Strict statutory construction requires that penal statutes be construed liberally in favor of those whose interests are affected by the statute. See, e.g., People v. Home Insurance Co., 197 Colo. 260, 591 P.2d 1036 (1979); Battaglia v. Moore, 128 Colo. 326, 261 P.2d 1017 (1953). On occasion the rule of strict construction has been applied to statutory forfeitures and disabilities not amounting to pure criminal sanctions.
As a general rule, legislation restricting one's right to pursue a lawful business or profession will be strictly construed in favor of the existence of the right and against the limitation. Positions, Inc. v. Steel Deck Siding Co. (1976), 138 Ga. App. 200, 225 S.E.2d 769; Battaglia v. Moore (1953), 128 Colo. 362, 261 P.2d 1017; Clymer v. Zane (1934), 128 Ohio 359, 191 N.E. 123. An analogy is found in State v. City of Butte (1959), 135 Mont. 350, 340 P.2d 535, where we held that the city could not obtain license fees or regulate a business unless specifically provided in an ordinance even though a statute empowered the city to license all businesses. The Department argues that a construction of the Act permitting Albertson's contemplated activity will create chaos in the milk industry.
* * *" Englewood v. Apostolic Church, 146 Colo. 374, 362 P.2d 172. In Battaglia v. Moore, 128 Colo. 326, 261 P.2d 1017, this court, in an opinion concurred in by all the justices, said: "* * * Any legislation purporting to restrict one's right to follow any lawful, useful calling, business or profession, will be strictly construed in favor of the existence of the right, and against the limitation."
We disagree with both assertions. First, while it is true that the state may not erect arbitrary barriers to a person's engaging in a lawful business, see Battaglia v. Moore, 128 Colo. 326, 261 P.2d 1017 (1953), such an argument here, as a separate assertion, begs the question. If the statutory provision disqualifying persons who have previous gambling-related convictions is reasonably related to a legitimate state purpose and does not otherwise rest upon arbitrary considerations, it may properly be applied to prevent applicant's licensure.
Statutes which operate to restrain the exercise of any trade or occupation or the conduct of business have been held to be within the purview of this rule. See West Virginia Board of Dental Examiners v. Storch, 122 S.E.2d 925 (W.Va. 1961); and Battaglia v. Moore, 261 P.2d 1017 (Colo. 1953). In Battaglia, the court rules squarely that legislation purporting to restrain one's right to follow any lawful, useful calling, business, or profession will be strictly construed in favor of the existence of the right and against the limitation.