Appeals Court Upholds Colorado’s “Large-Capacity” Magazine Ban

Magpul colorado magazine assembly plant

The former Magpul facility in Erie, Colorado which has since moved to Wyoming as a result of the magazine ban law (courtesy gazette.com AP)

“The Colorado Court of Appeals, in a unanimous opinion issued Thursday, upheld the state’s ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines of 15 rounds or moreThe lawsuit dates back to the contentious 2013 legislative session in which Democrats, who controlled both the House and Senate, passed a trio of gun-control laws, including one that banned ownership of an ammunition magazine with 15 rounds or more.”

Why did the court rule as it did?

The appeals court concluded that the logic for passing a ban on large-capacity magazines was based on a “legitimate governmental interest in public health and safety.” In their opinion, the justices pointed out that there have been 27 mass shootings in Colorado that used large-capacity magazines between 1999 and 2016. That contrasts with 11 mass shootings involving large-capacity magazines in the period between 1967 and 1998, the opinion noted.

The plaintiffs — including the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners association, and a group of law enforcement orgs and county sheriffs — argued that the law should be subject to strict scrutiny and was unconstitutionally broad as it would ban most semi-automatic firearm magazines.

The appeals court disagreed with both assertions, stating even if they considered the statutory law “ambiguous, the legislative purpose is to reduce the number of people who are killed or shot in mass shootings, not to ban all gun magazines,” the opinion stated. Further, the statute does not prevent Coloradans from exercising their constitutional right of self-defense, the opinion indicated.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners said it plans to take the case to the state supreme court.

Dudley Brown, executive director of RMGO, told Colorado Politics the group will appeal Thursday’s ruling, which he said was not unexpected. “From day one we knew this was a long haul through the courts, made more difficult by a Republican Attorney General who clearly wants to keep this magazine ban on Colorado’s books,” Brown said.

As you may remember, Magpul moved its operations out of the state as a result of the “large-capacity” magazine ban. The company relocated its Erie, Colorado production and distribution operation (pictured in the photo above) to Cheyenne, Wyoming and its headquarters to Austin, Texas.  

comments

  1. avatar D says:

    THIS is why the Supreme Court is important.

    The SC is the only really important thing that a President does since it’s the only thing he does that can not be undone by the next admin

    1. avatar Rosignol says:

      …so what are the odds on Roberts going squishy?

      1. avatar D says:

        Well, Roberts did cave on ObaminationCare. I strongly suspect he was threatened.

      2. avatar Kyle says:

        just about 100%

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          does this apply to the cops?…

  2. avatar MGD says:

    …interest of public health and safety. Never mind what the law is.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      For “public safety” we need to confiscate all guns to protect people from accidental shootings, domestic abuse killings, effective suicide attempts, child on child gun violence, etc.

      When the Nanny State says they are here to protect us they mean it. It’s for your own good. You only need military style guns and super sized capacity magazine/clips to fight a war against a government. There are no reasons to fight your government, so there are no reasons to own these dangerous weapons. Even if there was a reason you wouldn’t use them anyway, thus you have as much need as a paralyzed person has for shoes.

      Human/natural rights do not exist, only government given rights. Go outside and ask everyone you see a bunch of questions about human/natural rights to get confirmation. You can ask police and teachers too just in case you think everyone is dumb. If you still think people have human rights, you are a sovereign citizen loon.

      1. avatar VoxLP says:

        So you don’t believe that the rest of the bill of rights is valid either? How did you get to post your idiotic nonsense? Oh yeah, the first Amendment… so is free speech only granted by the government? Then you would feel right at home in a Stalinist country that you and your ilk are trying to create in America. The bill of rights is a recognition of natural rights. It is true that most of the world ignores them, but most of the world is made up of dictatorships, I guess that’s what you prefer.

        1. avatar Mike says:

          I suspect that CZJay was being a sarcastic troll.

        2. avatar Travis says:

          I believe that it is called sarcasm and at one point was very successful at making people think, but in today’s world… Not so much…

        3. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          I dunno. CZ’s comment seems to accurately represent the left’s thought process while identifying the key issue of the source of human rights. I have yet to see a true leftist that understands that latter issue.

