Quantcast

Boulder, Colorado, passes assault weapon ban

Discussion in 'Legal' started by AlexanderA, May 17, 2018.

  1. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,347
    Location:
    Virginia
    The text of the ordinance is here. (You have to scroll down.)

    "Assault weapons" are defined as (a) semiautomatic centerfire rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have a pistol grip, thumbhole stock, folding or telescoping stock, or protruding forward grip, (b) semiautomatic centerfire pistols that can accept a magazine other than in the pistol grip, or have a secondary grip, and (c) semiautomatic shotguns that have any of the following:
    (1) A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
    (2) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
    (3) A folding or telescoping stock;
    (4) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; or
    (5) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

    Such guns lawfully possessed on June 15, 2018, can be grandfathered -- with a police certificate -- but cannot be transferred (within Boulder).

    Magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds are banned as of June 15. Persons lawfully in possession of such magazines on that date have until December 31 to get rid of them. There is an exception for pistol magazines (fitting within the grip) of up to 15 rounds.

    Bump stocks and "multi-burst trigger activators" are banned as well.

    This ordinance is worth studying because it shows some of the latest thinking of the antigun side.
     
    alsaqr likes this.
  2. <*(((><
    • Contributing Member

    <*(((>< Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    799
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    So based on the "and" in the statement, one can still have a semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a detacheable mag if it doesn't have a "pistol grip, thumbhole stock, folding or telescoping stock, or protruding forward grip", or vice versa one can have a semiautomatic centerfire rifle without a detacheable mag and then would be allowed to have the aforementioned accessories or types of stock.


    So this bans all AR pistols

    Lot of trap shooters and 3 gun competitors will have to limit their tube magazines

    Police certificate, code word for "registration"

    So they differentiated magazine capacity between grip fed and box fed firearms.

     
  3. beeenbag
    • Contributing Member

    beeenbag Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,275
    Location:
    Grayson, Ky
    and here goes the ball rolling towards criminalizing innocent civilians for mere ownership of a federally legal item. This is how it starts for pushing law abiding citizens into "I don't even care about these laws anymore" and taking a step towards further segregation and civil unrest.
     
  4. .455_Hunter

    .455_Hunter Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,448
    Location:
    Colorado Front Range
    Don't worry boys- the fight on this is just beginning!

    The Boulder CC does not yet realize the hornets nest they kicked.

    Gunowners around Colorado are mobilizing, because if Boulder can violate the state pre-emption law and have it stand, so can pretty much every other municipality in the state.
     
    DoubleMag likes this.
  5. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,347
    Location:
    Virginia
    The council members said that the grandfathering was an "olive branch" offered to gun owners. But there was concern among the gun owners that this would be a registration system. So, as finally passed, the police certificate would merely be the way to establish that the gun was owned by June 15, 2018. The police are prohibited from maintaining any records. They are to issue two duplicate certificates, one of which is to be kept with the gun at all times, and the other to kept in a safe place. Not having having any records, the police will thereafter be unable to issue replacement certificates if an original is lost. So, in effect, if you lose the certificates, you lose the grandfathering. In a way, this is actually worse than a registration system.

    There are also exemptions in the ordinance for FFL holders and for guns registered under the NFA. A C&R FFL would let you keep an "assault weapon" 50 years old or older (such as certain SP1 AR-15's), or you could file an ATF Form 1 to make your AR, etc., into an SBR and get exempted that way. Legally-owned machine guns are not affected by the ordinance, but their feeding devices are.
     
  6. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,347
    Location:
    Virginia
    The practical effect of such local ordinances (besides massive noncompliance) is that gun owners will move outside the boundaries of such jurisdictions. This will make those jurisdictions even more antigun. This just accelerates the Balkanization and tribalism throughout the country. If I lived in Boulder I certainly would be tempted to move outside the city limits.
     
