive Concealed-Carry Weapons (CCW) permit-holders of their legal rights under Colorado statute on CSU campuses is virtually certain to be legally challenged and ultimately decided (as a matter of Colorado law, regulating concealed carry) by the Colorado Supreme Court.
Recent statements by Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden that he would refuse to prosecute any licensed permit-holder detained or sanctioned by University enforcement officers, because any such action would violate state law as well as his oath to uphold the Federal and state Constitution and Colorado statute, has drawn additional attention to the issue.
Sheriff Alderden recently appeared on the Independent Thinking television program to discuss the issue of “Guns on Campus” with host Jon Caldara and leftist Denver Post columnist Mike Littwin (the CSU Board refused to appear in defense of their policy decision, probably on the advise of legal counsel in order to avoid making self-incriminating statements).
In this segment (number 2 of 3 total), Sheriff Alderden reiterates the fact that the CSU gun ban violates state law:
(At approximately the 7 minute mark, Sheriff Alderden gets to the crux of the matter:
“The law says that if you have a Concealed Carry Permit, you CAN carry on campus… that’s what the statute says.”)
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. … A local government does not have authority to adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this part. (emphasis added)
The ONLY hope for this clearly unconstitutional ban to withstand the inevitable legal challenge – and the ongoing legal challenge to the CU ban – is if the Colorado Supreme Court refuses to uphold the law (certainly not impossible, given the repeatedly demonstrated anti-gun bias and generally anti-constitutional predilections of the Mullarkey Majority which dominates the 7-member court).
Meanwhile, the CU Regents ban on responsible and licensed concealed-carry has already been challenged by students from different CU campuses; although a lower court judge dismissed the case on a technicality, the case is now coming before the Colorado Court of Appeals (one level shy of the Colorado Supreme Court). Oral arguments in the case begin this coming Tuesday (23 March) starting at 1:30 PM (those with an interest in upholding the constitutional right to keep and bear arms in Colorado may wish to appear in (polite and civil) witness to the proceedings.
Ultimately, these cases are likely to be decided by the Colorado Supreme Court; given the current majority, this cannot be an entirely encouraging prospect for friends of liberty and defenders of our constitutional rights.
Fortunately, friends of liberty and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms in Colorado can “head ‘em off at the pass” in November 2010 by voting to REMOVE FOUR of the most anti-constitutional justices on the Colorado Supreme Court (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) BEFORE the challenge comes to a final resolution before the court.
Freedom isn’t Free – 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 to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your homes and business from seizure by rapacious governments, 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 against retaining these unjust justices in November 2010!