        4. avatar Arthur Tilges says:

          EWTHeckman – Not all liberals want to get rid of guns. I like to consider my self more liberal than a lot of Republicans, but I am also a firm believer in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I also think that the Dems have a lot of good ideas. I am 65 years old and I have a very limited in come. It scares me to hear Repubs in government talking about cutting benefits for SS and medicare because that is all I have to live on. So I think that both parties have good ideas and bad. What we as people must see to it that the government takes the good from both parties and puts them into law.

          p.s. I was a gun owner for some time but had to sell them to pay my rent.
          Let the flames begin!

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It scares me to hear Repubs in government talking about cutting benefits for SS and medicare because that is all I have to live on. ”

          Puuuhhhleeeaasse.

          Name a specific piece of social security legislation originating from Republicans that includes reductions in benefits to current recipients?

          If I were completely dependent on Soc Sec benefits, I would question the Demoncrats who led me to believe that it was possible to live solely on Soc Sec payments. Such a sale would only be made in order to encourage the naive that there was no reason to secure their own future needs.

          I do wish you had your guns back.

        6. avatar Scoutino says:

          @Arthur Tilges
          How convenient. Support strangers who promised you money they didn’t have and made you believe they will take care of you until you die.
          Just because you think you will benefit from their rule, it doesn’t mean they are good people.

          Reminds me of one old book where a 14 tears old boy teaches morals to little African boy.
          -What’s bad deed?
          -“When someone steals Kali’s cow!”
          -Great job, now what is a good deed?
          -“When Kali steals someone’s cow!”

      2. avatar Hoosier says:

        @CZJay: What the f*&%# are you talking about???!!!

        1. avatar Draven says:

          I think he forgot the [/sarc] at the end.

        2. avatar Joe says:

          @Hoosier and @VoxJP What is it about obvious sarcasm that draws out the most abject retards?

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “@Hoosier and @VoxJP What is it about obvious sarcasm that draws out the most abject retards?”

          The volume of superficial readings is amazing.

      3. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        Good God people he doesn’t need to say this is sarcasm. How can you be so stupid to believe this is his opinion? No wonder this country is going to hell.

        1. avatar CTstooge says:

          Indeed.

        2. avatar Kyle says:

          My thoughts exactly. These are the same people that need the “Why did the chicken cross the road” joke explained to them so it makes sense.

      4. avatar Arthur Tilges says:

        Dear Sam I Am This is from Newsweek

        “After instituting a $1.5 trillion tax cut and signing off on a $675 billion budget for the Department of Defense, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that the only way to lower the record-high federal deficit would be to cut entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.”

        Full article here
        https://www.newsweek.com/deficit-budget-tax-plan-social-security-medicaid-medicare-entitlement-1172941

        Thanks for the comment

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I read the linked article. It is actually very, very old news. “Cuts are coming” has been a staple of both parties for at least twenty years.

          There are several things in play that you are unaware of, or are aware of and cannot acknowledge:
          a) “cuts” have a special meaning in D.C. A slow down of the rate of growth in spending for any program is considered a “cut” – the history of actual budget reductions year-to-year is invisible;
          b) congress has run a con on the public since social security was invented;
          c) there is no social security “lock box”, there is no “account” with your name on it like a regular bank account (if such a box existed, your heirs would be entitled to whatever earned benefit remained);
          d) all tax revenue identified as going to your social security “lock box” go into the general treasury via a paperwork scam (your social security funds do not come from the social security administration – they are paid to you by the US Treasury Department;
          e) once all the fancy schemes (medicare, social security, etc) in the supposed individual accounts runs out, the government can simply float more debt to cover promised benefits – just like it does for everything else;
          f) the article you linked does not declare that any current beneficiary will suffer a reduction in benefits – it is not politically supportable;
          g) people retiring after a certain date MAY see lower benefits than those already receiving benefits when threatened “cuts” take place;
          h) speculating about legislation that does not exist is a politician’s dream for driving fear factor
          i) pointing out that if nothing is done about a budget “problem” a reduction in that budget (or its beneficiaries) is a worse case scenario is not indicative of a desire for that worse case

      5. avatar tracy says:

        Magazine limits to capacity reduces suicide attempts … Liberal Logic on the courts

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Magazine limits to capacity reduces suicide attempts … Liberal Logic on the courts”

          Actually read a news article a while back; guy decided to play Russian Roulette with a striker-fired pistol. Apparently the episode started with the standard, “Here, hold my beer. Watch this sh..”

