Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

"... being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A place to discuss regulation, proposed or enacted.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11658
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by DispositionMatrix »

https://www.saf.org/saf-colorado-group- ... an-appeal/
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), joined by the Millennial Policy Center (MPC), has filed an amicus brief in the challenge of Colorado’s ban on so-called “large capacity magazines,” using history, nineteenth century tradition and the Colorado State Constitution to support the challenge.
“Colorado’s history clearly demonstrates that the notion of limiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves by limiting the number of cartridges a firearm can hold is, at best, ludicrous,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “There is nothing in the Colorado Constitution that supports the action by state lawmakers, or the decision of the District Court.”

The lawsuit, filed by the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, National Association for Gun Rights and a private citizen, John A. Sternberg, challenges the magazine ban, enacted in 2013 by the Colorado Legislature.
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... bff345650f
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

User avatar
harriss
Chatty
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 3:47 pm
Location: western paradise
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by harriss »

Where is our so called defender of freedom, the NRA on this? They're probably too busy laundering money so Russia and Pootin can give millions to president Donald's campaign chest instead of fighting for the rights of American citizens.
Is ignorance bliss? NO! It's suffering. Suffering ends when ignorance ends.

User avatar
Eris
Moderator
Posts: 3075
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 11:54 am
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by Eris »

Good for SAF! I look forward to the day when LGC has enough of a political presence to do things like this.
88+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by featureless »

I wish them better luck than we've had in California.

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11658
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, National Association for Gun Rights, and John A. Sternberg are going to lose.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11658
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Gun Group Goes To Court Over Colorado’s Magazine Ban
In the latest in a string of legal battles over gun control, Rocky Mountain Guns Owners (RMGO), a pro-gun group, is challenging Colorado's large-capacity magazine ban in court.

The state's ban on large-capacity magazines, devices that can hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition, was one of a handful of gun control measures passed in 2013 in the aftermath of the Aurora theatre shooting.

"It was a reaction. An emotional reaction in the legislature to a tragedy and it's bad public policy. (...) We're really arguing that it's unconstitutional and it's ineffective. It's not going to stop mass shootings," said Dudley Brown, the executive director of RMGO.

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11658
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by DispositionMatrix »

And lose they did.
Colorado Court of Appeals upholds state’s ban on large-capacity magazines
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.

Colorado’s ability to regulate guns centers around a 1994 case, Robertson v. City of Denver. In that case, the Colorado Supreme Court decided “the state may regulate the exercise of [the right to bear arms] under its inherent police power so long as the exercise of that power is reasonable.”

The legislature’s intent in passing the 2013 law was a “legitimate governmental purposes of reducing deaths from mass shootings,” the opinion stated. And while the plaintiffs argued that the 2013 law hasn’t made a dent in overall gun violence or deaths from guns, the appeals court said that “legislation need not solve all gun problems to be constitutional. … We conclude that the statutes burden only a person’s opportunity to use [a large-capacity magazine], not a person’s right to bear arms in self-defense.”

AndyH
Banned
Posts: 5250
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:05 pm

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by AndyH »

Is there an intermediate step before taking it to the newly Kavanaugh'd Supremes?

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 11662
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by YankeeTarheel »

That's not going to be good for the NJ challenge. Although the argument can be made that lowering the limit from 15 to 10 rounds, but not for police, implies that a LEO's self-defense needs somehow requires more rounds.
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 16808
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by highdesert »

AndyH wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:32 am
Is there an intermediate step before taking it to the newly Kavanaugh'd Supremes?
All of this is taking place in the CO state court system, the next step would be the CO Supreme Court if they'd accept the case.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 21666
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by CDFingers »

highdesert wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:48 am
AndyH wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:32 am
Is there an intermediate step before taking it to the newly Kavanaugh'd Supremes?
All of this is taking place in the CO state court system, the next step would be the CO Supreme Court if they'd accept the case.
I believe a challenge will fail all the way up to the top, then fail there. Same thing with California's handgun roster. I believe they will call on Scalia's quotes from Heller and McDonald, that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose and so on. They will let the states regulate.