    DoubleMag and Demi-human like this.
  7. JTHunter

    JTHunter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,721
    Location:
    Southwestern Illinois
    There are a number of .22 rifles that will fail to meet these two parameters. Ruger 10/22, 77/22, and Model 60 (tube mag.), Henry's (also tube mag.), several Remington's (both tube mags and detachable box mags), etc. o_O

    "Instant felons" comes to mind. :cuss:
     
  8. JTHunter

    JTHunter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,721
    Location:
    Southwestern Illinois
    No matter HOW you spin this, it IS a "registration scheme". And you're right about this being "worse". This is brought on by all those "refugees" from California.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 17, 2018
    10mm Mike, Stevie-Ray and Demi-human like this.
  9. Speedo66

    Speedo66 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Flatlandistan
    The way I read it, the tube magazine over 5 rounds or detachable magazine prohibition is for shotguns.
     
    danez71 likes this.
  10. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,347
    Location:
    Virginia
    Numbers (1) through (5) in the OP apply to semiautomatic shotguns.
     
    danez71 likes this.
  11. mokin

    mokin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,148
    Location:
    Western Colorado
    While I wont go so far as to say don't worry, the rest of the statement seems accurate. <*(((>< is correct in that there seems to be much that is yet to be defined. I've been following this topic for a while on another forum and there seems to be legal challenges being prepared.
     
  12. hdwhit

    hdwhit Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    4,482
    Location:
    Frisco, TX
    And, once again, the gun ban crowd fails to define the Ruger Mini-14 as a banned "assault weapon" since while it can accept a detachable magazine it lacks a pistol grip, thumb-hole stock, folding or telescoping stock, or protruding forward grip.

    If such a thing were to happen in a state where I lived, I would simply drop my Choate stock and go back to my factory original generic hardwood stock. If I were of a mind to so a mass killing (and I'm not), having a "classic" stock configuration versus a pistol grip would not make much difference.
     
    Darkhorse likes this.
  13. DoubleMag

    DoubleMag Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    632
    I am not aware of a local jurisdiction that can make felony law? Oh wait...perhaps they ''granted'' that right to themselves. If they have the majic wand why not use it
     
  14. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,347
    Location:
    Virginia
    The drafters of this plan evidently wanted to ban military-style rifles while exempting classic hunting semiautomatics, such as the Remington 740. How do you write a definition that accomplishes that purpose? You focus on cosmetic features. Interestingly, the M1 Carbine, the M1A, and the OOW M1918A3 BAR would be exempted. (The standard magazines for those weapons, however, would be covered under the magazine ban.)

    I would like to see a challenge on 2nd Amendment grounds. The "military" features being banned are precisely those that would make these guns more useful to a militia. Alternative grounds for challenges are state preemption, arbitrariness, and vagueness. For example, you can take a standard AR out of the banned definition simply by removing the pistol grip. As usual, this thing is poorly drafted.
     
  15. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    8,561
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    An amici curiae (friends of the court) brief was submitted in the 2008 DC v Heller case before the Supreme Court by several generals (Maj Gen John D. Altenburg, Jr.; Lt Gen Charles E. Dominy; Lt Gen Tom Fields; Lt Gen Jay M. Garner; Gen Ronald H. Griffith; Gen William H. Hartzog; Lt Gen Ronald V. Hite; Lt Gen Dutch Shoffner; Gen John H. Tilelli), the former director of the Civiliam Marksmanship Program (Joe R. Reeder, 14th Under Secretary of the Army) with a tag-along by the "reasonable control" American Hunters and Shooters Association.

    Their legal argument draws heavily from the generals' military experience, the Arthur D. Little study of 1966 (effectiveness of pre-service firearms training) and the same history of British and Colonial/Early American militia used by Joyce Lee Malcolm in her analysis of the Second Amendment as an individual right.

    (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and by doing so it also protects the government's ability to raise an effective volunteer military in times of national crisis. It is not either "the militia" or "the people": it protects both, in their argument.

    (2) The DC handgun ban challenged by Heller interferes with civilian marksmanship training among the citizens eligible for military service. It was in violation of both Second Amendment, the D.C. Home Rule law, and the Defense, Raise and Support Clauses of the Constitution.