        2. avatar Jim Macklin says:

          Suicide happens using whatever is handy. A big bottle of aspirin will kill. Or gun. But really, a 20 foot 1/8th inch steel cable from a garage door, with some small loops on each end makes a very lethal tool for suicide. Just add a 30 foot tall bridge and make a loop around a post or rail and put the other end around your neck.
          If you do it over a river, your head and body fall into the current and funeral costs are nil. All that remains is a little piece of cable. Outlaw bridges and tall buildings. If it save even one life…
          Of course accidental drownings from people swimming across the river will increase.

      6. avatar Colonialgirl says:

        Well CZJay, Thanks for confirming that you are an indoctrinated idiot and have not a clue about life, facts or RIGHTS>

  3. avatar Don says:

    Would my gym bag filled with ten revolvers be banned then? Stupid judges.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Yes, because that is hoarding of dangerous weapons that you cannot take care of. Just like how it’s illegal to own too many dogs or cats. You have too many to responsibly take care of. There is no reason for you to have a cache of dangerous items that can lead to the death of many children.

  4. avatar Doug says:

    The article quoted has two errors, one minor, one major.

    Minor: Colorado’s magazine ban is for magazines of over 15 rounds, not 15 or more.

    Major: The ban does not outlaw possession of “high” capacity magazines, but rather purchase or transfer of them. Those magazines owned prior to enactment of the ban are still perfectly legal.

    For the moment, anyway…

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      The problem I see with the ban in that state is that any resident of that state can visit any other state where sales of such magazines are legal, purchase a bunch of them, then go back home, and no one’s the wiser. Other than hearsay, there’s no evidence those magazines weren’t grandfathered.

      1. avatar Cloud says:

        This isn’t correct. Most polymer magazines have a month and years stamped onto them. It hasn’t happened yet but law enforcement could choose to try and charge someone with one of these magazines made after June 2013.

        Now one could argue that the box part of the magazine(the part with the date stamp) was just a replacement part from a “parts kits” but who knows if they would fly.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Now one could argue that the box part of the magazine(the part with the date stamp) was just a replacement part from a “parts kits” but who knows if they would fly.”

          My old squadron mate in Denver says the law included possession of kits capable of making a magazine with greater than 15 capacity is effectively an illegal magazine (if purchased/transferred after the cutoff date. I’m just too lazy to look up the law, but it sounds like “constructive possession” of silencers.

      2. avatar JimR says:

        Oddly enough higher capacity magazines are still available in Colorado. Most of our police and sheriffs refuse to enforce the law. I just saw the magpul D-60 for sale in a gun shop about a month ago.

    2. avatar Removed_californian says:

      California had a grandfather clause too until it didn’t…

      1. avatar Cloud says:

        Actually California’s attempt to force people to turn in their grandfathered magazines was thrown Invalidated by the courts.

  5. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    Send it up the ladder. All the way up.

  6. avatar Jon in CO says:

    The way the court judges were asking the AG questions, it really seemed they were going to side with RMGO. F-It. Let’s go to the top.

  7. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    We’re that I could, I would challenge the judges to explain in terms so plain and clear as to command their assent, why round #16 is so much more dangerous than round #15.

    Also, I would ask if they know the difference between correlation and causation.

  8. avatar Hannibal says:

    “The appeals court concluded that the logic for passing a ban on large-capacity magazines was based on a “legitimate governmental interest in public health and safety.”

    In other words, they are using a lower level of Constitutional scrutiny. How is it that the courts decided that the 2nd Amendment is not worthy of the same protection that the others? Good question…

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      The IRS uses the ruling of lower courts to maintain the power to take your property.