CDFingers
ImageImage
There are things you can replace, and others you cannot.
Time has come to weigh those things--you know this space is getting hot.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 16808
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by highdesert »

CDFingers wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:47 am
highdesert wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:48 am
AndyH wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:32 am
Is there an intermediate step before taking it to the newly Kavanaugh'd Supremes?
All of this is taking place in the CO state court system, the next step would be the CO Supreme Court if they'd accept the case.
I believe a challenge will fail all the way up to the top, then fail there. Same thing with California's handgun roster. I believe they will call on Scalia's quotes from Heller and McDonald, that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose and so on. They will let the states regulate.

CDFingers
I fear you're right. I see only three votes to accept firearms cases - Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Unless they entice another on the right wing such as Alito or Roberts, I don't see this case being accepted or winning in SCOTUS.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

AndyH
Banned
Posts: 5250
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:05 pm

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by AndyH »

If that's the case, guys, then what's the point of the Repubs stacking all the courts? I thought it would at least get us some 2A sanity. :?

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 11662
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by YankeeTarheel »

AndyH wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:47 am
If that's the case, guys, then what's the point of the Repubs stacking all the courts? I thought it would at least get us some 2A sanity. :?
Well, Alito and Roberts signed on to Heller. OTOH, the REASON for Kavanaugh was a vote for the imperial Presidency.
Tangentially, it paid off yesterday for the shit-stain as the Court ruled, in an unsigned opinion, that Wilbur Ross couldn't be deposed to testify in the Census citizenship question lawsuit.
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by featureless »

AndyH wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:47 am
If that's the case, guys, then what's the point of the Repubs stacking all the courts? I thought it would at least get us some 2A sanity. :?
We Californians can dream, right? It was the only silver lining.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 16808
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by highdesert »

AndyH wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:47 am
If that's the case, guys, then what's the point of the Repubs stacking all the courts? I thought it would at least get us some 2A sanity. :?
SCOTUS accepts so few cases so it's always about finding the right case with the right issues. We thought Peruta had the right issues and it hung around for awhile before SCOTUS finally denied cert. As we're seeing, every Republican isn't pro-gun whether it's Rep politicians or Rep judges, national concealed carry reciprocity is a prime example.

Trump is trying to stack the 9th Circuit, don't know if that will make any difference.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politi ... 69925.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11658
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Colorado's ban on large-capacity gun magazines ruled constitutional
"We hold that HB 1224 is a reasonable exercise of the police power that has neither the purpose nor effect of nullifying the right to bear arms in self-defense encompassed by article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution," the 7-0 ruling concluded.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners challenged the constitutionality of the magazine ban, but focused on the article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution, instead of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"Plaintiffs cannot now insist that federal constitutional law controls the analysis of their case," the ruling said. In sum, under article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution, the government may regulate firearms so long as the enactment is (1) a reasonable exercise of the police power (2) that does not work a nullity of the right to bear arms in defense of home, person, or property."

User avatar
sig230
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1726
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:39 pm
Location: Deep South Texas
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by sig230 »

DispositionMatrix wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:21 pm
Colorado's ban on large-capacity gun magazines ruled constitutional
"We hold that HB 1224 is a reasonable exercise of the police power that has neither the purpose nor effect of nullifying the right to bear arms in self-defense encompassed by article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution," the 7-0 ruling concluded.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners challenged the constitutionality of the magazine ban, but focused on the article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution, instead of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"Plaintiffs cannot now insist that federal constitutional law controls the analysis of their case," the ruling said. In sum, under article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution, the government may regulate firearms so long as the enactment is (1) a reasonable exercise of the police power (2) that does not work a nullity of the right to bear arms in defense of home, person, or property."
A very good ruling.
To be vintage it must be older than me! Coming to you from Deep South Texas!