    If banning handguns in D.C. interfered with civilian marksmanship training among citizen's eligible for volunteer military service (one of the many reasons to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms), what does banning military style firearms in Boulder, Colorado do?

    Unfortunately, among the handgun prohibitionists in the D.C. government, prohibition was their idea of "reasonable regulation". And I was never comfortable with the now defunct AHSA and regarded them as AstroTurf for DNC. However, I followed and read large parts of the Arthur D. Little report in 1966 and later.

    I think of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution in the light of my state constitution's Article I (statement of rights) Section 26 (right of the citizens to keep and bear arms); state courts, attorney general opinions, and declarations of legislative intent establish that the rights the state most has an interest in protecting are self-defense and militia service subject only to the power of the legislature to regulate use in public with a view to prevent crime. The emanations and penumbras of Art. I Sec. 26 protection include all traditionally lawful purposes: hunting, protecting livestock from predators, recreational shooting, collection of keepsakes and heirlooms. And I have seen gun laws relaxed in my state in my lifetime because they interferred with lawful purposes without impacting criminal misuse. Seeing such laws imposed in other cities, counties, states, pings my radar to the threat that mthey ay be tried again, either in my state or federally. What happens in Boulder may affect me in the future.


    __________________________________________________
    Held by SCOTUS in DC v Heller 2008:
    "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

    "traditionally lawful purposes" not just "self-defense within the home"
    The 1976 DC law banned having an operable gun in the home for self-defense. SCOTUS not only struck that down but held 2A supported traditionally lawful purposes.
     
  16. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,347
    Location:
    Virginia
    Exactly. It's a test case. But there is no indication that the Supreme Court is prepared to wade into the issue of "assault weapon" bans.
     
  17. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    15,705
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    It has no teeth. § 29-11.7-103, preemption law. Boulder does not have home rule, will end up paying handsomely with taxpayer money should they attempt to actually enforce this nonsense.
     
    Phaedrus/69 and DoubleMag like this.
  18. Jeff H

    Jeff H Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,414
    Location:
    Ohio
    Wow, Boulder is sure brazen to pass such legislation in the face of State Preemption. Such a blatant slap in the face and the courts will surely overrule it. Here in Ohio we have cities trying the same thing with bump stocks. Lawsuits are already being prepared by our local gun groups.
     
    DoubleMag likes this.
  19. Trunk Monkey

    Trunk Monkey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,740
    Location:
    Colorado
    It's almost impossible to find a news source with all the facts but apparently they are claiming a home rule exemption.
     
  20. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    15,705
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    They can claim it all they want, but they don't have it. Even Denver is not exempt concerning new laws; the courts only allowed the city to maintain it's OC ban and AWB.

    They're testing the waters, seeing if they can get away with it. I'm not sure if there are any grounds to sue before they attempt to prosecute with it, though. A number of municipalities have unlawful ordinances on the books, but I've yet to hear of anyone being prosecuted.
     
    DoubleMag likes this.
  21. Evergreen

    Evergreen Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    544
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    I was under the impression that Colorado was a preemption state and that only Denver was the only city that could circumvent preemption because of some strange technicality. So, if counties or jurisdictions can just give the middle finger to the state government, what are the point of even having state laws anymore? Laws should just be based on the county and preemption is more or less null and void.

    This is shocking. I guess the ultimate test is if the county and city governments will shut down gun stores and start prosecuting people. I'm worried the liberal Colorado state government will probably overlook the offense, just as the liberal state governments have done in Washington state. I'm assuming this will likely have to go to a Federal appeals court or something of that nature?

    I wish there would be laws making it illegal for lawmakers to violate state laws and enforce illegal laws, but, of course, politicians are immune to violating their own state laws.
     
  22. Alec

    Alec Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    243
    Location:
    Washington State
    I feel this is in a gray area. Either these features are strictly cosmetic in nature and make no difference in lethality, or they serve a useful purpose to make the weapon more effective. It can’t be both, and one of those is useful to an anti agenda.
     