      The other amendments are also being infringed. You don’t notice because you are busy with guns and probably don’t draw the attention of the government yet.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      There is a depressing bloody-mindedness behind all these magazine limitation laws. Advocates of reducing magazine round-count like to argue that having fewer rounds immediately available might save lives in the event of a spree killing. I won’t talk about the stupidity of naively assuming that once someone runs out of rounds they’ll just stop shooting. What is behind the low capacity magazine argument is a tact acceptance that nothing can be done to keep a spree killer from beginning to shoot in the first place.

      It’s as though gun controllers are perfectly willing to accept the sudden appearance of armed killers so long as they can keep their cherished gun-control beliefs. They simply cannot allow themselves to accept the fact that if just one armed citizen has the capacity to stop a spree-killer, the potential presence of several armed and trained citizens—-good guys with guns—would undoubtedly cause a spree-killer to seriously rethink his decision to start shooting people. It sure looks like spree killers need gun controllers as badly as gun controllers need spree killers.

  9. avatar 2aguy says:

    Justice Scalia already took on the “but we still let you have some guns” argument….in his dissent on the Court not taking up Friedman v. Highland Park…..this Colorado court openly ignored the U.S. Supreme Courts Heller decision….hopefully Kavanaugh and the other real Justices will deal with this…

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

    Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding
    citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,”
    and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because
    “[i]f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault
    weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784
    F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that
    “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not
    save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller
    did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of
    most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders
    adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

    That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

    Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second
    Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’
    approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case
    illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld
    based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while
    being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees
    nothing.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Kavanaugh is not on the side of the people. Let’s not pretend.

      The second amendment or any other amendment/law does not guarantee your rights of life, liberty and property. Those laws can be amended, removed, interpreted or simply not enforced.

      We are at the point where law is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what the law says. There is practically nothing you can or will do about it.

      1. avatar Kyle says:

        Hence the desire to get rid of those pesky 16+ round magazines. 🙁

  10. avatar anarchyst says:

    Maybe another tactic that could be used is that of denial of “equal protection under the law”. If “law enforcement” is exempt from the magazine capacity limitation, it would stand to reason that a normal-capacity magazine is an unconstitutional denial of “equal protection” and “equal rights” by establishing a “carve out” for law enforcement.
    California’s present “assault weapon ban” could be argued to be unconstitutional as politicians and police are exempt from the ban, which creates a “two-tier” system of “rights”–greater rights for politicians and police, and much more restrictive “laws” that only apply to ordinary citizens.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      You don’t have a legal right to independently declare war, form a group of combatants and fight the government. That would be an act of insurrection or treason. You will be treated as terrorists rather than soldiers.

      The government has the power to do things you cannot.

  11. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “the logic for passing a ban on large-capacity magazines was based on a “legitimate governmental interest in public health and safety.” In their opinion, .”

    Never matter however UnConstitutional that opinion is,the justices upheld the subrogation of the Constitution.

  12. avatar Shawn says:

    Don’t worry, if this appealed to the supreme court they won’t take the case. That or they will side with government. As I’ve said before almost every judge; seemingly all of them hate guns, hate gun owners, and want all guns to be confiscated by force door-to-door. And for all of us who oppose to be executed without trial and sent to extermination camps. Maybe not now but I would also would have expected the courts to side with government if they literally drop nuclear weapons on United States soil killing millions to stop the uprising they had created.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      The “uprising” will be so small they will only need the SWAT team, some MRAPs and a few attack helicopters.

      For counter guerrilla warfare tactics they will: fly drones and use city cameras 24/7 to monitor movements, spy on all electronics, take you out with plain clothes officers or snipers… There will be teams sitting around in residential houses and driving around in undercover armed vehicles waiting to suppress an attack or conduct an operation.

      1. avatar Jean-Claude says:

        This always comes up—but when the fight starts, any local police officer who takes part in confiscation/oppression will have to fear for his life 24/7.

        Officer Gun-Grabber might get shot by an angry and motivated citizen anywhere at any time.

        Everybody knows who the cop in their neighborhood is. If “Officer Friendly” becomes an enemy of the people, he will be shot walking to his car. Or when he’s working out at the gym. Or mowing his lawn.

        When things get real, THEY WILL GET REAL.

