Federal Judge Upholds Colorado’s Mag Cap Ban: No One Need More Than 15 Rounds for Self-Defense

Judge Marcia Krieger (courtesy blogs.westword.com)

“A federal judge on Thursday upheld Colorado’s new gun-control laws that mandated background checks for all gun sales and limited the capacity of ammunition magazines to no more than 15 rounds,” denverpost.com reports. Click here to read Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger’s ruling. Or not, as it contains statements bound to raise your blood pressure, starting with “the Supreme Court does not equate the Second Amendment ‘right to keep and bear arms’ to guarantee an individual the ‘right to use any firearm one chooses for self-defense.'” Thank you “reasonable regulations” Heller loophole. As for ammunition magazines . . .

Of the many law enforcement officials called to testify, none were able to identify a single instance in which they were involved where a single civilian fired more than 15 shots in self defense.

Huh. So police aren’t civilians. Who knew? Anyway, who cares how many rounds it takes to defend oneself or with what weapon? I thought the Second Amendment was pretty clear about Americans’ civil and natural rights (the bit about shall not be infringed) – whether or not the infringements are “worthwhile” or not.

The Judge understands the proviso, but turns it on its head.

Whether adoption of a fifteen-round magazine limit is a sound public policy or a perfect fit with the General Assembly’s objective to improve public safety is not the question before this  Court. The fit may not be perfect, but the evidence establishes both an important governmental policy and a substantial relationship between that policy and the restriction of § 18-12-302. The provisions of § 18-12-302 are permissible under the Second Amendment.

Because . . . ? She also upheld the extension of background checks to private sales and transfers. “Nothing in the Second Amendment can be read to suggest that a permissible burden on commercial sales of firearms cannot similarly be extended to apply to those acquiring firearms by loan.” Again, “shall not be infringed.”

The plaintiffs have filed an appeal.

 

comments

  1. What is the problem here?

    Obviously now nobody in Colorado will ever use any magazine that holds more than 15 rounds. Because the Law!

    1. avatar Sian says:

      Unless the police are also restricted to 15 rounds I’m calling bullshit.

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Yup

      2. avatar Mark says:

        Right there with you Sian. Another illustration of the argument that upper education does not confer common sense or intelligence.

  2. avatar DisThunder says:

    This ain’t over, lady.

    1. avatar jerry says:

      “This ain’t over lady” Sure it is. Who exactly is gong to do anything about it? The courts? Obviously not. The politicians(democrats) who enacted the law? Nope. The voters who put the dems in charge so that they could enact it? Not likely. So yes my friend, this is indeed over.

      1. avatar Chubby says:

        Sad, but true.

        1. avatar Joe Grine says:

          Nothing is over when it comes to politics. It just depends on how badly people want change. The problem we have is that too many stupid gun owners that vote for Democrats. I can’t tell you how many guns owners I know that told me “Obama isn’t going to take your guns” and related nonsense like that. These stupid fools actually VOTED FOR OBAMA! How F**king stupid could you have been to actually vote for that clown – twice in some cases. ???? So frustrating.

        2. avatar JKnTX says:

          Nonsense. She is in direct violation of her oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Nowhere anywhere in that document does it authorize any judge, including those of the so called Supreme Court to interpret it as they see fit.
          Her “ruling” can be struck down on appeal, as many other BS ones in several venues have been.

      2. avatar Rusty Shackleford says:

        She is a Federal Judge and therein lies the problem. Article III courts are general trial courts and can hear any kind of federal case. These include the federal trial courts, appellate courts, and the Supreme Court. The judges for these courts are nominated by the President and confirmed by Congress. Once in office, the judges can remain in their positions for life. Article I courts are created by Congress to administer the laws that Congress writes. These can include bankruptcy courts, tax courts, and certain military courts. Judges are appointed by Congress and serve for 10 years, after which they may be reappointed.

      3. avatar Fancis says:

        It’s not over until the fat lady sings.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      Lady?? Physical components do not a lady make.

  3. avatar Greg says:

    The Bill of Rights is not a limiter on our freedom.

    It is a limiter on govt. power.

    You’re a judge and you don’t understand this?

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      I lot of judges fail to understand this simple concept. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say “the people are granted the right to…” or “the government shall allow the people to…” But it’s still approached on that basis.

    2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Haven’t you heard? The Constitution is a ‘living document’, malleable enough to mean whatever the hell they want it to mean.

    3. avatar SteveInCO says:

      I am just cynical enough to think she was made a judge, in part, *because* she doesn’t understand this.

      1. avatar BR549 says:

        She was nominated by Bush the Idiot, but she acts like a freakin’ Democrat.

    4. avatar DMZ says:

      Unfortunately, the exceptions that are allowed to all of our rights are what’s called “rational basis,” “intermediate scrutiny,” or “Strict scrutiny.” They’re varying degrees of tests the government has to pass. Rational basis is probably what this judge applied and all it requires is basically they’re sincere in passing the law and it’s somewhat related to the subject. Which is why she said “Whether adoption of a fifteen-round magazine limit is a sound public policy or a perfect fit with the General Assembly’s objective to improve public safety is not the question before this Court. The fit may not be perfect.”

