City of Lakewood v. Pillow, No. C--164
| Docket Nº | No. C--164 |
| Citation | 180 Colo. 20, 501 P.2d 744 |
| Case Date | October 10, 1972 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Page 744
of Colorado, Petitioner,
v.
Charles Edward PILLOW, Respondent.
[180 Colo. 21] Raymond C. Johnson, Lakewood, for petitioner.
Theodore P. Koeberle, Boulder, for respondent.
HODGES, Justice.
On petition of the City of Lakewood, we granted certiorari to review the district court's declaration that a Lakewood ordinance is invalid.
The respondent Pillow was convicted in municipal court of a violation of this ordinance which makes it unlawful to possess a dangerous or deadly weapon. He appealed to the district court which reversed the conviction on the basis of a finding that there was a failure of proof before the municipal court and on the further ground that the ordinance was invalid. The district court's declaration of invalidity was premised on its finding that the subject matter of the [180 Colo. 22] ordinance is a matter of statewide concern and is therefore preempted by a state statute pertaining to the carrying of a concealed weapon. This state statute is 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 40--11--1.
We affirm the district court's reversal of the respondent's conviction but do so on the ground that the Lakewood ordinance is
Page 745
unconstitutionally overbroad. It is therefore unnecessary to discuss the failure of proof issue; moreover, this case is not a suitable vehicle for a consideration of the preemption issue. Our decision to resolve this case in this manner was prompted to some degree by statements made by counsel for the City of Lakewood during oral argument. He conceded that the ordinance lacked specificity in certain respects and that a replacing ordinance was in the process of preparation.The subject Lakewood ordinance is numbered 0--70--47, Sec. 3--9 and is set forth in full as follows:
'Unlawful to Possess, Carry or Use Dangerous or Deadly Weapons. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to have in his possession, except within his own domicile, or to carry or use, a revolver or pistol, shotgun or rifle of any description, which may be used for the explosion of cartridges, or any air gun, gas operated gun or spring gun, or any bow made for the purpose of throwing or projecting missiles of any kind by any means whatsoever; provided that nothing in this section shall prevent use of any such instruments in shooting galleries or ranges under circumstances when such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hamdan, No. 01-0056-CR.
...have held a CCW statute or ordinance to be unconstitutional because it was unnecessarily broad. See, e.g., City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 501 P.2d 744 (Colo. 1972) (holding ordinance that prohibited possession or carrying of dangerous weapon violated right to bear arms); Junction City v. Mevis......
-
Benjamin v. Bailey, No. 14968
...that it amounts to the destruction of the right to bear arms." State v. McAdams, supra, 714 P.2d at 1237; see also Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 23, 501 P.2d 744 (1972) (statute prohibiting possession of firearm in vehicle or place of business for self-defense invalid); In re Brickey, s......
-
Nordyke v. King, No. 07–15763.
...of firearms. See, e.g., City of Junction City v. Mevis, 226 Kan. 526, 601 P.2d 1145, 1152 (1979); City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 501 P.2d 744, 745 (1972); City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626, 485 P.2d 737, 738 (Ct.App.1971). But these restrictions would surely have been uphe......
-
Robertson v. City and County of Denver, No. 93SA91
...regarding whether that right is fundamental. The next occasion in which this court applied article II, section 13, was Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 501 P.2d 744 (1972). In Lakewood, we reviewed the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance proscribing the possession or use of any dead......
-
State v. Hamdan, No. 01-0056-CR.
...have held a CCW statute or ordinance to be unconstitutional because it was unnecessarily broad. See, e.g., City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 501 P.2d 744 (Colo. 1972) (holding ordinance that prohibited possession or carrying of dangerous weapon violated right to bear arms); Junction City v. Mevis......
-
Benjamin v. Bailey, No. 14968
...that it amounts to the destruction of the right to bear arms." State v. McAdams, supra, 714 P.2d at 1237; see also Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 23, 501 P.2d 744 (1972) (statute prohibiting possession of firearm in vehicle or place of business for self-defense invalid); In re Brickey, s......
-
Nordyke v. King, No. 07–15763.
...of firearms. See, e.g., City of Junction City v. Mevis, 226 Kan. 526, 601 P.2d 1145, 1152 (1979); City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 501 P.2d 744, 745 (1972); City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626, 485 P.2d 737, 738 (Ct.App.1971). But these restrictions would surely have been uphe......
-
Robertson v. City and County of Denver, No. 93SA91
...regarding whether that right is fundamental. The next occasion in which this court applied article II, section 13, was Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 501 P.2d 744 (1972). In Lakewood, we reviewed the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance proscribing the possession or use of any dead......