On a day of momentous U.S. Supreme Court action, the Colorado Supreme Court lays down the law locally by unanimously upholding the state’s 2013 15-round limit on gun magazine capacity passed in the wake of the Aurora theater and other mass shootings the previous year–9NEWS’ Marshall Zelinger reports:
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its ruling Monday morning, ending the seven-year challenge by Loveland-based Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.
In 2013, one year after the Aurora Theater Shooting, Colorado’s democratic-controlled legislature passed a number of gun reform bills, including House Bill 13-1224, which banned the sale and transfer of magazines that hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition. Then-Gov. John Hickenlooper signed the bill into law, which took effect July 1, 2013…
“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.
The challenge to the 2013 magazine limit passed in Colorado cited the gun rights language of the Colorado Constitution, which Rocky Mountain Gun Owners has argued is more restrictive against regulations on guns than the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. At the federal level, Colorado is of course not the only state with a limit on magazine capacity, so the ability of local gun-rights activists to score some kind of judicial coup with our state’s “unique” constitutional language ends here.
Seven years ago the polls still showed strong public support for the laws passed in Colorado including the magazine limit, but the fierce political retaliation engineered and funded by the gun lobby against Colorado Democrats for daring to pass these bills overcame public support in successful recall elections. Since the passage of Colorado’s landmark package of gun safety bills in 2013, the issue has evolved to the point where gun control is a much less politically risky subject for Democrats to take on.
With Colorado’s magazine limit now unanimously upheld in the state’s highest court, the next order of business should be putting a stop to reported widespread flouting of the law by unscrupulous gun dealers encouraged by politically-motivated law enforcement. With this ruling, sheriffs who think they can cherry-pick the laws they choose to enforce and politicians who encourage the public to become lawbreakers should be on notice.
If there are loopholes in the law, close them. And when people break the law, lock them up.
Please stop using that photo.
It makes me want to vomit.
I think it's hawt.
Oh, noes! I can only buy 15 round magazines for my 9 mm Glock 17? The horror. Since my three 17 round magazines were grand fathered in, that means buying three more will only let me fire 96 rounds in a minute or so, rather than the 102 that God and the founding fathers intended. If this isn’t tyranny, I don’t know what is.
On second thought, I do know what tyranny is. The designated hitter rule is tyranny!
I'm glad you posted that. I was wondering about the mag limit for original equipment. I've got a G17 I bought in '86 with 2 17 rounds mags and an extended mag, 21 rounds that I got from Glock. I didn't know those were grandfathered in. Thanks for the info.
I was told any prelaw stuff was grandfathered in. But if you resell it, the new limits will apply to the new buyer. My source was a police officer, so probably well informed.
Has ANYONE heard of a situation with someone defending themselves after 15 rounds? Or, sadly, NOT being able to defend themselves or their home after expending the first 15 rounds and before they could change the magazine?
Well, remember, the left is demanding that we abolish the police. So the next time you face a home invasion, you're on your own until the National Guard can mobilize. Better stock up on eight-shot Maverick shotguns. They are usually on sale for $200 at big 5 so get a dozen or so.
V, "The left", is doing no such thing. How about a little nuance?
Actually, "Abolish the police;" is the official marching song of the left wing coocoo clock marching ba nd and chowder s ociety. For proof, read the signs at any protest rally.
As I said…that is only part of the "left". The "coocoo clock marching band" is not really our policy division.
Maybe not, but it’s the part hogging the TV screen. Thank god for bernie, who said better selection and better training will cost more money for cops, not less.
As for the Abolish the Police crowd, if they try to firebomb my house, there better be at least 18 of them, because I still have a 17 round magazine.
. . . And, today’s award for best parody imitation of a ridiculously blustering dumphuck goes to . . .
Oh, Dio, you retired that trophy years ago.
These two. By a mile!:
(Tough day. As good as your entry was there, you really weren’t even close.)
But, hey, bright side, champ — today is a new day!
(You ever think about maybe upgrading your wardrobe? . . .)
Considering that he's pointing the rifle at his wife, maybe a divorce is coming? Seriously, even a non-gun owner like me knows you don't point a gun at another person unless you really do plan to use it.
MY EYES! THE BURN!
Ken Buck and that other pointy-headed idiot with their "patriotic" rifles really are easier on the eyes than that slug.
Just for you skinny. Now just imagine them in Moddy’s grandmother’s basement in their American flag Speedos. You’re welcome
Ahhh, another of our prototypical happy little Gunmerican white suburban couples striking a pose as a defense of their marble McMansion . . .
(. . . shouldn’t the little Karen be waving her .25? Ken’s pink polio shirt must be in the laundry?)
You know, as between those two shitnozzles and the hairy dude who's a finger twitch away from castration-by-firearm, it's kind of a toss up as to which photo is harder on the eyes.