A sharply divided Cortez City Council on Tuesday rejected a proposed ordinance that would have allowed people to bring firearms to council meetings.
The ordinance was on its first reading and would have had a public hearing on second reading, but the council voted 4 to 3 not to move it forward.
The proposed measure would have meant the council was opting out of a bill passed by the state legislature that bans concealed or open carry of weapons into what are called “sensitive spaces” in government. For Cortez that would mean council chambers and other council meeting rooms and the city manager’s offices.
Existing regulations already prohibit firearms in municipal court and places associated with voting.
The Montezuma County commissioners opted out of the legislation in June.
Although there was no actual public hearing on the topic at the council meeting, eight local residents gave public comments on the issue, five of them favoring allowing the weapons, three against it.
Former Cortez Mayor Mike Lavey was one who spoke. He said he has carried firearms numerous times throughout his life, including as a petty officer in the Navy and as a sheriff’s deputy providing courtroom security. He said he went through extensive training because it is difficult to know when it’s safe to shoot and when not to shoot.
“It takes a split-second decision which will affect your life and the person in front of the barrel, or innocent bystanders,” he said.
“I don’t think we need armed citizens in public buildings,” Lavey said.
But county resident Emiko South was one of those who disagreed, saying the state law prohibiting firearms in sensitive spaces is “an illegal law hindering our Second Amendment rights.”
Council members April Randle, Dennis Spruell, and Robert Dobry spoke in support of allowing firearms.
Randle gave a lengthy speech saying she was presenting facts rather than feelings. She said the state law is merely “a political statement” that “makes those of us who frequent the building soft targets.”
She said mass shooters overwhelmingly choose gun-free zones for their rampages, citing the killings at a concert in Las Vegas, Nev., in 2017, the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando in 2016, and Virginia Tech University in 2007.
“Evil is not deterred by signs or proclamations,” she said. “The only thing that stops evil is good.”
Randle continued, “I don’t believe we have the moral authority to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens of this city.”
Spruell called the state law “a feel-good ordinance that tries to make the people feel safe.” He said criminals won’t be deterred by one more law, and that having citizens with guns at council meetings could help protect against shooters.
Dobry agreed, saying, “I don’t see how this law makes anyone safer. . . .I don’t see permitted people creating problems in our city buildings.”
Council members Bill Lewis and Matt Keefauver disagreed with the argument that mass shooters deliberately select gun-free zones. They said shooters choose locations for reasons such as feeling bullied in schools or mistreated at work, or racial or anti-gay motivations.
Lewis said he had heard many comments that night indicating that “the more of us that carry firearms, the safer we’ll be,” but that wasn’t the case.
“We are a country that has more guns than any country,” Lewis said. “We’re also a country that has one of the highest [rates of] fatalities and homicides with guns.”
Keefauver noted that he had been a teacher for 30 years. He said during the first 20 or 25 years he was in a so-called “soft target” situation, “but it was only at the end [of his career] that I felt there was an imminent threat, when we actually did have armed guards, when we weren’t a soft target.”
Mayor Rachel Medina and Vice Mayor Lydia DeHaven joined the majority in voting down the proposed ordinance.
Medina said she feels the issue of safety at council meetings has been addressed by having Police Chief Vernon Knuckles attend the meetings.
DeHaven said she doesn’t believe true democracy and open discourse can take place when guns or weapons are allowed at council meetings.
“I know many people would be uncomfortable stating opposing opinions to openly armed individuals,” she said. “I see this as defending people’s rights, particularly our constitutional rights to freedom of speech.”