      2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        You act like the “they” you refer to don’t share our soil. It’s only going to take a few confiscations before assault teams are assembled and those that are giving these unconstitutional orders are killed while sleeping in their beds, while next to their wives and down the hall from their children. I can’t guarantee that some groups will make sure there are no witnesses. Dogs too. After a dozen or so of these attacks, in each state, I’m guessing there’s not going to be a lot of these officers willing to take promotions into the newly vacated positions. I’m not sure you know exactly what a revolt is gonna look like. And that’s not to mention the probable seizure of the democrat voter registration rolls and their subsequent systematic liquidation. I’m sure hoping the Liberal Terrorists™️ don’t force that outcome. But can’t ever underestimate their evil.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          Look at Russia… Seems to work nicely there regardless of huge populations that hate them and are willing to blow themselves up.

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      Well said , at least someone understands how the corrupt system works to destroy us all and enslave us.

  13. Kangaroo Courts stacked with DemoCommie activist Judges! The Halls of Justice NEED to be PURGED of this UN-American, Anti-2nd Amendment, Anti-Bill of Rights Socialist Drivel! And anyone attached to this mockery of Justice, should be dragged from the Halls of Goverment and publicly Tarred and Feathered!!!

    1. avatar Jared says:

      If only Colorado had a republican AG would would cease enforcement of the unconstitutional law…

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        The current Republican party will save us from slavery…

        1. Awaiting a White House memo or SC J addendum to President Lincoln’s emancipation Proclamation Act…

      2. avatar Swarf says:

        Yes… if only.

  14. avatar strych9 says:

    The whole thing is stupid because the law is riddled with loopholes.

    For instance, say I wanted to buy a 30 round mag for an AR. It’s a PITA and pricey by comparison (comparison to before the law was passed), but it IS possible to do it legally completely within the state.

    It’s called a “repair kit”. You walk into your LGS and buy one. You get a package that contains all the parts (follower, spring, base plate, mag body), take it home and assemble it. Voila, you have a 30 round AR mag, bought legally within the state.

    I also believe that based on the way the law is written buying such mags out of state and then bringing them back is completely legal so long as you don’t attempt to buy, sell or in any other way “transfer” those mags once they have crossed into Colorado jurisdiction. But don’t take my word on that, I’d have to look it up again.

    Mildly amusing side story to this: When the law passed I kinda laughed because it caused me to inventory my magazine collection for a number of my rifles.

    All I could do was snicker at how much freakin’ money I must have dumped into magazines over the years. Especially when, like an old comedy, I opened one of the cabinets in my basement and a massive pile of AR/AK/Mini-14/the like mags fell out. At that point I determined that a rainy day would NOT be spent reloading but rather organizing my mags because that was but one cabinet and apparently I had just been shoving mags into “storage” as I acquired them. Shit, most were still in the bags!

    1. avatar Doug says:

      “I also believe that based on the way the law is written buying such mags out of state and then bringing them back is completely legal so long as you don’t attempt to buy, sell or in any other way “transfer” those mags once they have crossed into Colorado jurisdiction. But don’t take my word on that, I’d have to look it up again.”

      I’m afraid not. Only magazines possessed before the law’s enactment are legal. That being said, it’s utterly unenforceable.

    2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “I also believe that based on the way the law is written buying such mags out of state and then bringing them back is completely legal so long as you don’t attempt to buy, sell or in any other way “transfer” those mags once they have crossed into Colorado jurisdiction.”

      Wise if you buy out-of-state is to buy only magazines with no date stamp on them.

      “But don’t take my word on that, I’d have to look it up again.”

      You bet your ass on that one…

      1. avatar Jon in CO says:

        Doesn’t matter if they’re cage coded or not. There isn’t a law I can find anywhere in the country about removing cage codes from magazines. Good luck prosecuting something that doesn’t exist. “Sorry, I scuffed the magazines when I was out in the woods, officer. In the same exact spot as the dated cage code? Must be coincidence.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          Maybe something like destruction of evidence, obstruction, conspiracy to commit, etc. There is a law for everything, like your grass isn’t green enough.

    3. avatar CZJay says:

      Don’t worry, they are following California. Look what they did there regarding magazines.

