CO Supreme Court rules CO magazine ban constitutional


Just more proof that the courts are useless and corrupt.

DENVER (KDVR) — The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday that a law banning gun magazines that hold more than 15 rounds is Constitutional.

The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO)  filed the lawsuit, stating that the law violates a person’s state constitutional right to bear arms.

In 2013, the democratic led House and Senate passed the ban in Colorado which prohibits the sale or possession of magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.Read full order:Download

It was one of several gun reform laws passed that years following a number of deadly mass shooting in the U.S. including Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut and the Aurora theatre shooting.

At the time, the law’s sponsor argued high-capacity magazines are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time.



  1. We need to stop having lawyers as goverment officials and stop having them judge constitutional matters.

    The constitution and its amendments were written to be understood by laymen. It takes a lawyer’s to mangle clear words and meanings to be the opposite.

  2. Appeal to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS will reject it. Seems that Roberts does not want to deal with 2nd. Amendment cases. With the other 4 Leftist Liberal Justices he just nixed TEN CASES dealing with the 2nd. Amendment.

    • This may well be destined to go to SCOTUS, considering that last year Federal Judge Benitez (very concisely) ruled CA’s mag ban as blatantly unconstitutional, the appeal of which is in situ, awaiting the en banc hearing before the Ninth Circuit (the same Circuit that has already supported Benitez’s decision in their 2018 ruling). A year from now, in a plausible scenario where Trump is in his second term, RBG has taken her dirt nap, and her replacement is being fast-tracked, SCOTUS may be presented with the opportunity to accept cert.

      • I dont care what 9 people in black robs say anymore. I do what I want now. I suggest every one else do the same. the time of courts and voting has passed

  3. The Colorado judiciary is definitely not gun-rights friendly. Just like with Colorado’s ‘Red Flag’ law, they side-stepped the issue with the excuse that the plaintiffs challenged the law under article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution, not the Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution. “We conclude today that the legislation passes state constitutional muster,” the opinion says. “Because Plaintiffs do not challenge HB 1224 under the Second Amendment, we do not address whether the legislation runs afoul of the federal constitution.”

  4. Ruling is un-constitutional therefore null & void.

    “No surprise then that the Heller two-step has
    led to rancorous debate within the lower courts.
    Several judges have noted that the test strays
    from Heller’s focus on the text and history of the
    Second Amendment, and defies the Court’s admonition
    that Second Amendment claims are not
    to be judged by interest balancing. E.g., Peruta v.
    Cnty. of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144, 1176 (9th Cir.
    2014) (criticizing the analysis of the Second,
    Third, and Fourth Circuits as “near-identical to
    the freestanding ‘interest-balancing inquiry’ that
    Justice Breyer proposed—and that the majority
    explicitly rejected—in Heller.”); Tyler, 2014 WL
    7181334 at *7 (noting that “[t]here may be a
    number of reasons to question the soundness of
    this two-step approach,” as “[t]here is significant
    language in Heller itself … that would indicate
    that lower courts should not conduct interest balancing
    or apply levels of scrutiny.”); Heller v. Dist.
    of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244, 1271 (D.C. Cir. 2011)
    (“Heller II”) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (“In my
    view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that
    courts are to assess gun bans and regulations
    based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”); Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives, 714 F.3d 334,
    338 (5th Cir. 2013) (Jones, J., dissenting from denial
    of rehearing en banc) (“[T]he Court’s discussion
    [in Heller] leaves no doubt that the original
    meaning of the Second Amendment, understood
    largely in terms of germane historical sources
    contemporary to its adoption, is paramount.”); id.
    (“[T]he fundamental right to keep and bear arms
    is not itself subject to interest balancing. The
    right categorically exists, subject to such limitations
    as were present at the time of the Amendment’s
    ratification.”); United States v. Chovan,
    735 F.3d 1127, 1143 (9th Cir. 2013) (Bea, J., concurring)
    (citing Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent in
    Heller II); Drake, 724 F.3d at 457 (Hardiman, J.,
    dissenting) (characterizing the majority opinion’s
    deference to state legislature as “akin to engaging
    in the very type of balancing that the Heller Court
    explicitly rejected.”); cf. Ezell v. City of Chicago,
    651 F.3d 684, 701-02 (7th Cir. 2011) (determining
    the scope of the Second Amendment requires a
    “textual and historical inquiry into original meaning,”
    “not interest-balancing”).”
    Pages 16, 17

    “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 634–35.

    “Colorado’s Constitution states that “[t]he right of no person … shall be called in question.” This provides even greater protection than the Second Amendment’s command that the right “shall not be infringed.” The phrases may seem selfsame, but by definition, Colorado’s right provides greater protection. The definition of “question” is “to subject to analysis.”32 The definition of “infringe” is “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.”33 A regulation must necessarily be “subject to analysis” to determine whether it “encroach[es] upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.” But a regulation must not necessarily “encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another” to be “subject to analysis.” Thus, a right can be questioned without being infringed, but a right cannot be infringed without being questioned.
    In a case cited approvingly by the United States Supreme Court, Heller, 554 U.S. at 629, the Supreme Court of Alabama explored the implications of the particular phrase, “shall not be questioned”:
    we are strongly inclined to believe, that the inhibition to question the right, was regarded as more potent than a mere affirmative declaration, intended to secure it to the citizen; and that while the one amounted to a denial of the right to legislate on the subject, the other would tolerate legislation to any extent which did not actually or in its consequences destroy the right to bear arms.
    State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 619 (1840).
    Colorado’s Founders were certainly aware of the strong protection provided by the Second Amendment, but they opted for even stronger wording—wording that the Supreme Court of Alabama interpreted as precluding any legislation that burdened the right.”

    Miranda vs Arizona (1966) : “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

    Marbury v Madison “that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    Colorado Supreme Court of Satanic Jesters ruling has no weight of law, it is null & void, unenforceable in a Constitutional Republic.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here