In setback to gun advocates, Colorado’s large-capacity magazine ban survived yet another court chall

[Aim1]

Wow.

From the article:

“That decision, known as Colo. Outfitters Ass'n v. Hickenlooper, considered both offensive and defensive implications of 18-12-302. It determined LCMs are mostly used offensively for unlawful purposes, such as mass shootings, and that the law did not seriously diminish the ability of persons to defend themselves.”




https://www.summitdaily.com/news/re...ine-ban-survived-yet-another-court-challenge/

In setback to gun advocates, Colorado’s large-capacity magazine ban survived yet another court challenge

Noah Klug
Special to the Daily
November 24, 2018

Colorado's large-capacity magazine ban survived yet another legal challenge by gun advocates in a recent decision by the Colorado Court of Appeals.

 

[Sebastian]

"...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 reasonably related to a legitimate government interest, not overbroad, and does not sweep constitutionally protected activities within its reach."

 

[JohnKSa]

It determined LCMs are mostly used offensively for unlawful purposes, such as mass shootings, and that the law did not seriously diminish the ability of persons to defend themselves.”

Wow, that's a truly impressive amount of pure knuckleheadedness condensed into a very few words.

 

[cheygriz]

We'll never win this one in court. we need to fight it in the political arena.

 

[Robert]

And it is still unenforceable and continues to be unenforced. Only one person I know of has ever been charged with violation of this law and it was a minor add on to a stack of feloines. Possession is not illegal and it is on the state to prove you didn't own the mag before the law went into effect. They can't.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

And it is still unenforceable and continues to be unenforced. Only one person I know of has ever been charged with violation of this law and it was a minor add on to a stack of feloines. Possession is not illegal and it is on the state to prove you didn't own the mag before the law went into effect. They can't.

This.

Even CA can't/won't enforce it.

It's a dopey law that needs fixing and the people who put it on the books need to be ousted.

 

[Jim Watson]

If these restrictions applied equally to Armed Government Employees, the cops, bailiffs, and bodyguards for even the most liberal politician would be on our side. (Our=armed private citizens, "civilians" in AGE-speak.)

 

[loose noose]

Since that law passed I stopped hunting in Colorado, and refuse to spend any money in that state, unfortunately a lot of my cohorts have not done the same, or perhaps they'd feel the crunch.

 

[ATLDave]

Courts are basically applying rational-basis review standards to gun control right now. Unless/until the Supreme Court clarifies that it needs to be strict scrutiny, you're not going to get help from the courts on things that do not entirely disarm people.

 

[GEM]

Said this before. You say that they won't be turned it. Whoopee. So they lose most utility.

1. Can't use them for competition
2. Can't use them for hunting (if local laws used to allow)
3. Use them in SD and there's evidence of a crime by you and the prosecuting will use this in an ambiguous case to say you are nuts
4. Your ex turns you in.
5. Your dumb kid tells the neighbor's kid

Viva La Resistance!

It's isn't like Prohibition or the marijuana laws or the adultery laws where you can use or do the bad thing. Here they just sit in closet or stay buried waiting for the Revolution.

But wait, Kavanaugh will save us! Wait for Scotus to take the case. Common usage saves the day.

My thoughts on that based on two good articles:

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6669627#post6669627

 

[boom boom]

Said this before. You say that they won't be turned it. Whoopee. So they lose most utility.

1. Can't use them for competition
2. Can't use them for hunting (if local laws used to allow)
3. Use them in SD and there's evidence of a crime by you and the prosecuting will use this in an ambiguous case to say you are nuts
4. Your ex turns you in.
5. Your dumb kid tells the neighbor's kid

Viva La Resistance!

It's isn't like Prohibition or the marijuana laws or the adultery laws where you can use or do the bad thing. Here they just sit in closet or stay buried waiting for the Revolution.

But wait, Kavanaugh will save us! Wait for Scotus to take the case. Common usage saves the day.

My thoughts on that based on two good articles:

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6669627#post6669627

Your example doesn't work with Colorado's law as it stands now.
If prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt when they were acquired and magazines are not serialized, then 1,3,4, and 5 are taken off of the table.

