DnvrFox

Bike Ban Court Proceedings Begin
Bicyclists Have Moved to Dismiss the Charges Based on an Invalid Ordinance

Gregory Street is part of Black Hawk's current bike ban.On Wednesday, August 18, three bicyclists that received tickets for riding their bikes in Black Hawk appeared in court for arraignment and pled not guilty based on an invalid ordinance. This initiates the legal process to determine the validity of the bike ban.

At the hearing, the defense attorneys moved to dismiss the charges and submitted a legal brief arguing that bike ban violates state law and is unconstitutional. Primary among the arguments are that the bike ban ordinance violates state law because it prohibits cycling on the access road connecting Black Hawk to other communities, and that it is unconstitutional because it treats Black Hawk citizens differently from visitors.

The judge ordered a comprehensive briefing schedule and set a hearing for oral argument on the matter for October 20 in Black Hawk.

View the Brief Online

Kurt Erlenbach

That is a well-done brief. It's clear the lawyers are loaded for bear. This should be fun to follow.

lhbernhardt

I think this is less about the rights of cyclists (which is pretty obvious - they are riding on and operating "vehicles" with all rights/responsibilities attendant) and more about the "right" of a municipality to make a law that contravenes state or federal codes. But hey, what do I know? IANAL.

Luis

John E

It's about a rogue municipal government trying to pass a law which violates the U.S. Constitution by depriving citizens of their fundamental right to mobility. I am extremely heartened to see it being challenged in a court of law by competent attorneys.

DnvrFox

Given that the case is being heard in the Municipal Court, City of Blackhawk, and that the town council is highly representative of the casino industry, et., etc. and that the population of BH was 118 in the 2000 census, one would not reasonably expect that the judge for the city of Blackhawk will make any finding other than in Blackhawk's favor, and that final disposal of the case wil llikely end up at the Colorado Supreme Court, a more fairly based body, hopefully.

nycphotography

My right to mobility? I musta missed that amendment. Which one was it again?

Kurt Erlenbach

The Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The right to travel is inferred from several parts of the constitution and has been part of constitutional law for a long time

"As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights."

https://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel

Unless, of course, the Constitution is a dead document that means only what the original framers thought it meant at the time, which, of course, would render the Ninth Amendment superfluous.

nycphotography

I love it. it's not in the Constitution. It's in common and case law. Yet somehow it's "constitutional law".

Yeah, it was so fundamental that they put it in the constitution by not mentioning it. Yeah, that's the ticket.

The Weak Link

Naaaah. Too tired to take you to task on that one. Dare I say, take it to P&R? Or A&S? But no complaints here, God forbid.

The Weak Link

Don't even try around here. Better to drop it now IMHO.

But that's just me. When I want to argue politics I go outside and talk to the brick wall. It's about as effective. Good night and God bless.

kdiehl

Is there a legal defense fund we can contribute to?

DnvrFox

https://bicyclecolo.org/articles/blac...ban-pg1118.htm

Robert Foster

Doesn't New Youk have a Law against owning a hand gun? Isn't that right in the constitution? I could be wrong but I thought they did. Doesn't Denver have a law against owning a Pit Bull in the city? Or is that Bolder? I am not clear on this either. Breed specific laws seem to push the limit as well. I know some cities ban alcohol and some don't. I believe there are some cities that prohibit cars, Catalina comes to mind but there are others I believe.

I am not in favor of this law but I have to wonder if they can ban cars, guns, alcohol and Pit bulls can they not as a city ban bikes? The FAA controls the air but cities can ban untralights from flying over them. You have to wonder how this will work out?

Kurt Erlenbach

Believe it or not T, I wrote that with you in mind hoping and expecting to get a rise out of you. But 12 minutes, I never though it would be that quick. You, sir, are da man.

DnvrFox

If you folks get my thread moved to P&R I am going to be really pissed!

Kurt Erlenbach

By the way, you should read the briefs. They are based almost exclusively on Colorado statutory law, not constitutional law. Cases are almost always decided on statutory or common law grounds, not constitutional grounds. In fact, there is a judging rule that says you rule on constitutional grounds only as a last resort.

Kurt Erlenbach

Sorry, sir. I'll be quiet now.

nycphotography

Why would someone post about this (original post subject) here in the first place? The entire subject is pure A&S and shouldn't be allowed here at all if this section is so sensitive.

Second, I'm not talking politics, I'm talking law, and mostly nitpicking.

smdh.....

The Weak Link

zac

You need to understand the original intent of the Constitution and the influences upon the Drafters and the Founding Fathers. Your comment indicates that you do not fully appreciate those ideas and ideals that were held so dearly by the founding fathers, that they were specifically omitted from enumeration.

I am saddened when I see or hear comments such as yours and how some misunderstand the US Constitution at such a fundamental level. Certainly you are not alone, many feel the same, and it is sad.

nycphotography

Zac, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

But don't worry, I'm done discussing it in this particular thread, so don't bother to try to make sense out of it for me.

Shifty

This is an important issue for all of us, not just Colorado. There is a movement from the _____ to demonize bikes as the enemy of car drivers. It's a constant mantra of certain blabber mouth radio talk shows, and it's influencing many governments to enact similar bike bans. It may just be designed to win votes, but it still hurts us all.

himespau 

Guess it's a good think I don't listen to morning talk shows then.

The Weak Link

As a Jeffersonian democrat and a Burkean under Thomistic influence, I have such fear of concentrating much power in the hands of the few that I am fearful of it in any form, whether it be: an evil cartel of Petrochemical industrialists polluting our planet for profit; a state gaming commission empowering local governments to write stupid anti-cycling laws; or gay judges who are incapable of discerning any compelling rationale in the last two thousand years of civilization, thus countering the clearly expressed will of the People.

As Aquinas said, a just law entails that it be clearly expressed, widely promoted, and straightfowardly interpretable. The Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, meets these criteria. This is contrary to assertions that the Unwashed Masses are Incapable of Interpreting the Bill because it was written in Ancient and Arcane Language and can only be rendered by Members of a Secret Guild Who Understand the Shadows and Penumbras of the Dead Letter.

Might I translate that for you? I think the city council of Blackhawk is pretty dumb.

CHAS

Glad to see this is being competently contested.
Sorry to see a bunch on non-attorneys displaying their polarized attitudes rather than commenting on the value of defeating the ban for cyclists.