    4. avatar Jon in CO says:

      That’s why I order them, ship them out of state, then ship them in. Once purchased, they are my property, so I’m just having my legal property returned or sent to me at a later time. The problem with rebuilds, is these asshats at the LGS’s are charging a premium markup for them. Double the price so one guy can take the baseplate off. They’re not helping the cause either. I’ve personally seen CSPD take cash from a civie, buy the mag, and then hand it to the customer. Cops don’t care, sheriffs don’t care, nobody cares.

    5. avatar What about...? says:

      Let’s say all the mags magically disappeared in CO. Only the law abiding (and harmless) citizen would comply by not acquiring more mags. The evil criminal intent on murdering would simply make multiple hi cap mags along with a home brew illegal bump stock (and any other of many more destructive and illlegal devices) and use them to murder (also illegal). Gun control only disarms the law abiding.

  15. avatar Doug says:

    I suspect it’s going to get a *lot* worse in Colorado. The Democrats have an excellent chance of controlling both the governorship and both Houses after the upcoming election. We may well have an “assault weapon” ban in place by next year.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      I noticed that a lot of Californians are running to Colorado. A lot went there for the herb, others for cheaper cost of living.

      It’s only a matter of time.

      1. avatar Jon in CO says:

        California, Texas and for whatever reason, a shit ton of people from Iowa. So many midwesterners here now.

        1. avatar Agreed says:

          I die a little every time I see a California plate here in the Springs. The tumor of Boulder and Denver will only grow bigger and more powerful. Real clever of them to legalize weed as well, way to incentivize people to move in and vote for you.

  16. avatar TruthTellers says:

    Awful ruling here based on absolutely no fact or truth whatsoever. The amount of rounds in a magazine, whether it be 10, 15, 20, or 30 has no bearing on public safety. We’ve seen several mass shootings where a gun with 10 round mags or less has killed as many people or more than guns that held less ammo and didn’t even use detachable mags.

    We just saw in Crimea a shooter used a shotgun to kill 19 people, we saw in Texas earlier this year another shooting that used a shotgun and a revolver to kill 10 people, the Parkland shooter used 10 rd mags in an AR and killed 17 people while lazy pigs stood outside.

    Much of the death toll in shootings is based on factors not even related to the guns used. Sandy Hook was children who were trapped in a classroom, Pulse nightclub was packed with people, many of whom bled out because police refused to allow paramedics to treat wounded.

    If public safety trumps the Bill of Rights, then what’s to stop the gov’t from putting every citizen in solitary confinement to ensure no one can be murdered? This has to go to SCOTUS because while there is a reasonable restriction clause, the reasons behind this magazine capacity restriction don’t exist. There is no evidence that a 10 round magazine kills fewer than a 15 rd mag or that a 15 rd mag kills less than a 20 round magazine.

  17. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “legitimate governmental interest in public health and safety.”

    Where have we heard this phrase, before? Simply put, “legitimate governmental interest…” is superior to all natural, human and civil rights secured by the constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States is a big fan of “legitimate governmental interest in public health and safety” (not to mention Justice Kavanaugh testified before Congress that the SCOTUS declared concealed carry of firearms is not protected under the Second Amendment; precedent).

    “legitimate governmental interest in public health and safety” is Kryptonite to all civil rights.

  18. avatar Stateisevil says:

    I’m so tired of winning! Lol

  19. avatar John says:

    Good rule against it. We need a case like this to work its way to the Supreme Court so that we don’t have to deal with such things in the future.

    KAVANAUGH! KAVANAUGH!! KAVANAUGH!!!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “KAVANAUGH! KAVANAUGH!! KAVANAUGH!!!”

      You are expecting what, exactly? There is alot to like about Kavanaugh, but 2A absolutism is not in the picture. The man specifically testified before the Senate panel that 2A does not protect concealed carry; period. That leaves only open carry as the right to keep and bear arms. And restrictions as to when, where and why are permissible in some cases (unspecified). It will be impossible for the SC to reason its way around “compelling government interest”. Magazine limits are part of the landscape, part of tradition and history; precedent.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        “The man specifically testified before the Senate panel that 2A does not protect concealed carry; period. That leaves only open carry as the right to keep and bear arms.”