User avatar
BKinzey
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by BKinzey »

sig230 wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 10:03 am
DispositionMatrix wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:21 pm
Colorado's ban on large-capacity gun magazines ruled constitutional
"We hold that HB 1224 is a reasonable exercise of the police power that has neither the purpose nor effect of nullifying the right to bear arms in self-defense encompassed by article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution," the 7-0 ruling concluded.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners challenged the constitutionality of the magazine ban, but focused on the article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution, instead of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"Plaintiffs cannot now insist that federal constitutional law controls the analysis of their case," the ruling said. In sum, under article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution, the government may regulate firearms so long as the enactment is (1) a reasonable exercise of the police power (2) that does not work a nullity of the right to bear arms in defense of home, person, or property."
A very good ruling.
It's a very bad ruling.

Why is there an exception for police? When a vigilante mob threatens you at your home, and by some miracle a responding police officer arrives before the mob kicks in your door, what is the justification for the police officer having more than 10 rounds in their magazines and you can't?

User avatar
wings
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:24 am
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by wings »

it's not very practical, whatever your feelings on extended mags are. I am only considering 'em as other people might have 'em, and I believe in equality. But - specific example - I am looking at 10/22s, which can be fit with a 25-rd mag. Or, you can buy a device that clips three 10-round rotary clips together in a tripod arrangement. You have to pull the release and rotate the mag, but that's 30 rounds California legal. Or so it seems.

The number of defensive engagements that use more than 10 rounds is probably negligible. But ask any of our black friends about armed mobs. Every mass shooting sickens me, but I look at the Canadian situation - one serial killer with a bunch of "illegal" guns bought stateside - and think, damn, that's an NRA ad right there.

I'd be more sympathetic to any argument that involves police if they hadn't shown a remarkable acceptance for brutality against peaceful and law-abiding civilians over the past few years.

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 21666
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by CDFingers »

I'm pretty sure I'll go to my grave without ever having known what SCOTUS defined as "to infringe".

A couple years ago in this thread I thought the SCOTUS would let the states regulate guns. Still think that.

CDFingers
ImageImage
There are things you can replace, and others you cannot.
Time has come to weigh those things--you know this space is getting hot.

User avatar
BKinzey
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by BKinzey »

The basic question is these laws make 2 types of citizens. The haves, and the have nots. What are the justifications for that?

If a 10 round limit is not an infringement, then why allow any citizen a pass?

Specifically as to LEOs, what situations could they face that justifies the exemptions, that non-LEO could not face?

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by featureless »

BKinzey wrote:
Sun Jul 05, 2020 3:34 pm
The basic question is these laws make 2 types of citizens. The haves, and the have nots. What are the justifications for that?

If a 10 round limit is not an infringement, then why allow any citizen a pass?

Specifically as to LEOs, what situations could they face that justifies the exemptions, that non-LEO could not face?
To add, retired LEO are special class here, too. As is the movie industry. Where is the justification for those special classes? Civil rights are not intended to create special classes of citizens. Quite the opposite.

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14602
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by sikacz »

featureless wrote:
Sun Jul 05, 2020 4:06 pm
BKinzey wrote:
Sun Jul 05, 2020 3:34 pm
The basic question is these laws make 2 types of citizens. The haves, and the have nots. What are the justifications for that?

If a 10 round limit is not an infringement, then why allow any citizen a pass?

Specifically as to LEOs, what situations could they face that justifies the exemptions, that non-LEO could not face?
To add, retired LEO are special class here, too. As is the movie industry. Where is the justification for those special classes? Civil rights are not intended to create special classes of citizens. Quite the opposite.
There should be no exemption for active LEO either. They are civilian just like the rest of the us.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Amicus brief filed in Colorado magazine ban appeal

Post by featureless »

Agreed.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests