The Cortez City Council on Tuesday night voted 4-3 to reject a move to opt out of a state law that disallows guns in city buildings.
The state law passed earlier this year and has been effective since July 1. Notably, it left a provision to allow individual local governments the power to opt out.
The Montezuma County Board of County Commissioners unanimously voted to opt out of Senate Bill 24-131 in June, so firearms are still allowed in county-owned buildings.
However, in some city-owned buildings, “unlawful carrying of a firearm in a government building is a class 1 misdemeanor,” according to state, and now city, law.
“It only applies to three areas: this chamber, any other room in which council is meeting and the executive offices of council and the chief executive,” said City Attorney Patrick Coleman at the meeting.
It also includes the municipal court and election-related parts of that building, but those were already considered “no carry zones,” Coleman said.
“I thought there’d be more tension, but everyone was respectful,” former Cortez Mayor Mike Lavey said about the meeting.
There was disagreement, however, among the public and council members alike.
Before council members shared their perspectives on the issue, the public had a platform to speak during public comment.
The first person to speak said she hoped the council opted out, “just as the county commissioners did.”
“(Criminals) do prefer soft targets, which they find in gun-free zones,” added the next citizen.
Lavey spoke next.
“I don’t think we need to have armed citizens in public buildings,” said Lavey. “I’m not saying that people may not be competent in their use of firearms, but it’s a very difficult situation to put yourself in.”
Lavey went on to say he’s had a lot of experience with firearms, as a petty officer in the Navy, a special deputy at the Sheriff’s Office and courtroom security, too.
“If you’ve ever gone through any of these trainings … it takes a split second-decision, which will affect your life and the person in front of that barrel,” Lavey said.
After Lavey, a community member voiced concerns of “greater government control.”
“If we get rid of the freedom to carry our firearms in public buildings that we, the people, are supposed to be in control of, that just gets rid of a little bit of freedom,” he said. “Pretty soon, we’re not going to be able to carry our firearms within city limits.”
“This is our Second Amendment. We don’t want to lose that,” another person said.
“I too am concerned about safety in public spaces. I am not convinced at all that allowing firearms in public spaces is the way to do that,” the final person to share said.
In a real-world situation where an attacker threatened community in a public space, there’s so much adrenaline and stress, which is opportunity for innocent people to be hurt, he said.
“Good intentions without proper training feels like a recipe for disaster,” he said. “I’m not against the Second Amendment at all, but I do feel there is a time and a place for everything.”
Next, the council members took turns voicing their views on what to do about concealed or open carry weapons in their chambers.
Council member April Randle called the legislation “politically inspired” and “redundant.”
She cited laws already in place that prohibit firearms within 100 feet of polling locations, ballot boxes, in courts and other federal buildings.
“But despite all of these laws, and despite the fact we currently have thousands of gun free zones in place in this United States of ours, we continue to suffer from gun violence and mass shootings,” Randle said.
She said accepting state law and disallowing guns in their chambers “makes us soft targets” and that 97% of mass shootings between 1998 and 2018 took place in gun-free zones.
The statistic is similar to a 2014 report from the Crime Prevention Research Center that former President Donald Trump cited in 2018. This report says from 1950 to 2016, 98% of mass shootings were in gun-free zones.
“The oft-cited figure comes from a study by a gun rights advocacy group that gun violence experts say is flawed,” according to The Associated Press.
“There is no definitive data on how many ‘mass shootings’ occur in ‘gun-free’ zones, because there is no consensus on how to define either term, experts said,” according to a fact-check article by AP News said.
Mayor Rachel Medina said, “I feel we have already addressed safety by having Chief (Vernon) Knuckles attend every single one of our meetings in the last four years.”
Medina added that for “more contentious” meetings, they bring in additional officers to “create a safeguard.”
“Council chambers and City Hall is an important place for citizens to freely speak. I know many would be uncomfortable stating opposing opinions to openly armed individuals,” Mayor Pro Tem Lydia DeHaven said.
Council member Dennis Spruell said, “We don’t need to depend on the police for our defense. We need to defend ourselves,” thus supporting the opt-out.
Council member Bill Lewis followed Spruell in opposition. He said shooters choose a specific location where they had been bullied or fired from a job.
“We are a country that has more guns than any other countries. We’re also a country that has one of the highest fatalities and homicides with guns. Where more guns are coming into the equation, the more volatility and risk for someone getting hurt,” Lewis said.
“I have to completely agree with what Bill just said,” Council member Matt Keefauver started.
Keefauver said guns are already not allowed in schools, hospitals, banks and universities.
“If this is ‘redundant,’ I don’t see the harm in saying no,” he said.
Council member Robert Dobry was the last to speak, and said there ought to be a “compelling interest” to the public to make this law.
“I don’t see how this law makes anyone safer. I felt the same amount of safety before this law existed as I do currently,” Dobry said.
City Attorney Coleman had drafted an ordinance in preparation for the Tuesday meeting to allow council to opt out of the state law.
When Spruell made a motion for a second reading and public hearing of the ordinance to opt out of the state law, Randle and Dobry said yes.
Medina, DeHaven, Lewis and Keefauver voted no.
“So the ordinance fails,” said Medina. “A new council can make a new decision on this, but today we’ve made a decision on this, and we thank you for being here and we’re going to move on.”