        Here’s the beautiful part of that logic –

        Say California is told by SCOTUS that armed carry is required if the citizen wants it. The legislature offers an ‘out’ that instead of the ‘unwashed masses’ being exposed to the horrifying prospect of seeing open-carry guns EVERYWHERE!, that concealed carry will be ‘permitted’. *cough*.

        What the ‘unwashed masses’ can’t see, won’t upset their ‘delicate sensibilities’.

        You gotta think like they do, meaning twisted and sick…

        1. avatar el Possum Guapo ect. says:

          The two A does not protect concealed carry? The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. How does a Supreme Court Judge split that? Or is it the RTBA shall be infringed

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The two A does not protect concealed carry? The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. How does a Supreme Court Judge split that? ”

          Easy.

          All your natural, human, civil and constitutionally-protected rights are subject to “compelling government interest” in restricting those rights. Whenever the courts decide that individual rights must be sacrificed for the public good, those rights are legitimately “infringed”.

          “Common Sense” tells us that nothing in this world is absolute, regardless of written words. Heck, Congress has the power to establish courts, which means courts are not autonomous. It also means Congress can set jurisdiction, and even eliminate federal courts. In reality, any law passed by Congress that limits the number or jurisdiction of the federal courts will be declared unconstitutional by those federal courts.

          Welcome to the house of mirrors.

        3. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Well, if that’s the case, as a national security precaution, we should prevent those that can’t pass high school level literacy tests AND provide proof of earning income that makes them tax payers instead of govt assistance recipients, from participating in voting. The Second Amendment is the most important right we have. Everything else pales in comparison.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The Second Amendment is the most important right we have. Everything else pales in comparison.”

          Most everyone here agrees with you. 2A Reality is quite onerous. None of the gun control laws can point to an authority granted government to regulate firearms in the hands of the public. Even the Commerce Clause was not authority for regulation. The founders worried over that clause because they knew it could be used to nullify the entire constitution. In modern times, we have even seen the SC rule that refusal to participate in a particular marketplace is a violation of the Commerce Clause. This is the sort of thing the founders feared.

        5. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          If the Founders were alive, we’d already be killing tyrants, usurpers and Democrat domestic enemies…..by the millions. Literally.

        6. avatar Sora says:

          WRONG! He said that CCW is NOT currently covered under Heller ruling.
          He NEVER said one way or the other. Why? There’s not case for it in front of him, YET.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “WRONG! He said that CCW is NOT currently covered under Heller ruling.
          He NEVER said one way or the other. ”

          Hair splitting.

          Kavanaugh said Heller does not extend 2A protection to concealed carry. Kavanaugh said he is all about precedent, precedent, precedent, precedent. Heller is precedent. Ergo, 2A does not extend to concealed carry.

          Regardless of word-parsing, we arrive at the same place: concealed carry is not protected by 2A. Don’t set yourself up for a big disappointment. Kavanaugh is what he said he is, no more. He may be willing to nibble around the edges of 2A protection, but he is not an absolutist, originalist, or textualist.

  20. avatar GS650G says:

    Doesn’t matter how many time you win if they win once.

  21. avatar dwest says:

    Molon Labe. mic drop.

  22. avatar el Possum Guapo Standartenfuher " they think we're making pizza's Oberst von Burn says:

    It’s not the magazine capacity that creates a WMD its that its a semi -,automatic.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Actually, if you look at the murder rate (51%) and the percentage of population (3%), you’ll see that Super Predator black males between the ages of 16-24 are the Weapons of Mass Destruction that commit more than half of all the murders in the US. It’s not the guns, it’s the animals genetically predisposed to violence. And no, facts aren’t racist. They are just the truth.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        I sincerely hope you learned that the facts above also prove you’re simply talking about humans who are just as human as you. Those facts didn’t say anyone was an animal. I hope you also can see that culture and economic class are powerful drivers of violence, not related to color of skin. These aren’t faults of the white man either. But they aren’t because of anyone’s skin. They are choices made by free minds, disgusting as the results may be. Criminals deserve punishment for the crime. Don’t lump in with the progressive social identity warriors by claiming we shouldn’t be judged by the content of our character, but by the color of our skin alone. It’s a bad look, and the facts don’t support it.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          …..until you look at the evening news…..

