Leave it to the Firearms Policy Coalition to say it how it is. They're not exactly known for mincing words on social media, being eager to tell others to perform anatomically improbable sexual acts upon their own person simply because that person advocates for some inane gun control idea. It might not win anti-gunners over, but what would? Instead, it rallies the troops, which is the point, and I'm here for it.
Normally, though, they tend to take a slightly different tone in legal filings and press releases. They're pros, after all, and they know the game.
Don't think for a minute that they don't know how to use a good turn of phrase in either of those, though. Case in point:
In their November 11 filings, the defendants attempt to defend their unconstitutional carry restrictions by pointing fingers at each other and asking the court to ignore the combined effect of their laws. Colorado argues that its laws permit open carry, conveniently ignoring Denver's prohibition on open carry. Denver, meanwhile, claims that FPC member and plaintiff Gene Hoffman's non-Colorado carry permits authorize him to carry concealed, even though Colorado refuses to recognize those permits for a California resident.
Denver also points to an exception for people with "valid authorization from the city," supported by a declaration from its police chief stating that he would have considered a request from Hoffman. But the possibility of receiving special permission from city officials is not a substitute for the constitutionally protected right to bear arms. Nor does an exception for transporting a handgun in a vehicle restore the ability to carry for self-defense while going about ordinary daily life.
"Colorado and Denver want everyone to ignore what their laws actually do. Colorado points to open carry, knowing Denver bans it. Denver points to concealed carry, knowing Colorado won't recognize the permits held by peaceable visitors. Their entire defense amounts to 'Pay no attention to the gun ban behind the curtain,'" said FPC President Brandon Combs. "But this isn't Oz, and the Constitution isn't an illusion. The Supreme Court has already made clear that peaceable Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Our victory against California's nonresident carry ban proved that fundamental rights don't stop at state lines. So Colorado and Denver can keep pointing fingers and making excuses, but they cannot hide their unconstitutional gun-control scheme from the courts or the People. FPC and our Grassroots Army will continue to Fight Forward until these immoral and unconstitutional restrictions are eliminated nationwide."
(Emphasis added by yours truly.)
Honestly, that's a very good way to phrase it. Colorado and Denver both seem to act as if there's not really an issue here, that people can carry without concern, but the truth of the matter is that between the two sets of laws, it's virtually impossible for a visitor to Denver to lawfully carry a firearm. The city's position is especially egregious.
Colorado could argue that they allow unlicensed open carry, and that's as far as they need to go, that there's no need for reciprocity in the first place. That might be a tolerable position in a lot of ways (and it's intolerable in many more), but Denver has expressly taken that and turned it up to 11 by banning open carry entirely. The idea that Hoffman's non-Colorado permit is somehow sufficient is apparently the fever dream of the city's attorneys, because state law still trumps local ordinances. Hoffman cannot lawfully carry a firearm. Period.
Calling it the "gun ban behind the curtain" is certainly accurate, because if you just look at state laws, you can clearly see you can carry a firearm even without reciprocity.
But Denver being Denver has decided that open carry is a problem, which might be OK if there were some kind of reciprocity. Since there's neither in the Mile High City, I don't see how they think this argument is actually going to fly.