Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Saw this flipping through the news.

 

 

 

Federal judge upholds Colorado gun laws, dismisses lawsuit
_h353_w628_m6_otrue_lfalse.jpgPhoto: Brennan Linsley, AP
In this Feb. 5, 2013 file photo, a gun dealer takes down an AK-47 assault rifle from the sales rack at his gun store, east of Colorado Springs, Colo.
_h17_w0_m6_otrue_lfalse.gif 0 sec agoBy Reuters

 

DENVER (Reuters) - A federal judge upheld gun laws on Thursday introduced by Colorado in the wake of deadly shooting rampages there and in Connecticut, dismissing a lawsuit brought by sheriffs, gun shops, outfitters and shooting ranges.

The two laws, passed in 2013 by Colorado's Democratic-controlled legislature with scant Republican support, banned ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds and required background checks for all private gun sales and transfers.

The bills were introduced in response to a shooting spree in 2012 that killed 12 people at a suburban Denver movie theater, and the slaying later that same year of 20 children and six adults at an elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

But they immediately met resistance from critics, including most of Colorado's elected sheriffs, who said they severely restricted citizens' constitutional right to own and bear arms.

Last year, voters recalled two key Democratic members of the legislature that approved the controversial measures.

After a two-week civil trial, U.S. District Chief Judge Marcia Krieger ruled the lawsuit lacked standing and said no evidence had been produced which showed limiting magazines to 15 rounds seriously diminished the ability to defend oneself.

"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," she said in her ruling.

Responding to complaints about expanded background checks, she said there were more than 600 firearms dealers in the state which actively perform private checks, and that it takes an average of less than 15 minutes for a check to be run by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat who signed the bills into law, was named as the defendant in the lawsuit.

Colorado has seen two of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history. In addition to the 2012 theater shooting, it was the site of a 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, where two teenagers shot dead a teacher and 12 other students before committing suicide.

But it is also a state where gun ownership is treasured.

Colorado's Attorney General John Suthers, a Republican, said his office never claimed the laws were "good, wise, or sound policy," but that it had fulfilled its responsibility to defend the constitutionality of the state law in question.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad. Is that how we decide how many rounds we can have? The average number of shots fired in self-defense? That could be as little as 2-3 shots.

 

Do we have to give criminals a "sporting" chance?

 

Since an officers pistol is a defensive weapon, should they be limited also?

Edited by Sim_Player
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"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," she said in her ruling.

 

So then cops don't need them either, right? rolleyes.gif

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

"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," she said in her ruling.

 

So then cops don't need them either, right? rolleyes.gif

Dont forget all the Sheriffs were on our side

Link to post
Share on other sites

" In this Feb. 5, 2013 file photo, a gun dealer takes down an AK-47 assault rifle from the sales rack at his gun store, east of Colorado Springs, Colo"

 

 

 

piss on rueters and the liberal b.s. they spread

 

 

it may be a squirt gun for all they know

Edited by read_the_wall
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

_h353_w628_m6_otrue_lfalse.jpgPhoto: Brennan Linsley, AP

 

 

 

 

hey, I know that guy when I was stationed at Ft.Carson, Co.  that's Mel Bernstein , his shop is located out in the middle of nowhere, DRAGONMAN'S. it was just past the Olympic training center. he had some nice vehicles as well, a ferret  and a couple of other wheeled military vehicles, which I can recall now

 

I bought my very first gun from him a MAADI AKM in 93 (I still have it  :)). when I took it to civilian weapon  range on post,  I couldn't get the thing to shoot auto so matter what I did, I figured it was broke. so I  went back and told him, he laughed and said you can't buy full auto weapons over the counter yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

hey, how was I suppose to know?  I was not a "gun person" never was, and never  owned  a privately owned weapon (POW ) or know all the stupid laws.

Edited by Matthew Hopkins
Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge should look though some other rights and consider how many of those rights are based off of tangible needs for survival.

 

Do gay people need to be married?

 

Do women need to vote?

 

Do you need to smoke pot?

 

Does anyone really need to speak freely?

 

So applying her logic to the above really rolls back a lot of "progress"

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge should look though some other rights and consider how many of those rights are based off of tangible needs for survival.

 

Do gay people need to be married?

 

Do women need to vote?

 

Do you need to smoke pot?

 

Does anyone really need to speak freely?

 

So applying her logic to the above really rolls back a lot of "progress"

 

Well said. This is simply another instance of someone agreeing with the rights that they "like".

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I took from that decision was that 15 rounds haven't been used by people to defend themselves, therefore 15 rounds was adequate..

To me - that means one should use all 30 rounds in a magazine and reload and claim that at least 30 were needed!  I would like to see the same argument used as to why POLICE in this country need 30 magazines and military equipment.  Please site "use" and compelling need.

I thing the American people need to be able to repel their own military (and L.E.'s), should they be utilized for (likely) political purposes.

Just like the 1st amendment isn't in the Constitution to protect popular speech, the 2nd Amendment isn't in the Constitution to support "legitimate sporting purposes" or hunting....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't cite more than 15 rounds to defend yourself? Why didn't the lawyer didnt throw this in the Judge face to get it on record. Ugh

Hey Judge, the 2A doesnt talk about (defense/sporting etc) .... its about Security of a Free State, and the Rights of the People shall not be infringed.

Its not that hard.

 

However, here are some examples for the record....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_the_United_States

Edited by whatmanual
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'd prefer they don't roll those dice with the current court makeup.

 

There is ZERO way that the same people that did not understand the meaning and goal of the straw purchase law are going to find the ownership of 15+ round magazines to be a right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'd prefer they don't roll those dice with the current court makeup.

 

There is ZERO way that the same people that did not understand the meaning and goal of the straw purchase law are going to find the ownership of 15+ round magazines to be a right.

 

It's probably better now than after Barry/Hitlary gets a crack at a few more picks. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS refused to hear the case now and decided to hear a very similar case in the future with an even more liberal panel. It's better for everyone if CO continues to vote pro-gun and this crap is handled at the state level. Eventually this will end up in the SCOTUS anyhow... probably around the time some federal ban comes in. We've all seen the wishlist of no grandfathering and such that's been going on in some places so its no doubt going to climb the ladder.

 

Though it was bullshit because its a bullshit law the way it is written, I think the straw buyer judgement was the correct legal judgement. It's what the crazy lefties wrote in their op-ed style decision and the comments made after that was terrifying.

 

"No piece of information is more important under federal firearms law than the identity of a gun's purchaser — the person who acquires a gun as a result of a transaction with a licensed dealer," -Kagan

 

Was this case about gun registries or FTF sales? hummm.... I think someone has an opinion... It won't get much better when there are 3 more just like her.

Edited by Maxwelhse
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...