Posted on 06/29/2020 11:12:08 AM PDT by real saxophonist
Colorado Supreme Court upholds 2013 large-capacity gun magazine ban as constitutional
By: Blair Miller
DENVER – The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on large-capacity gun magazines as constitutional in a ruling issued Monday nearly seven years after the law passed in the wake of the Aurora theater shooting.
“The legislation is a reasonable exercise of the police power that has neither the purpose nor effect of nullifying the right to bear arms in self-defense. Accordingly, the court affirms the judgment of the court of appeals,” Justice Monica M. Márquez wrote in the opinion.
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and other gun advocates in 2016 sued over the law, which banned gun magazines that hold more than 15 rounds, in 2016, arguing that Coloradans’ constitutional right to bear arms was violated by the magazine ban contained in House Bill 13-1224, which was passed by lawmakers and signed by then-Gov. John Hickenlooper in 2013.
The law, and others related to guns in Colorado, were passed after the 2012 Aurora theater shooting, in which the shooter used a large-capacity magazine and killed 12 people.
But RMGO challenged the law under Article II, Section 13 of the Colorado Constitution rather than the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, meaning that the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The attorneys for the gun groups had argued that the law could be construed to “ban practically all detachable magazines,” as Márquez wrote. About half of the state’s sheriffs had filed briefs in support of overturning the ban, though law enforcement agencies are exempt from the law.
But she wrote in the court’s opinion, “We disagree. We conclude that Plaintiff’s interpretation of the definition of ‘large-capacity magazine’ is inconsistent with the provision’s plain text because it ignores the narrowing language, ‘designed to be readily converted to accept[] more than fifteen rounds of ammunition.”
“Because Plaintiffs do not challenge HB 1224 under the Second Amendment, we do not address whether the legislation runs afoul of the federal constitution. That separate question is simply not before us,” the court wrote.
A district court and the Colorado Court of Appeals both previously found that the law was constitutional, so the Supreme Court’s ruling upheld the court of appeals’ ruling.
“I’m encouraged to see the Supreme Court uphold the 2013 large capacity magazine ban,” said Rep. Tom Sullivan, D-Centennial, whose son was killed in the Aurora shooting. “Gun violence has ravaged our state and our nation, and I came to the legislature to work to put an end to it. Large capacity magazines like the 100 round drum that was used on the night my son Alex was murdered can cause devastating carnage and have absolutely no place on our streets. I’ll keep working day in and day out to fight the epidemic of gun violence.”
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Also, LEOs have never cared about this unenforceable "law" as there is no way to determine WHEN a purchase occurred.
So, handgun mags have been easy to come by.
Colorado Ping ( Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
WTF... is this mentally ill ‘thing’
That’s the failure right there. Forget the state constitution. The Federal constitution is plain and simple. This would be a great case to get before the Supreme Court around the time President Trump’s next pick gets seated.
It’s from Colorado, the bat guano crazy state.
“...Recent events have made clear that the bans on full auto weapons is an unconstitutional restriction which is impacting the well-regulated militia of the nation....”
Well, the way that Raz from CHAZ clown was handing out weapons with no 4473s, background checks, etc. apparently means that these stupid laws are no longer applicable to the “unwashed masses”, so enjoy your fully suppressed, full-auto.
[[This would be a great case to get before the Supreme Court]]
We don’t have enough conservative judges to rule in our favor on SC though
Rough
i meant for now- hopefully the lawyers don’t try to fast track it to SC now-
We’ve compromised for 86 years, time and time again. We’ve compromised at the Federal level, the state level, and the local level. We’ve had bits and pieces sliced from the Second Amendment so many times there’s hardly anything left. Only when the liberals came for the last slice of the pie did the pendulum begin to swing back in the right direction.
No more compromise. Challenge every law. Challenge every restriction. Roll it all back, including FOPA, GCA, NFA; everything. It’s time to take back every part of the Second Amendment that’s been taken from us. The more the liberals overreach in their restrictions, the easier it is for us to get good cases through to the Supreme Court to establish lasting, binding precedent in favor of the Second Amendment. So screw all future compromises. Let them pass the most draconian BS legislation they dare, and let us win at the Supreme Court and push them back from trench to trench until the Second Amendment is 100% intact and fully protected by binding Federal precedent.
I think we do; at least, on the easy ones like this. Otherwise, Thomas and Kavanaugh wouldn’t be itching to take these cases. It’s also why Ginsburg and her buddies don’t want these cases: they all know how their peers will vote. If we want to attack the core of the GCA and the NFA, we need one or two more SCOTUS justices picked by President Trump. But with what we have today, we just need cert granted and we’ll win on these easy ones.
i hope so, but i do not trust roberts at all now- He’s proven that he doesn’t respect the constitution
That isn't on the menu right now. But you can take small wins when you can get them. Dudley isn't smart enough to get that. So we lost what could have been a win. We could have taken that and moved on to the next issue. Now it's sealed in by the CO Supreme Court. That's blowhard Browns big win.
That's a wish masquerading as a position. It is a complete crapshoot that Roberts would agree that 15 round magazine limits is an infringement on 2A.
They are hastening their retirement!
No. For user “adjustment”!
Sue the law firm for malpractice!! Utterly stupid-ass law firm!!
Good thing people can’t drive to Wyoming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.