VOLUME 40 • NUMBER 18 • MARCH 31, 2022
Since 1982
www.facebook.com/thevillager1982
twitter.com/thevillager1982
GV struggles with whether to ban new gun sellers in residential neighborhoods BY FREDA MIKLIN GOVERNMENTAL REPORTER
On February 7, Pam SchellVarcony, a Greenwood Village resident who lives three-tenths of a mile from Tomcat Tactical, a retail business that sells firearms and ammunition out of a home on Powers Drive off Dayton Street in Greenwood Village that the business owner rents (he is not the homeowner), presented her city council with petitions that she said contained 250 signatures from GV residents and 25 more from other concerned citizens, asking the city council to close down the business because it violated GV’s municipal code in multiple ways listed on the petition. The petition also asked the council to stop licensing gun-selling businesses in GV residential areas. Approximately six other neighbors addressed the council about Tomcat Tactical, including its owner, a supporter of his, and four GV residents, including a former city council member, who said they felt it was highly inappropriate to sell guns and bullets out of a residential home and the council should put a stop to it. Six weeks later, on March 21, the GV City Council held a study session on the subject. Although a number of concerned GV residents attended, none were allowed to speak because it is the GV council’s practice not to permit public input at its study sessions, though there is no law that prevents it. In nearby Cherry Hills Village, residents’ input
is welcomed and often heard at city council study sessions. The council discussed a staff report prepared by City Attorney Tonya Haas Davidson, including an 11-page memorandum from outside attorney Geoff Wilson, who GV retained to consult on the issues raised in the petitions it received on February 7, due to his long experience and recognized expertise in municipal law. Wilson was asked to advise the council on whether Tomcat Tactical was in violation of GV’s municipal code and, “the legal considerations, should Council elect to prohibit the sale of firearms in residential areas within the City,” on a going-forward basis. Wilson, in his memo and in testimony presented to the city council in the March 21 study session, concluded that Tomcat Tactical was not in violation of the city’s municipal code because 1) having a website with multiple photographs of weapons did not constitute the guns being “on display from outside the dwelling,” which is prohibited. He also noted in his testimony that 2) for the business to constitute a “nuisance,” it must
create a substantial annoyance to citizens in their enjoyment of (their) property.” A nuisance is typically exemplified by an operation being offensive to the senses, i.e., unsightly, noisy, or malodorous. Wilson reported that his information was that guns for sale at the home business are kept unloaded and ammunition was “stored in a secure manner,” not loaded into guns.
GV’s police chief told the council that there have been no substantive police calls for service at Tomcat Tactical since it began operating. For all those reasons, Wilson’s opinion was that Tomcat Tactical was not in violation of GV’s municipal code thus not subject to being closed down by the city. Wilson next addressed whether there were “constitutional or other
SUBSCRIBE TO THE VILLAGER TODAY - CALL 303-773-8313
Price $1 per copy
legal considerations” that would prevent GV from changing its zoning code to prevent allowing additional retail firearm and ammunition sellers, going forward, the second request of the 275 people who were reported to have signed the petitions presented to city council six weeks earlier. His answer was no. Wilson cited recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, as well as a Colorado law passed last June, SB21-256 Local Regulation of Firearms, that, “broadened the authority of local governments to legislate with respect to firearms.” Later on, City Attorney Haas Davidson bolstered that argument further, noting that, “There is a Ninth Circuit decision that says the Second Amendment does not provide you with a right to sell,” and that residential gun sellers “are a high target for burglaries,” which would make prohibiting additional retail gun sellers in the city a reasonable decision by the council. In response to a question from City Council Member Anne Ingebretsen, Wilson said that no cities in Colorado that have passed ordinances prohibiting retail sales of firearms in residential areas prospectively have been sued for doing so. Council Member Dave Bullock said, “We all know that there’s passionate people on both sides of this issue.” When he asked Wilson to opine again on the petitioners’ request to prevent new retail gun sellers in residential areas, Wilson said, “In terms of what they have requested additionally in their
“My disposition is to be fairly conservative in my advice. I try to keep people from getting sued. I don’t think you’re going to get sued if you try and limit prospectively commercial sales of firearms in residential areas,” adding that anyone could sue, but, “You wouldn’t get sued successfully.” - Municipal Law Expert Attorney Geoff Wilson petition, going forward, that’s lawful. That’s within your authority to deliver to the citizens.” There was discussion about a pending case in Boulder on firearm sales but Wilson made it clear that it was a business regulation case regarding what types of ammunition and magazines could be sold, whereas GV’s issue was a land use question based on its zoning code, and the issues were unrelated. In response to questions from Council Member Paul Wiesner and Ingebretsen, Wilson said, “My disposition is to be fairly conservative in my advice. I try to keep people from getting sued. I don’t think you’re going to get sued if you try and limit prospectively comContinued on page 2