  23. avatar Sora says:

    I’ve been donating to RMGO. They have been pushing for both the Republicans who are against the ban and the lawsuit fees.
    Please Donate. Every bit help for these true non-profit fights.

  24. avatar Michael says:

    So the court is saying (for now) there is a acceptable number of people you can shoot. The slippery slope.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “So the court is saying (for now) there is a acceptable number of people you can shoot. The slippery slope.”

      Look on the bright side: there are some states where the killing limit is restricted to five or ten.

  25. avatar ColoradoKid says:

    This law is completely unenforceable and 30-round mags are still bought and sold here everyday. Knee-jerk reaction by a dem governor. As far as I know only one person has been charged, and that was only to add more charges to a more serious crime. One other commenter was right when he/she stated that if the dem governor candidate is elected we will see some very serious new AW and mag bans. I fear that even if the repub wins we won’t see any changes. Too many fureners have moved to this state and are ruining it.

  26. avatar Stick and Rudder says:

    This nonsense is completely unenforceable. Basically the big city passes some stupid law to make the anti gun city idiots happy. Meanwhile the rest of the state is business as usual.

    Most areas of Colorado you could pull off the road and mow down pine trees with a belt fed machine gun and no one would know or even care.

    Just look at the NY Safe Act. Not only did people outside NYC not comply, most police departments openly state they won’t enforce it.

    If you think there’s gonna be roving brigades of high cap mag crackdowns you should probably stay off the internet for a while….

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      And a Wolfgang Langewiesche to you !

  27. avatar Anonymous says:

    …legitimate governmental interest in public health and safety.

    Public heath and safety???!?

    You can ride that boat all the way to total gun ban and robot take over in the movie iRobot. Public heath and safety is like communism for compliance. The state can do pretty much anything it wants under those premises.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Public heath and safety is like communism for compliance. The state can do pretty much anything it wants under those premises.”

      UR catching on.

  28. avatar Scoutino says:

    I didn’t check the stats for Colorado, but here in IL. vast majority of people killed with guns was not shot during mass shooting incidents. Actually, mass murders comprise so small graction of total ‘gun deaths’, it’s insignificant. In majority of crimes committed with a firearm the criminal rarely shot more than 15 rounds.

    Wouldn’t it be more in ‘legitimate governmental interest in public health and safety’ to focus on those committing the crimes than on tools used in hopes of lowering impact of already very rare occurrence?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Wouldn’t it be more in ‘legitimate governmental interest in public health and safety’ to focus on those committing the crimes than on tools used in hopes of lowering impact of already very rare occurrence?”

      Why do you think it is that Dimowits are working feverishly to declare every firearm an assault weapon?

  29. avatar Jonndoe says:

    WTF…pointless laws like this don’t affect criminals just the law abiding citizens, I swear…most politicians nothing but solid bone between the ears.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I swear…most politicians nothing but solid bone between the ears.”

      Actually, the great majority of politicians are quite bright, at least bright enough to know they are not paid to think, or even “do the right thing”; they are paid to “represent”. An idiot politician who loses sight of their voting base doesn’t last long. Even if we do not see a politician “representing us”, they are not “representing” no one.

  30. avatar Richard Jones says:

    What other Constitutional right do we have that is allowed to be modified and interpreted by the states and local governments? We need strong legislation confirming the right to bear arms uninfringed. No registration, no bans based on guns in common use, no bans on cosmetic differences or magazine size, make laws supreme and universal, either allow concealed carry and constitutional open carry without permit or make all permits shall issue. Eliminate individual state requirements for issuing permits, keep standards the same for all states. Allow interstate sales and transfers.

    Again, what Constitutional right do we allow the states to dictate. As a citizen I should have the same Constitutional right regardless what state I happen to be in. National legislation and SCOTUS approval would solve most of this issue. Time and resources could then be diverted to the criminal use of guns and not harassing the law abiding citizen.

  31. avatar joefoam says:

    This underscores the importance of judicial appointments. The courts are being used to legislate as they have for decades. Legislators will not pass this type of restriction for fear of alienating the majority of Americans. Get out and vote and get whatever judges you can unseated.

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