      Mag bans wouldn’t pass strict scrutiny though, which is what the First Amendment is under, for example.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Except that not all speech falls within the protection of the First Amendment, e.g., commercial speech, incitement to riot, threats of harm, defamatory speech, etc. And what Miller said, although it is not a true Second Amendment case, is that the government can regulate some kinds of weapons without invading the interests protected by the Second Amendment.

      2. avatar Bob says:

        Agreed.

        Didn’t one of the big SCOTUS decisions lately (Heller or MacDonald) say that “Strict Scrutiny” should be applied when deciding cases related to the 2nd Amendment? This decision definitely does not survive the Strict Scrutiny test.

    5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Greg,

      The fundamental problem is that judges — part of government — are supposed to limit government. Why would a part of government attack itself? It is a classic case of “the fox guarding the hen house”.

      Judges know full what the U.S. and state constitutions mean and say. However those pieces of paper are absolutely powerless to stop judges from siding with government. It really is up to us — We the People — to limit government.

    6. avatar int19h says:

      The Bill of Rights is a part of the US Constitution, which as a whole is a grant of powers from the People and the States to the federal government that they were establishing. So you’re correct, but this has nothing to do with the state law that is under scrutiny here. The grant of power from People to their respective State governments is the Constitution of the corresponding state, in this case Colorado.

      Now it so happens that the Bill of Rights was later taken to also be a limiter against the power of states, via the 14th Amendment. But in that case it is explicitly a limiter, not a grant.

    7. avatar Fancis says:

      Holy cow, some one else knows how to read and comprehend. The Constitution grants no power or rights to anyone, it only limits the power and establishes the limitations of the federal government.

  4. avatar Blah says:

    Are off duty cops subject to the same laws?

    1. avatar blahpony says:

      No, only civilians.

      /sarc

      1. avatar Gene says:

        Police are not covered by the UCMJ – they’re civilians.

      2. avatar Anonymoose says:

        Right, I remember reading a thing by Massad Ayoob where he said he switched carrying a 1911 when travelling through New York.

  5. avatar Jaypee says:

    Instead of saying there wasn’t a time where 15 rounds was needed, show me a time a magazine capacity law has prevented a crime……go on, i’ll wait……

    1. avatar Jeff says:

      Those coming from the IT world would tell you that the government now treats the law with a “deny by default” policy.

      That is to say, their opinions as of late are based on the logic that if something is not explicitly allowed by law, it’s fair game to regulate and restrict into obscurity or uselessness, and citizens thereby have no reasonable expectation to remain free in the case of the acts or objects being targeted.

      This is the reverse of how a free society is supposed to operate.

  6. avatar Bob Wall says:

    Marcia, Marcia, Marcia…

    Doesn’t prevent the use of 20-30 round mags purchased prior to the ban. CO sheriffs said they can’t (and won’t) enforce the rule, as there’s no proof of magazines being purchased before or after ban.

    Aaaaaaaaannnnnd… it’s off to the 10th Circuit!

    1. avatar anonymous says:

      as there’s no proof of magazines being purchased before or after ban.

      Most AR-15 magazines, including Magpul, have date codes on them.

      If the date code is after July 2013, then the magazine was purchased after the law went into effect.

      1. avatar Sian says:

        But there’s plenty new pre-july 2013 mags still in their plastic baggies. The code only says when it was made, not when it was sold.
        So you can be sure of any magazine dated after the ban, but anyone before is fair game, no matter when it was actually purchased because, impossible.

        1. avatar anonymous says:

          In a generation, it won’t matter.

          1) current magazines will eventually wear out and require replacement. I believe the Army considers magazines “Class IX repair parts” or “consumable parts”, I forget which. While not “disposable”, the military recognizes that mags weren’t designed to last.

          2) in a generation, there will be gun owners who won’t have been old enough to “possess” pre-2013 mags. No matter when the magazine was made, it will be obvious due to the owner’s age that the magazines were acquired illegally.

          While touted as a “moderate” restriction, the magazine law is in effect a complete ban on all future possession.

        2. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          @ anonymous:

          In much less than a generation, I will be able to print cheap and reliable 30 – 40 round Magpul-like magazines out of various materials from a cheap 3D printer. We already are seeing ones that will last 500 – 1000 rounds with current materials. Passing laws that are unenforceable is just the norm now a days. I guess Harvey Silvergate will have to upgrade his book title to Five Felonies a Day.

        3. avatar neiowa says:

          Maybe but don’t bet your life savings (or “arsenal”) on it. Practical RP is just around the corner is a song going back at least 25years.

      2. avatar Avid Reader says:

        How about a momentary application of the tip of a hot soldering iron to the mold date?

  7. avatar Nighthawk says:

    “no one needs it?” okay limit your federal agents to 15 rounds. Start with the Secret Service. No exceptions.

    1. avatar Powers says:

      No, no, she and the agents who protect judges do need more than 15 rounds, because something unexpected may happen and they may need more than 15 rounds per mag. Regular unwashed masses tho, don’t. Because the worst outcome that can happen is a dead victim of a crime who didn’t have enough rounds in their magazine. And that’s ok. The elites and others deemed worthy need every advantage they can get though. Don’t you want them protected as much as possible so they can protect you with laws?

