Crested Butte council tangled up in open carry signage debate

How many signs are too many?

A technicality pointed out Monday, March 17 by Norman Wright, acting Crested Butte town attorney, postponed a council decision over the new “Open Carry” of firearms ordinance. Town Attorney John Belkin, who wrote the ordinance and might have been able to explain a confusing provision in the proposed ordinance, was away on vacation. The council will take up the issue at their next meeting on April 7.

But before that technicality postponed action by the council, the board spent 30 minutes at the meeting debating what specific places in town staff should carry a firearms ban. The issue first arose when a local citizen asked the town staff about the ordinance prohibiting any open carry of firearms anywhere in town. He had wanted to carry a gun while walking his dog at night to protect himself against possible wildlife encounters.
The staff then discovered that under Colorado regulations, the town could not have a blanket prohibition against people openly carrying guns, but they could carve out a ban on specific town-owned property. Under that state law, any such location would need to have a sign declaring such a prohibition.
Chief Marshal Tom Martin has told the council that in his 29 years in the department, the issue has popped up only a small handful of times. So the council debate on Monday centered primarily on how many signs to post under the replacement ordinance. As written, the ordinance listed all the possible places the council could enact the ban and post signs. That amounted to about 30 locations, ranging from Town Hall and Rainbow Park to the Zamboni Shed and Tony’s Shed behind the museum.
As written, the ordinance gave discretion to the town manager to post signs where he felt it would be appropriate.
Mayor Aaron Huckstep felt placing signs at Town Hall and the Marshal’s Building would be sufficient. He voiced a concern that posting a lot of signs throughout town would send the wrong message about a problem that didn’t exist. Councilperson Jim Schmidt originally stated he was fine with placing signs and prohibiting open carry of firearms at all the town-owned properties.
Councilman Roland Mason said that looking through the list, he would expect about five or six signs would be enough.
Citizen and “open carry” advocate John Wirsing said he understood the concerns voiced by council members at earlier meetings over safety and intimidation issues. “I would encourage you to scale back the places to Town Hall or other town-owned buildings,” he suggested. “As Tom has said, it’s not a real issue here. Remember that criminals are not the ones who will obey this law. I’ve had a lot of people, many of them women, say they want to be able to protect themselves and be able to carry a firearm. People also like to walk their dogs in the parks and feel safer at night with a firearm when the bears are roaming. So I would ask you to reconsider the locations.”
“That will be up to the discretion of the town manager,” emphasized Huckstep. “Not everything on the list will be signed.”
“I think it should be up to us,” countered Councilman Chris Ladoulis. “We shouldn’t wash our hands of this and defer to the staff.”
“If we signed all of these places I think it would cause more community harm by sending that message that this is a problem here,” said Councilperson Shaun Matusewicz.
“I agree,” said Huckstep. “My perception was that we should sign the Town Hall and Marshal’s Department building. Everyone understands there is not some big issue here. And it gives flexibility to the staff.”
“I’ve gotten a lot of comments opposite to those John Wirsing is hearing,” said Schmidt. “I feel safer without a gun and especially if there aren’t guns in the council meeting room.”
“So you want the signs at every suggested location?” asked Matusewicz.
“Yes,” responded Schmidt.
“We heard clearly that the council didn’t want this overdone,” said Town Manager Todd Crossett.
“I don’t want to start with 25 or 30 properties,” said Mason. “I’d prefer maybe five.”
“We aren’t giving clear direction,” said Ladoulis. “There’s too much ambiguity.”
Jake Jones, Parks and Recreation director, said he would strongly support signing and prohibiting weapons in the town parks “where we have a lot of children, coaches and refs that could be subject to intimidation. Nationally, we have seen such instances in the past.”
“Without the signage we don’t have the enforcement powers. I’d support Jake’s idea,” stated Martin.
“If it’s this confusing to us as written, what will a council think about it ten years from now?” asked Matusewicz.
“I disagree,” said Huckstep. “It simply invests the authority in the town staff to determine where the signs are needed.”
“Let’s be clear about the intent of the ordinance,” said Ladoulis. “Is the intent to discourage the open carry of firearms in certain places? Or is our interest as a council to allow open carry as long as there is no belligerence or issues or until there is a complaint?”
“Council is responsible for policy and how it is administered is up to the staff,” said Huckstep. “Whether or not to sign Henderson Park, for example, is an administrative issue.”
“I disagree,” said Ladoulis. “The policy issue is whether we allow people to wear a holster and gun at Henderson Park with a bunch of three-year-olds there.”
“I look at it like a speed limit sign,” said Schmidt. “We don’t have them every single inch. It’s a nonissue. I guess I don’t expect signs at every property. We don’t need one on the shed behind the museum, for example.”
“I think we understand what the council is asking,” said Crossett.
“This is not a sign ordinance,” said Ladoulis. “It’s a gun ordinance. If it was a sign ordinance I’d be okay with this level of ambiguity.”
“Look, the only reason this is here is because we had an ordinance that wasn’t enforceable,” said Huckstep. “We need to replace something in the existing code. That’s it. Knowing that it hasn’t been issue, I don’t expect a wild change in anyone’s behavior.”
“The ordinance is a major overreaction,” added Matusewicz. “If it wasn’t about guns we wouldn’t be talking about it.”
“What was on the books was the town as a gun-free zone,” said Ladoulis.
“It’s a frustrating conversation,” admitted Huckstep.
“I think it is an ordinance and statement that needs to be made,” said Schmidt. “I just want to give it to Todd and let it go.”
It was at this point in the discussion that attorney Wright pointed out a confusing clause in the ordinance that no one had noticed. So the council agreed to continue the matter at the next meeting when Belkin would be there to clear up the language.
Whether the council will clear up the signage issue is up to them.