Just a day after the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against Denver, Colorado, challenging the city ordinance banning many common semi-automatic rifles, the Justice Department set its crosshairs on the state law banning standard-capacity firearm magazines, which most of the Denver-banned firearms use.
On May 6, the DOJ filed the lawsuit U.S. v. Colorado in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The DOJ complaint alleges that the state unconstitutionally bans certain constitutionally protected standard capacity firearm magazines, thereby infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in common use for lawful purposes.
“Colorado’s ban on certain magazines is political virtue signaling at the expense of Americans’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division said in a news release announcing the court action. “Under my direction, the Division’s Second Amendment Section will continue to defend law-abiding Americans’ rights against unconstitutional restrictions on their right to possess arms which are owned by tens of millions of their fellow citizens.”
As the complaint explains, a Colorado statute makes it a crime to possess so-called “large-capacity magazines.” But the state has previously admitted that it bans magazines that come standard with many of the most popular firearms in the nation, including AR-15-style rifles, which are the most popular rifles in America. Law-abiding Americans own hundreds of millions of magazines like those the state has banned.
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark decision District of Columbia v. Heller, held that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to possess weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes.
“The magazine ban uses politically charged rhetoric to describe the arms it bans,” the complaint states. “The magazine ban’s characterization of these magazines as ‘large capacity’ is a misnomer, because magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds are, in fact, standard capacity magazines for many popular firearms, including the AR-15 rifle, the most popular rifle in America.”
The complaint also points out how common the use of such magazines is, with hundreds of millions of them in American citizens’ collections.
“A detachable magazine is an integral part of most semi-automatic firearms, including the AR-15 rifle,” the complaint states. “As such, they are covered by the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. The state’s magazine ban is a ban on an arm in common use for lawful [purposes] by law-abiding citizens. Therefore, the magazine ban violates the Second Amendment, and the United States brings this action to vindicate the rights of Colorado citizens whose rights have been—and are continuing to be—violated by defendants.”
Ultimately, the DOJ is asking the court to issue a permanent injunction against the statute, preventing any law enforcement in the state from enforcing the unconstitutional ban.
As mentioned previously, the move comes just a day after the DOJ sued Denver for its ban on so-called “assault weapons.” In announcing that lawsuit, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanches said: “The Constitution is not a suggestion and the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. Denver’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles directly violates the right to bear arms. This Department of Justice will vigorously defend the liberties of law-abiding citizens nationwide.”
In common use.
That is going to bite future generations in the ass big time.
The Second Amendments Right to bear arms, if followed to the letter, sets no restrictions on what arms a person is allowed to bear.
This lawsuit is just more scraps tossed to the dogs that the dogs have chosen as their their masters, the DoJ, the Supreme Court, and all the other agencies of repression.
Bruen sucked! It was never a “Win”.
Seems like the DOJ should take on the Illinois ban on parts, magazines, and firearms instead of CO. Our ban in Illinois is more extensive than the CO ban on magazines and firearms. Our ban includes parts and you have to register every thing attached to the firearm along with the the actual firearm that the items are attached to it in Illinois. Why are not more 2nd Amendment advocates like TTAG talking about the ban on parts and attachments in Illinois? or is it easier to focus on just magazines and firearms?
I believe that it would be much harder to “prove” that having to REGISTER parts and attachments actually violates the 2nd Amendment, than BANS on firearms and magazines. Also, if BANS are declared Unconstitutional that would probably invalidate any justification for the requirement to register parts and attachments.
It is a ban on buying new parts.. The ban on parts stops someone from repairing their firearm if something breaks. If you are a builder, you can not build out a firearm without parts or part kits. There are two parts of the registration process: 1. Registration of the actual firearm. 2. Registration of what is actually attached to the firearm, such as red dot, hand guard, butt stock, and etc….
PICA is a mess for 2A supporters in Illinois and is much more than just a ban on magazines and firearms. Parts are really important for your firearms if you do not have access to them in your state.
Your original description said “register” which I answered but now you are saying “ban on buying new parts” and I am very confused on what the laws you are talking about actually are?
Well they have buddy! Used to have the Guns Save Life guy Boch as a regular columnist. And I was going to post “when they slap Prickster let me know!”. Guns Save Life may or may not matter. ILLANNOY may be the most corrupt state in America🙄
To hazard a guess it may have to do with what circuit court is involved as there are several options on either coast as well as IL to work with. I haven’t heard as much about the 10th circuit one way or another but the 2nd, 9th, and 7th are all fairly well known for being obnoxious in supporting nonsense gun laws where they can and dragging out decisions when they cannot. I would have guessed something in the 3rd circuit for target rich environment with a fairly neutral (ish) judiciary but see what happens as there is always more to learn.
democRat’s version of the 2A…
“A well regulated Militia, being Unecessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, Shall Be Infringed.”
Arrest the treasonous Ratbassturds.
If “Contempt of Constitution” were something we could charge people with, I’d think arrests would just be the first step.
I think it should be punishable by death. Send a few state governors, legislators, and some judges to the gallows, and we’d see a new respect for the Constitution.
It has been suggested that the Trump DOJ has selected to file lawsuits against gun laws in Denver and Colorado because they believe that the US Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals district is more moderate and when, not if, the City and State law suits are appealed, that Court may support the lawsuits, thus setting up conflicting Appellate Federal Court decisions which may then cause the US Supreme Court to review the case and declare the bans unconstitutional countrywide. However, the Trump administration is also up against the timeline for the Presidential election in November 2028 with a new President in January 2029, to accomplish its goal.
I love 1Kt atomic hand grenades – the are not banned yet. Just got one at the 7-11 on sale for $1.99.
Republicans are red, Democrats are blue, Red can have atomic hand grenades and so can you.
Cheers America!
The US Supreme Court defines “arms” in the Second Amendment as any weapon of offense or thing a person wears or carries for defense, not limited to firearms or weapons in existence at the founding. This includes bearable items like knives, stun guns, and swords, generally covering tools meant for personal or military defense.Key Judicial and Historical Definitions:District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): The Court defined arms as “weapons of offence” or “thing[s] that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” meant for “offensive or defensive action”.Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016): The Court confirmed that “bearable arms” includes weapons not in existence at the time of the founding (e.g., stun guns) and is not restricted to traditional firearms.Founding Era Context: Eighteenth-century definitions, often cited by courts, referred to arms as things used to “cast at or strike at another” or for self-defense.Scope of “Arms”:Not Just Firearms: The definition extends to knives, tasers, stun guns, police batons, and pepper spray.”Bearable” Limitations: The Second Amendment generally covers arms that can be carried and operated by one person, as opposed to heavy military armament (e.g., missiles).”In Common Use”: While covering modern weapons, this protection applies primarily to weapons in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense, rather than dangerous and unusual weapons.Disclaimer: The interpretation of “arms” is a subject of ongoing legal debate and supreme court jurisprudence.
My home city, which has a major university that has big sports programs, actually has an ordinance still on the books that makes it illegal to throw, kick or otherwise propel any object.