  23. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,154
    The features are those found on most modern firearms, because old fashion guns were a fancy stick with a barrel and modern guns have handles on them at right angles, because guess what our hands grasp things at right angles to our arms and so what best suits the human body is a gun with grips at a right angle to the stock you put against the shoulder.

    I also love how in the assault weapon bans pistols have to have pistol grips and accepting a magazine someplace else makes them bad, but rifles cannot have pistol grips and so must take a magazine someplace else.
    In fact taking a mechtec glock carbine is a great example. A glock pistol is a pistol with a pistol grip that has magazines inserted into it which the assault weapon ban requires to not be an assault weapon handgun, remove the slide and put a carbine upper on it and that same pistol is now an unlawful assault weapon because of that same grip which is required by law for a pistol and forbidden by law on a rifle. Required on a handgun banned on a rifle. The same feature can be both so good as to be required and so evil as to be banned in the same legislation.

    Also in the old bans a pistol that is too heavy is illegal just by being too heavy, but a pistol that was too small was also often banned before concealed carry and has more import restrictions as too readily concealable or even for using too weak of a round, or too cheap and of light material is a saturday night special. Not to heavy, not too light, not to big, not too small. Not too strong not too weak.

    A rifle that is too big and powerful is too deadly and banned like a 50 bmg in California but one that is too short yet still over the federal size requirements is an assault weapon as banned. Not too big, not too small, must be just right.

    Likewise ammunition that uses non lead common inexpensive materials is often unlawful armor piercing ammunition, but if it uses common inexpensive lead is toxic and getting restricted on that basis. Not too hard, not too soft, not too cheap, not too common.

    They are banning opposites in many cases and leaving it up to you to find a work around in the middle. Being used to the same old things and definitions sometimes removes you from the absurdity of it.
    They ban both ends of the spectrum then try to squeeze out what is left in the middle.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2018
  24. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,347
    Location:
    Virginia
    Every banned feature represents a marginal improvement in effectiveness. If we take as a baseline the M1 Garand (which nobody is currently proposing to ban), it's pretty effective. Add a removable magazine, and it becomes an M14/M1A, which is more effective, but, again, which nobody is proposing to ban -- possibly because, featurewise, it's indistinguishable from a Remington Model 742, a classic Fudd hunting rifle. So there has to be an arbitrary line somewhere on the continuum of features, and the antis have decided that a pistol grip is it. Really, though, they're going to be focusing on magazine capacity more than on the guns themselves.
     
  25. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,154
    That is not true. The mini-14 has been banned in AWB legislation that has popped up in various places after it was seen to become a go to during the federal restrictions. The m14/m1a is just a non-mini mini 14.
    It wouldn't be left alone for long either.



    Semi auto with a removable magazine is what will be an assault weapon if they can get rid of the scary colored ones with pistol grips. Before semi auto at all would be, as it has been in most of the world, including those with legal systems like ours in the commonwealth nations. They call them self-loading.
    This legislation already makes it semi auto with greater than 5 rounds in a fixed magazine, what makes you think detachable magazines would get a special pass for long if it was allowed to stand?

    The GCA of 1968 set the bore diameter at .5 or less, and the .50 BMG round had been around awhile already, being a scaled up .30-06 in 1921, and having seen a lot of use in WW2.
    Prior to 1968 people could buy 20mm and 30mm guns, and since then we have seen .50 cal bans. While too cheap or small guns were targeted, and face import restrictions intended to prohibit them.
    Not too big, not too small, and they keep setting a new standard on what is too big, or holds too many rounds. They wouldn't stop at semi auto either, and in fact become more emboldened as the people have less and less effective arms.

    I can recall legislation that used to consider large capacity magazines the really big drums, now it means a standard capacity magazine. After legislation like this it means even magazines half that size, or with a 5 round limit more than 1/6th that size.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2018
    JTHunter and sharkman like this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice