Seems to me this would violate preemption:
Sec. 75-49. Open carry/concealed weapons prohibited
(1)It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, wear about their person or under their clothes, or concealed about their person, any firearm, handgun or mechanical gun.
Source
You can't cherry-picking the law, my friend! You must read the ENTIRE code
Sec. 75-49. Open carry/concealed weapons prohibited.permanent link to this piece of content
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, wear about their person or under their clothes, or concealed about their person, any firearm, handgun or mechanical gun.
(2) The prohibition of wearing a handgun under one's clothes or concealing a handgun upon oneself shall not apply to any person in possession of valid state concealed handgun permit and in compliance with federal, state or local laws and regulations.
(3) The prohibition of carrying or concealing a handgun shall not apply to any person carrying or concealing a handgun within a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for the lawful protection of ones person or property while traveling.
(4) It shall be an affirmative defense to this section that the weapon was carried or concealed by such person:
(a) In defense of home, person or property, when in such home when there is a direct and immediate threat thereto;
(b) In aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned;
(c) For use in the course of lawful hunting activities or for transportation in the legitimate sporting use of such weapons, including shooting matches or other target shooting, or trap or skeet shooting, provided that all such weapons being so used shall be unloaded when carried or transported to or from such hunting trip or place of sporting use;
(d) When such person is a collector or licensed dealer displaying or transporting such weapon for display or sale, or a citizen transporting such weapon for purpose of sale or repair to or from a place of sale or repair provided that all firearms so displayed or transported shall be unloaded at all times; or
(e) While moving personal property as part of a relocation to a new residence.
The way the law works in most states, they tell you what's prohibited, then provide a list of exceptions. In the State of Colorado, those exceptions are called an "affirmative defense." Basically, they're a list of all the times when you can carry either OC or CC.
That's not to say the statute doesn't violate our State's Constitution. By narrowing down the times when you can carry, it also excludes all the other times permitted under the State Constitution, and therefore in violation of the Constitution.
Frankly, I'm at a loss as to how stupid some legislators can really be. In their stupidity, they wind up placing a huge financial burden on their own citizens to fight for the freedoms which the legislators should be protecting, not infringing.
I can't help but wonder if some of those legislators are lawyers who knowing and intentionally obfuscate the law in order to drum up more potential business for the law firms with which they've partnered. These and many similar incidents lead me to believe there will come a day when We the People are so fed up with these hijincks we pass amendments to bar all lawyers and anyone else with even a hint of conflict of interest from political office.
Regardless, on closer read, this is a FLAGRANT violation of the Second Amendment's prohibition against any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. It violates our State Constitution, as well. Vehemently.
The first time anyone attempts to enforce this, the city will LOSE between $30,000 and $65,000, hands down. Same as Ft. Collins did a few years back when they tried pulling the same crap. STUPID.
"Shall not be infringed" means "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."