    2. avatar Fred says:

      What exactly is the basis for this “need” argument? What is the gain? It has been shown magazine size has no real effect on the rate of fire, the bad guys prepare for firefights with as many mags as they want while the good guys (us) don’t, it creates victimless crimes occupying the police and new felons that were law-abiding, and this has hurt Colorado’s economy. The only explanation I can think of is adding more infringements to deter people from carrying and using firearms.

      How about other areas of public policy? No one needs an SUV. No one needs fast food. No one needs unrestricted internet access. This country doesn’t revolve around what people need.

      1. avatar Sian says:

        No one needs a soft drink larger than 48 ounces, right Bloomberg?

        1. avatar Anonymoose says:

          iirc it was 16 ounces, and they the NY Supreme Court just struck it down. Now if only they would do something about getting rid of the unSAFE Act…

        2. avatar Will says:

          @Anonymoose… They only struck it down because it was arbitrary. Some places would be effected and others wouldn’t.

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Who “needs” judges, anyway? Arbitrators can do just as much at a fraction of the cost. I don’t “need” a judge to stop a home invader, do I?

        See how well that line of reasoning works? Institutional speciousness,

        1. avatar Will says:

          Well, you may, or many not, like a Taurus Judge to stop a BG/Home Invasion.

  8. avatar Fred says:

    “Obviously the Second Amendment states this right ‘shall not be infringed’, but it doesn’t specifically state this restriction is an infringement or is unconstitutional”.

    Since when are exceptions made the law? It’s completely boggling to me. The people need to know our rights are now conditional and the government makes all the rules (which they don’t have to follow), but most don’t seem to care.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      As long as the SNAP Card gets recharged, the Welfare check comes in on time and their favorite show is on tonight, no they don’t care. Because that’s “deep thought” for a lot of inner city residents. And those are the electorate that turn up at the polls time after time.

  9. avatar Dermott says:

    She was put on the federal bench by Bush, the Junior. How do we get these people?

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Bush? The RINO beltway establishment anointed him. Now planning the same for his little bro. America needs a royal aristocracy you know?

      Or the chic judge? Got have some diversity on intelligence and logic on the bench.

  10. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    The good ol’ Bill of Needs strikes again.

    1. avatar Oakriver says:

      Hehe. I may be using that line in the future

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        I’m telling you, man. That Bill of Needs gets us every time…

        No one needs 15 round mags, no one need protection from illegal search and seizure, no one needs due process, no one needs 10 rounds to kill a “dee-ah”, in that douchey NY accent.

        1. avatar BonesMccoy says:

          Lol, great movie! “…and my biological clock *stomp, stomp, stomp is ticking…”

  11. avatar Patrick says:

    If want see how this place out in future all have to look at state of California where no one been able appeal mandated background checks for all gun sales and limited the capacity of ammunition magazines to no more than 10 rounds. This reason now live in Arizona.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Either you had a stroke while writing that, or your voice-recognition software is really crappy.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Rosetta Stone + Dragon Software. They were speaking Uzbek.

  12. avatar tdgrafton says:

    I find it interesting that the arguments for ammo limits are similar for limiting soda in New York.

    1. avatar BonesMccoy says:

      Ammo makes us fat and gives us diabetes?

      1. avatar Will says:

        Now the argument has turned to “Sugar not only makes you fat, but it kills you too.” Pfffffffffft. Control freaks.

  13. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    guys – relax. few legal things:

    1) While we expect the judge to show courage, a district court judge is a hack. Ct. of Appeals is where it is at.

    2) 10th Circuit (where Colorado sits) is much more receptive to our cause. This actually means we get more states under the gambit of a favorable ruling in a year or so.

    I am pissed, but you have to make lemonade out of lemons.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Good point DD,
      At least it’s not in the Ninth Circus.

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        Tom

        given some of the recent rulings from the 9th and them having their own recent Road to Damascus conversion on the 2nd Amendment and finally recognizing the right to carry, I would be ok with it being there.

        The 10th is more conversative and the Post Office decision came out of the D.Ct there in Colorado (haven’t heard if feds appealed it or not) so let’s wait and see, but the 7th and 9th Circuits have all applied strict scrutiny to these types of laws and so far to our favor. If the 10th makes the same call, it works for us. If not, there is another potential circuit split for SCOTUS to take a look at.

        1. avatar B says:

          Didn’t the 9th rule it was OK for Oakland to ban all normal cap mags?

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        In response to B: Actually it is San Francisco that did that, and the law was upheld by the district court. It is now on appeal to the Ninth. Because of San Francisco’s success, just yesterday Los Angeles began considering doing the same. Now to be clear, the State already bans “high capacity mags” (more than 10 rounds) unless they were possessed before January 1, 2001. San Francisco extended that, and banned the possession of all high capacity mags, even for off-duty or retired police officers, such that active duty officers can only carry issued duty mags but not personally purchased mags. The same law applies to nonresidents who visit San Francisco (and who actually happen to have a CCW and 10+ mags.) Because of the State’s ban on the sale or transfer of high or large capacity magazines, anyone possessing them (in the City) must destroy them, turn them into the police for destruction, or sell them out of state. The offense is a misdemeanor, as I recall.