Hunting has pretty much always been subject to magazine limitations due to other considerations (assuming that the right to hunt in CO is not constitutional in basis--too lazy to look it up).

Self defense--necessity can be argued in many states--e.g. even a felon drug dealer has self defense rights upon being robbed--depends on a number of factors in state law whether or not it would be allowed. Classic example is a felon who seizes a weapon from someone trying to kill him and uses it. Necessity defense would argue that he should not be charged as a felon in possession of a handgun.

See https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-the-necessity-defense.html

 

[GEM]

Seizing a weapon by a felon is not the same as owning a prohibited item. Also, if the case is iffy - having a prohibited item won't look good.

The prosecution says to a naive jury. The gun used was an military pattern semi-automiatc rifle, the magazine used while legal to own as it was bought XYZ, is of a type that is now prohibited.

Simple factual statement. Would it look good for you? Do you trust a jury member to parse this for you?

My comments were generic in nature for the 'keep the illegal item' hidden crowd. If they can't prove the item is illegal, no problem. If a state mandates that owning ANY is illegal - you have a problem.

 

[natman]

This is the first step. California had a similar law, no new magazines after a certain date, but ones already in possession were legal. Then they made possession illegal and would be confiscating them now except that an injunction put it on hold pending resolution of the resulting court case. (Duncan v. Becerra).

It's an ongoing process, one slice at a time.

 

[bearcreek]

and that the law did not seriously diminish the ability of persons to defend themselves.”

See, I would actually agree with this statement, generally speaking. The chances of a civilian needing more than 15 rounds in a gun to defend themselves from another civilian are infinitesimally small. This is a major problem with the way that much of the "gun community" has been going about justifying "2A rights" for years. The 2A isn't about civilians defending themselves from other civilians. That's just a side benefit.

 

[Tommygunn]

See, I would actually agree with this statement, generally speaking. The chances of a civilian needing more than 15 rounds in a gun to defend themselves from another civilian are infinitesimally small. This is a major problem with the way that much of the "gun community" has been going about justifying "2A rights" for years. The 2A isn't about civilians defending themselves from other civilians. That's just a side benefit.

One way to ejumakate antis is to demonstrate a magazine change and show how fast it can be done. The Florida Parkland high school shooter didn't use high cap mags, he had a bagful of 10 round AR-15 magazines, as he thought they wouldn't "print." Yet the necessity of reloading after every 10 rounds didn't limit the firepower he threw out.
Reasonable people will realize capacity limits are pointless. Of course, the die-hard antis might only redouble their agenda to eliminate semi autos, or ban guns altogether.

 

[Jeff H]

The 2A isn't about civilians defending themselves from other civilians. That's just a side benefit.

I just felt that this needed to be said again.

 

[bearcreek]

One way to ejumakate antis is to demonstrate a magazine change and show how fast it can be done. The Florida Parkland high school shooter didn't use high cap mags, he had a bagful of 10 round AR-15 magazines, as he thought they wouldn't "print." Yet the necessity of reloading after every 10 rounds didn't limit the firepower he threw out.

Not really a good argument, IMO. They can just throw that back at you and say, "well why do you care that much if you have 30 round magazines then?" or, "well then, we should ban all detachable magazines". Heck, they can even point to posts on this very forum stating that civilians rarely need more than 5 rounds to defend themselves from a criminal. Might as well just limit people to revolvers.

 

[Tommygunn]

Not really a good argument, IMO. They can just throw that back at you and say, "well why do you care that much if you have 30 round magazines then?" or, "well then, we should ban all detachable magazines". Heck, they can even point to posts on this very forum stating that civilians rarely need more than 5 rounds to defend themselves from a criminal. Might as well just limit people to revolvers.

As I said, there will be the diehard antis who will NEVER give up their utopianistic dream of disarming us. I don't believe there is a perfect "magic pill" argument that will do that, but I do think many people think magazine change outs are long enough to allow some innocent people caught in a mass shooting to run 50 feet through frightened people and pounce on a shooter, and THESE people might be persuaded.

 

[bearcreek]

I do think many people think magazine change outs are long enough to allow some innocent people caught in a mass shooting to run 50 feet through frightened people and pounce on a shooter, and THESE people might be persuaded.

I don't understand why trying to convince people that low capacity magazines can be used to kill people nearly as fast as standard capacity magazines is helpful in any way.

 

[GEM]

Good point, convincing folks you can be a fast shooting monster with lower cap magazines will convince them to let the monsters have higher cap magazines.

That's like someone (as I've seen in some videos) say look at this full auto M4. It is nasty. Now look at an identical appearing AR-15 that is semi and how fast (slower granted) than full auto. See it's nice. Let me have it. Now we can have relatively fast rampages, but not as fast as full auto.

Gun folks have a problem of perspective taking. They can't see what a negative person on guns would take away from such demos.

 

[Ignition Override]

Even if Colorodo decided not to prosecute a future citizen using a "Normal Capacity Mag" for self-defense, or sporting purposes....involving a rifle or handgun....

Image the legal costs which could destroy or eat up half, maybe all of somebody's retirement/life savings (?) Despair/despondency about the future.
Even people with "gun carry insurance" (i.e. USCCA etc) would not have their legal expenses covered for this--would they?

 

[Tommygunn]

I don't understand why trying to convince people that low capacity magazines can be used to kill people nearly as fast as standard capacity magazines is helpful in any way.

Ok, I guess you have a point there. Of course, looking from it from that way, it isn't a good idea to argue that it's easy to kill any number of people in any way.

Good point, convincing folks you can be a fast shooting monster with lower cap magazines will convince them to let the monsters have higher cap magazines.

That's like someone (as I've seen in some videos) say look at this full auto M4. It is nasty. Now look at an identical appearing AR-15 that is semi and how fast (slower granted) than full auto. See it's nice. Let me have it. Now we can have relatively fast rampages, but not as fast as full auto.

Gun folks have a problem of perspective taking. They can't see what a negative person on guns would take away from such demos.

Well, my ooooooops.

There is no good way to argue in favor of "normal cap." mags or semi autos that can't be viewed as a bad thing (?).
"Any set of facts, when viewed from an alternate perspective, will yield a different interpretation," ~~ Sherlock Holmes.

 

[bearcreek]

Ok, I guess you have a point there. Of course, looking from it from that way, it isn't a good idea to argue that it's easy to kill any number of people in any way.

Obviously you wouldn't use that exact terminology. You'd phrase it in a more positive way. The problem is that that's what the argument actually amounts to and a relatively intelligent person is going to see that. I realize that there are a lot of dumb people out there but it's not a good idea to rely on an opponent's stupidity to win arguments.

There is no good way to argue in favor of "normal cap." mags or semi autos that can't be viewed as a bad thing (?).

Yes, there is. Looking back in history, the number one most likely threat to civilian life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, is their own government. The threat from other civilians doesn't even come remotely close.

 

[Tommygunn]

Obviously you wouldn't use that exact terminology. You'd phrase it in a more positive way. The problem is that that's what the argument actually amounts to and a relatively intelligent person is going to see that. I realize that there are a lot of dumb people out there but it's not a good idea to rely on an opponent's stupidity to win arguments.


Yes, there is. Looking back in history, the number one most likely threat to civilian life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, is their own government. The threat from other civilians doesn't even come remotely close.

I'm not sure you're going to be able to convince most antis of this. I've heard it brought up and the response is usually something like "you gotta trust the goverment" to "you wouldn't be able to fight the govt., they have tanks and attack helicopters and (whatever)."
A California rep., Eric Swalwell, even said that it would be a short war because the goverment has nukes. He got lambasted and walked it back, but the point remains, he thinks the people wouldn't be able to fight back.
He would not be likely to really consider opposing arguments, IMHO.

 

[bearcreek]

I'm not sure you're going to be able to convince most antis of this.

Of course not. The vast majority of "anti's" will never be convinced. Attempting to pull the wool over their eyes with half truths is a fools errand.