Judge rules Denver can bar concealed weapons

It seems that Denver is having delusions of grandeur. Their lawyers profess to believe that the concept of "home rule" renders them immune to state level legislation specifically intended to do otherwise. They want this power so that they can regulate the open-carry of firearms within Denver, plus ban "assault weapons" and "Saturday Night Specials". They have managed to get a judge to agree with them -- for the moment.

The judge has acknowledged the inherent contradiction and political basis of his decision:

The judge said there are limits to the city's gun control laws. For example, it can't regulate the transportation of guns in cars. He also said people with state-approved concealed weapons permits can bring guns into parks.

In other words, the City of Denver wants to be able to enact gun control, but their powers conveniently end where the legislature doesn't want to go... at least, not today. But there's something earlier in the article that demolishes the entire argument legal argument when closely examined:

Under Colorado law, cities can have state statutes define their laws or choose to have home-rule charters. Those who opt for home-rule can define their own powers as long as they don't violate the state constitution.

OK, so "home rule" cities can make their own powers, but they have to abide by the state Constitution. This is awkward, because it inverts the limited-powers model, but we can work with it. Consider first this section of the state Constitution:

Section 2. People may alter or abolish form of government ­ proviso. The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

The state of Colorado, and therefore the home rule cities chartered under its Constitution, are bound by the 2nd Amendment. That rather renders all their regulations (including requiring licensing for concealed carry) illegal. Even if you don't buy the 2nd Amendment as being quite that strong, try out the Colorado "Right to bear arms" provision:

Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Seems to be carrying a self-defense firearm in plain site is perfectly legal according to the Colorado Constitution, and according to this article, home rule cities are legally bound by that Constitution. Case closed. But then, if you own the judge, the truth doesn't matter.