    2. avatar Another Robert says:

      Thank you, Dirk. I especially like that “district judges are hacks” bit–spot on….

  14. avatar Greg Norbeck says:

    I’m still waiting for exotic cars to be banned. After all nobody needs to drive fast, or needs to have nice things, or needs to spend the money. Oh by the way, you don’t need your money. Here’s a ticket for your government issued bread, butter, and tastefully designed red car.

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      Can’t be a red car. Red is the color of high-end exotic sports cars, and nobody needs those.

      Also, spoilers, ground effects, and carbon fiber parts are all characteristics of race cars, and are therefore not to be allowed on the streets – this will prevent the scourge of street racing which is dangerous. And really, does anyone need more than four cylinders? Again, this is a characteristic of racing-style automobiles and such a purpose-built speed killing machine is more than the average citizen can be expected to handle. It’s for the children.

      1. avatar Sian says:

        Which part is the diffuser? Is that the hood part that goes up?

        1. avatar B says:

          Diffuser is the finned thing that goes down underneath the rear bumper. It smoothes the air flow out as it comes from below the car. It might also make the car fully automatic.

      2. avatar Gunr says:

        I’m waiting and wondering if they will ever ban those awful looking jeans that the rock stars and many other wear. The ones with all those holes and looked like the person wearing them were attacked by by a pride of lions!

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      It’s coming. 20 years ago we didn’t have air bags, xenon self-leveling headlights, anti-lock brakes, and autonomous driver alerting systems. Ever see a Honda Fit SS? NHTSB, DOT, and the IIA will eventually neuter cars the way the shooting is being neutered.

  15. avatar FoRealz? says:

    I think she does not understand that the Constitution was established to limit the government, not the people.

    The Bill of Rights is not meant to be used as a list of things that you are allowed to do, with proper government regulation and supervision and permission.

    The default setting of the Constitution is that if it isn’t expressly granted to the government, then the assumption, no, the supreme law of the land, is the right remains with the people. See ninth amendment.

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    How inconvenient though for nanny stater types who feel the strange urge to control everything. My theory is that those types of people have something going on in them where they feel that they are unable to control themselves personally or their destinies and they fear that quality in themselves. So they project that fear of losing control onto others and demand that someone, anyone, step in to take control and keep them and everyone locked down to whatever degree is necessary to assuage their anxiety and general feeling of unease at having to operate as a free individual in a free society.

    They are in many respects fundamentally unable to process up to speed to that requirement, and assume everyone else must feel as they do, and it causes them no end of hand wringing. Whether we are discussing a 2A issue, or something more mundane like zoning regulations, a homeowners association or if the new couple dressed appropriately at the school board meeting.

    Oh well.

    Derp.

    1. avatar SAS 2008 says:

      The ninth amendment is about rights not specifically enumerated. If judges like this can justify stomping on enumerated rights, any other rights have no chance in our legal quagmire.

  16. avatar Full Cleveland says:

    Show her the SIG MPX-P-9. 30 round capacity.
    One look and she’ll say ” I gots, gots, gots to have one.”

  17. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    Robert, can we please just talk about guns? I know you have a hidden agenda to promote your political viewpoints, but I for one just want to read about guns and not politics. (Extreme sarcasm.)

  18. avatar Steve says:

    The flaw in the judge’s decision is that in making the law, and then by decision upholding the new regulation(s), changes the nature of United States v. Miller limits the type of weapons to which the right applies to those in common use for lawful purposes. A limited magazine would be uncommon (or why need to make a law that restricts the same) and so Colorado and the court are taking away our rights as outlined; our right to use in this case a magazine that is in common use today. Perhaps this will come up in appeal.

  19. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Once again, the Federal government shows that you have Constitutional rights, and we respect those rights, until we make up whatever reason we need to infringe them. The laundry list of infringements grows.

  20. avatar ReadMore says:

    Why is the second amendment the ONLY enumerated right that doesn’t get strict scrutiny? Obviously there is are a few, narrow “fire in a crowded theatre” type limits to the second amendent, but all of this stuff in Colorado is preemptive. But all the infringements on other rights are generally not preemptive (gag orders are generally not allowed, censorship is generally not allowed). You can criminalize bad behavior after the fact, but preemption is really not ever permissible. I don’t understand why these judges don’t see that. We CAN’T let the liberals appoint ANY more judges or things are bound to go down hill very quickly.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Why is the second amendment the ONLY enumerated right that doesn’t get strict scrutiny? “

      Because it is the one that supports all the others. It’s the linchpin. Remove it, or simply effectively neuter the RKBA, all others fall.

      Exhibit A: No knock warrant service. The 4th protections are weakened after decades of gun control legislation and a pointed culture war to demonize guns and gun owners.

    2. avatar anonymous says:

      Why is the second amendment the ONLY enumerated right that doesn’t get strict scrutiny?

      Because guns are yucky.

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        this

      2. avatar anonymous says:

        [ deleted ]

  21. avatar Accur81 says:

    The gap between what civilians may own versus what government may use continues to widen.

    Government:
    -10 rounds or less? What? That’s not very many! You should have more than that. That’s a sweet 1911, sir.
    -15 rounds? No problem. That’s standard for a full size .40 cal. You need to use the best stuff you can if your life is on the line.
    -17 rounds? No problem. That’s standard for a full size 9mm. You need to use the best stuff you can if your life is on the line.
    -20 rounds? No problem. That’s actually little low for an AR-15 mag. Those were the old mags. You should really get the new 30-rounders.
    -30 rounds? No problem. It’s tough out on the street, and we don’t want to be out-gunned by the criminals like that one time in North Hollywood in February 28, 1997.
    -40 rounds? No problem. It’s just a shame these MagPul mags don’t fit in your tactical vest. Maybe we should get new vests? It’s tough out there on the street and our guys need every edge they can get.
    -100 rounds? No problem. It’s just really heavy. Man, these SureFire mags are expensive.
    -SBRs? No problem
    -Suppressors? No problem
    -guns to Syrian rebels? No problem. No background check needed.
    -guns to Mexican drug cartels? No problem. Please, no background checks. We acted in good faith. Nothing to see here. Move along, now.

    Taxpayers:
    -10 rounds? That’s kind of a lot, but we’ll let it slide…for now We’ll try our best to jail you in NYC.
    -15 rounds? Go to jail in CA, MD, NY, etc.
    -20 rounds? Go to jail in Colorado, too. You don’t need that many. A judge said so.
    -SBR? Go to jail unless you have papers to prove your innocence.
    -Suppressor? Go to jail unless you have papers to prove your innocence.
    -Off duty cop? Why didn’t you say so? No worries.
    -Politician? Why didn’t you say so? No worries. Thanks for having the courage to pass “tough laws” to make us safe.

    Given the choice between a reduced capacity magazine and a full capacity magazine, the choice is pretty obvious. Not to this judge, but it is to the rest of us.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      you forgot Media

      -30 round magazine in DC where importation/possession is a crime? Oh you’re with NBC? No problem!

  22. avatar JR_in_NC says:

    “Of the many law enforcement officials called to testify, none were able to identify a single instance in which they were involved where a single civilian fired more than 15 shots in self defense.”

    Oh my word.

    They sure did not look very hard, then. Not ONE single instance?

    How about the 1986 FBI shootout? 8 agents and 2 bank robbers fired at least 650 rounds.

    I know the panty-bunching will be over the term “civilian,” but really. Come on. No ONE single case where an armed citizen emptied a magazine in self defense?

    Sounds like those that testified did not really do their homework getting ready for this one.

  23. avatar Pascal says:

    The lesson here is simple…do not rely on the courts.

    Removing John Hickenlooper as Governor of Colorado and winning back seats in the House and Senate are the only way to restore the rights lost.

    The courts, many times, are simply an extension of their political affiliation or supporting the executive branch that gave them their jobs.

    Her opinion is twisted to meet a conclusion she had in her mind before she even took the case.

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      It’s certainly an additional motivator (I hope!) for those of us who live in Colorado to vote in November to get rid of Hick and change the majorities in the state house and senate.

      And, oh, by the way, get rid of Udall at the same time.

  24. avatar JR_in_NC says:

    “The lesson here is simple…do not rely on the courts.”

    Yes. A very good point.

    All those people that say we should just sit back and “take it” every time a bad law is passed (eg, CT) and wait for it to work through the courts need to look at decisions like this one.

    It MAY get straightened out in some future review. If so, it will take years and in the mean time, people’s lives and livelihoods will be harmed.

  25. avatar Joe Grine says:

    If this is upheld, then gun rights advocates should create a wedge issue aimed at law enforcement: propose legislation requiring law enforcement to abide by the same types of gun control restrictions as civilians: same round limits, same barrel length, etc. applied to law enforcement. Based on the evidence developed in this case, police apparently don’t need thirty round magazines. They probably don’t even need ARs. The risk that an AR with a 30 round magazine could be stolen from a cop and used in a crime is simply too great to allow the police to have these so-called “weapons of mass destruction.” (LOL… hard to use that term in this context with a straight face… but….). And the fact that off-duty or retired cops can possess these weapons is an even greater danger apparently. I think if the gun rights folks pushed this “wedge issue,” it would force law enforcement out of the “gun grabber” corner.

    1. avatar Steve says:

      “in common use for lawful purposes” Includes Police weapons in my limited legal opinion. Lets use the constitution and case law to our advantage.

    2. avatar Another Robert says:

      The ruling actually cites evidence presented that various law enforcement agencies, federal and state, do just fine with 15-round mags. I say go with it, use that finding to force the limitation on Colorado LE. If nothing else, it would damn well give the sheriffs “standing”…

  26. avatar Jack says:

    Even if no one has ever used more than 15 rounds in self-defense, that doesn’t matter under the gun banners’ own litmus test:

    If a magazine that holds more than 15 rounds might save ONE LIFE [at any point in the future], the ban is worth overturning.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      A litmus test only passes if the paper turns blue, not if it turns red.

      1. avatar BonesMccoy says:

        *shakes fist in air* CURSE YOU, CHEMISTRY!

  27. avatar TheOldFoe says:

    “US Courts System. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.”

  28. avatar Gyufygy says:

    Slightly off-topic, but a question for the lawyerly types out there. It seems like Miller of NFA fame was the first USSC decision to specifically say that restrictions on the 2A are legal, opening the path to all the fun and joy we have today. If it wasn’t the first, it certainly seems to have played a rather significant role. Considering Miller was a sham of a case, what would be required to get Miller overturn/changed/whatever, and what, if any, effects would that have on the legal standing of gun control laws? Would it take the carpet out from underneath the legal reasoning for gun control in general, or would it be narrower than that?

    1. avatar Not Jimbo says:

      Good question – I’d also like to hear from those more legally savvy (he said hopefully).

    2. avatar Another Robert says:

      As a rather poor-quality former lawyer, all I can tell you is that it is next to impossible to get a Supreme Court case definitively overturned. And when it happens, it usually happens at the hands of liberal jurists who have no respect for precedent or the law as written anyway. So I wouldn’t spend much time looking for that to happen. Anyway, IIRC, Miller would actually serve our purposes if it was fully followed, in that it stated that the 2nd A actually applied to military-type firearms (hence, a ban on sawed-off shotguns didn’t violate the 2nd in that militaries typically don’t issue sawed-off shotguns). Couple that rationale with Heller’s finding that the 2nd does indeed implicate an individual right to own and bear firearms and–voila’!–M-16s for anyone. Some better-quality lawyer needs to correct me on this, I’m sure I missed something.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        There is a long history of Supreme Court consideration of other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, from which cases we get all of the chatter about strict, intermediate, and “rational basis” scrutiny. As reflected in the discussion in Heller, the degree of scrutiny increases as the core rights protected by a particular amendment are approached. But then again, neither Miller nor Heller nor McDonald have settled on the actual level of scrutiny to be applied In these cases, and the various Circuits have settled, for most purposes, on some version of what they call “intermediate scrutiny.” We can certainly bitch and moan about how they actually went about their task–the Woollard case is a great example of a rational basis analysis dressed up in intermediate scrutiny clothing–but it is indisputable that all of the courts, including the Supreme Court, have concluded that at least some level of restrictions are permissible, just as there have been restrictions on the exercise of speech, religion, inroads into the fourth and Fifth Amendments, etc. No right is absolute under modern jurisprudence, not even the Second.

        1. avatar endless nameless says:

          so, ‘reasonable regulations’ equals ‘reasonable infringement’. sounds reasonable.

  29. avatar Dyna soar says:

    This judge is why I typically will never vote for a woman, unless they have spelled out chapter and verse how they stand on the RKBA/ 2nd amendment, They will never get my vote. Most women have that “why do you need a handgun/ rifle etc?” attitude at least the ones here on the left coast.

    1. avatar ReadMore says:

      Way to alienate our female readers. :/

  30. avatar Pashtun6 says:

    Well isn’t this just the icing on the cake….
    Dear colorado, quit trying to be California, you have no ocean and your wanna be 30 year old women who think they’re hot shite because they live in a gated community with other wanna be Californians is rather annoying.
    Sincerely,
    A Californian who used to live in Colorado

  31. avatar Jay says:

    Nobody needs more than 15 rounds? Please read this and understand it could happen to anyone. ANYONE. http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      maybe the good judge should watch the movie End of Duty and focus on the final climatic scene where the officers, with their 17 rd Glock 17 mags RAN OUT OF FRIGGIN AMMO!!!!!

  32. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Silly question – but since we all know the Po-Po are really civilians (despite their body armor, MRAP’s, drones, and “assault rifles”), has anyone given thought to filing a lawsuit for either declaratory judgment that police are not military and thus subject to civilian rules, or for injunctive relief to FORCE the police to carry lower round count mags themselves? It would be a hoot watching them squirm and argue they are military, not civilian, or get this “special” while the pro-gun side trots out rape, assault and other victims to ask what makes the po-po better than us.

    Dr. Chilton does enjoy his petty torments.

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Well even military members aren’t exempt in all cases. When coming back from Afghanland, some of my soldiers who lived in NY and CT area had to offload their standard 30 round magazines to other soldiers who lived in more Liberty minded states (we were reservist) because they couldn’t legally have those magazines in possession. It didn’t even matter if they did or didn’t have an AR15, because most of them couldn’t buy one in their own state. So let’s say I want to improve my qualification scores and purchase my own AR15 to practice, and I want it as close as I can to my service rifle. If I was stationed in Fort Drum, than forget it, no exceptions to their asinine rules.

  33. avatar DaveL says:

    So none of the cops who testified were ever involved in a situation where a civilian had to fire more than 15 shots in self-defense. Big deal. Poll my family and close friends, and you won’t find a single one who’s ever been involved in an incident where a cop had to fire even ONE shot in self-defense.

  34. avatar Buster says:

    I don’t NEED a 15 round magazine or any other firearm that holds over 15 rounds.

    I also don’t NEED a cell phone, nor does any one else. Many of us lived without one for many years.
    I also don’t NEED an oven, nor does any one else. Cut fire wood and cook over a camp fire.
    I also don’t NEED a car, nor does any one else. Buy a horse for transportation.
    I also don’t NEED a set of golf clubs, nor does any one else. Who needs entertainment like that?!

    I don’t NEED any of those things. But those things make my life easier, better or just provides me entertainment.
    I am really grateful for the “things” that I have acquired and try to be responsible with them.

    Living in what I thought to be a “free” society, I didn’t know that there was a bureaucratic prerequisite for a NEED because a person WANTS something.

    What I DON’T NEED is some bureaucratic SOB telling me what my needs and wants should be and how to live my life. I can do that just fine all by myself.
    As a responsible citizen, the politicians just NEED to do their damn job of enforcing the Constitution, protecting the borders of this nation, provide an economic environment that is conducive to free enterprise and leave me the hell alone.

  35. avatar Wayniac says:

    No one need dolts for judges either.

  36. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

    It’s simple. More recall elections and in the upcoming election, whoever voted for the unpopular law, whoever is up for reelection, vote them out. When enough politicians have been sent packing, THAT will be a clear wake-up call and changes will take place. But make no mistake, there has to be real fear. They can’t be under the impression that the successful recall election was an anomaly. They have to have real fear of being removed from office.

  37. avatar Anonymoose says:

    SOOOO…have you guys heard about that new .375 Reaper cartridge that holds 15 rounds in a standard USGI magazine?

    1. avatar Nick D says:

      The guys who made .50 Beowulf tried that bit of logic in California. Since the original mags could still potentially hold 30 rounds, Alexander arms made proprietary mags that could only hold 10 rounds of .50 BW, but due to the design of the feed lips, could not hold any amount of 5.56/.223. It would likely wind up being the same thing. Nice thought, but remember, we are dealing with twisted sociopaths, not logical beings.

      1. avatar Anonymoose says:

        They still get away with it in Canadia, or so I’m told.

  38. avatar Model66 says:

    It seems as if the public officials do not fear the public. Hope and Change

  39. avatar former water walker says:

    Ummm…hasn’t Colorado lost many millions of bucks ( I heard 900million) of hunter,camper and outdoors money because of this BS? Because a lot of folks didn’t want to be instant criminals? Almost like self castration for birth control. All for NO good f###ing reason. Oh well…more recalls?

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      I think that may be more rumor than fact, but no one without an axe to grind on either side has come up with anything more than anecdotal evidence as far as I’ve seen.

  40. avatar Ben says:

    The appropriate legal standard for the government to justify a law limiting a fundamental right is a compelling state interest, and that the law in question is narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling state interest, and be the least restrictive means of achieving the state interest It is called strict scrutiny. Not just a “substantial relationship” like she says. Pretty much any questionable law furthering a bad policy would “substantially relate” to it.

  41. avatar Another Robert says:

    Hey, did you guys catch that “profiles in courage–not” statement from the Colorado AG’s office? “We never said the law was good policy, wise, effective, or any such thing. We [were just following orders] just fulfilled our duty in defending it.” What a bunch of weasels. Interestingly, the life-tenured federal judge kind of went out of her way to make similar statements in her ruling. I will say I think she muffed a couple of issues–applying “intermediate scrutiny” being the most significant. But for hack-work, the decision actually looks pretty thorough and at least facially based on the evidence presented at trial.

  42. avatar Icabod says:

    The magazine limits, be it 10 or 15, are based on what best availed science? That is, where is the research that shows 10 or 15 rounds is anything but a WAG or a political compromise?

  43. avatar John says:

    If nobody needs more than 15 rounds to defend themselves then the police don’t need more than 15 rounds to defend themselves either.

  44. avatar Kyle says:

    I don’t know why people keep taking these things to the courts because the courts more often than not will uphold mag bans, assault weapon bans, and so forth. All taking it to the court does is further establish precedent in favor of the gun control side.

  45. avatar Jim DustStorm says:

    I just ordered 100 Magpul 40 round mags. I am dumping all of my 30 rounders. 40 is the new 30 🙂

  46. avatar Burnout says:

    The government is always going to protect big government. The court is to the law as airport security is to security. Good theater, but the ratio always equals supporting big government.

  47. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

    Bush’s nominees, including this hack of a judge, in general were far more miss than hit. Some of the worst were those that didn’t even make it to confirmation hearings, pulling their own nominations for obvious reasons.

    Some of Bush’s “best and brightest” whom he regarded as top professionals for their positions include multiple criminal convictions and felon Bernard Kerik to be Sec. of Homeland Security, Michael “Heck-of-a-job Brownie” Brown at FEMA, John “I’ll vote for Obamacare because I’m afraid of being called a racist” Roberts for Chief Justice, and my favorite, Harriet “I’ve never even argued ONE case before the Supreme Court, but I’m qualified to be ON it” for Associate Justice.

    As for Judge Krieger, following law school, she was in local private practice for about 15 years and served as a bankruptcy judge for about 8 years. These aren’t serious qualifications for a federal judgeship presiding over serious and weighty issues of Constitutional law. I’d bet she was nominated just for diversity’s sake. This is what affirmative action gets you.

  48. avatar Jim Krieger says:

    Inasmuch as I occasionally comment here and elsewhere, I wish to state for the record that this judge is not related to my family. This is a good thing, because if she were, family gatherings at Thanksgiving and Christmas would undoubtedly end in shouting matches and fisticuffs.

  49. avatar collver says:

    Today no one needs 15 rds to defend themselves, tomorrow no one needs 10 rds, the day after no one needs 5 rds to defend them selves, next week no one needs to defend themselves. Candy and love for everyone.

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      In New York state, according to Governor Andrew Cuomo, “NO ONE NEEDS TEN BULLETS TO KILL A DEER!” So they reduced it to seven round magazines. Then they realized there aren’t that many seven round magazines at all, so they changed it to where you can continue to buy ten round magazines but only load them with seven rounds while at home (the full ten rounds is okay for ranges). I am sure all criminals will dutifully load their ten round magazines (provided they are using ten rounders only) with seven rounds before breaking into someone’s home or robbing a place or whatnot.

  50. avatar Kyle says:

    Another thing to this whole ruling that renders it nonsense is that the Second Amendment is not just about individual self-defense, it is also about protecting the right of the citizens to possess arms to defend against tyranny. So calling in law enforcement to testify about whether people have needed to use more than fifteen rounds in self-defense really was nonsense and anti-Second Amendment in the first place. It isn’t just about that. The minimum size magazine for fighting a government I’d say is thirty rounds, considering that is what the military uses. So even if someone was trying to make the argument that the government could limit magazine capacity (IMO it can’t), the minimum limit would be at whatever is the standard sized magazine used by the military.

  51. avatar Will says:

    Laws are continually changing. Why is better to have magazines with capacities with unlimited capabilities? What argument can be made that will resonate with average person on the street?

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      The argument is that how you shoot when you are defending yourself against a moving target, or targets, is not the same as how you shoot when firing at a fixed target while relaxed. Your ability to hit the target diminishes when your life in on the line. It’s like the difference in balance between walking on a board of wood a few feet thick while on the ground, then walking on that same board of wood if it’s suspended a few hundred feet up in the air.

      In addition, you may need multiple rounds to stop the target, because if the person is high on a drug, adrenaline, rage, etc…one or two rounds may not be enough. A woman fired six shots into a man who broke into her home in Georgia, defending herself and her children. She missed once and hit him five times. He didn’t die or drop, he decided he’d had enough and turned and ran away, and was later arrested. But what if he’d kept coming? Or what if he’d had a partner who broke in via a side window? She would have been defenseless at that point (it was a six-shot revolver).

      There have been cases where a criminal took up to fifteen shots and still was able to walk under their own power. The only things that will physically stop a person when shot are if you severe the brain’s connection to the nervous system (via a neck shot that takes out the spinal cord), or a drop in blood pressure due to blood loss. Things like pain will not necessarily stop a person, and the body even may turn off the pain when a person is shot for fight/flight reasons.

      Women are often instructed not to count on being able to kick a rapist in the groin because if high on a drug, he may not even feel it. Similarly, he won’t be affected when being shot in the same way either, and thus may require multiple shots to stop.

      And finally, magazine capacity limitations are very arbitrary and not the government’s business.

  52. avatar CV76 says:

    Nuremburg trials part 2. Remember these dangerous people when they come for you.

  53. avatar Robert Wyman says:

    So it seems The Constitution and The Bill of Rights have no meaning other than what a judge or justice interprets. I can read Bill Rights and understand them very easily. I need nobody to explain what they mean or what the authors may have meant. It is very clear. So why do I keep reading about college grads in robes laboring over these simple sentences? Why do I hear people say that the Founders meant “muzzleloaders”? I ask where does it say “muzzleloaders” or “muskets”. It says “arms”. Still means “arms” as in “armament”. Right? I see no words such as “background check” or a limit on “arms”. I see the words “Congress shall pass no law” and the Rights shall not be infringed. So they keep infringing. Is that not a violation of my Rights as an American? Yes it is. I pay no heed to the tyrannical when they act as enemies to our country. They have crossed the “acting” line and now are enemies. If I disobey their demands and reject ludicrous concepts how many weapons and how much ammo will they bring to silence me? 15 rounds?
    They wipe their evil butts with our flag and we just sit here and bitch about it. We are a nation of cowards when a woman becomes a judge and tells you that you cannot read or a woman becomes a justice in her 80’s and says The Bill of Rights is antiquated. Men become their cohorts and sit idle on the bench. Spineless cowards, all of us.

  54. avatar Charles says:

    My my has Colorado ever gone to hell in a handcart since I left there 11 years ago. Apparently, Columbine and the theater shooting are still fresh in the judges mind and she may even be a bit biased because of it. I don’t care how many rounds it takes to defend myself, I will not be restricted. If that means I have to buy 6 mags at 15 rounds each instead of 3 at 30, then so be it. Next thing you know though, they’ll be trying to tell us we can only have 1 magazine.

  55. avatar Victor says:

    Hey don’t worry Colorado, you’ll just do what California does and pick up “magazine repair kits”

  56. What a fool. This is the problem with lifetime tenure of federal judges,

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email