City of Lakewood v. Pillow, No. C--164

Docket NºNo. C--164
Citation180 Colo. 20, 501 P.2d 744
Case DateOctober 10, 1972
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Page 744

501 P.2d 744
180 Colo. 20
The CITY OF LAKEWOOD, a municipal corporation of the State
of Colorado, Petitioner,
v.
Charles Edward PILLOW, Respondent.
No. C--164.
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.
Oct. 10, 1972.

[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
31 practice notes
  • State v. Hamdan, No. 01-0056-CR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • July 15, 2003
    ...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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 25, 1995
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 2, 2011
    ...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
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • May 2, 1994
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • State v. Hamdan, No. 01-0056-CR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • July 15, 2003
    ...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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 25, 1995
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 2, 2011
    ...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
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • May 2, 1994
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT