Might have missed a bumped thread on it. But RMGO's suit failed at CO supreme. Wonder if they'll chase it up the chain.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/l...5-85ac96f1603c
Printable View
Might have missed a bumped thread on it. But RMGO's suit failed at CO supreme. Wonder if they'll chase it up the chain.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/l...5-85ac96f1603c
:rolleyes: It'd be a lot easier to just set a pile of $100 bills on fire. [Dunno]Quote:
Originally Posted by fitz19d
It cannot go any further since they stated the law went against the Colorado Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by fitz19d
Oh, look, further proof we have a broken system.
Give me 2 "justices" and I'll give you 3 "constitutional" opinions. System isn't worth a crap.
Of course this how it goes.
But has it stopped anyone from acquiring some goodies?
Gee, it's almost like every person with a basic understanding of US Governance (...30% of the population sadly) saw that coming. And it cannot go any further.
You'd think they saw it coming too before they even filed it. There's only one conservative appointee on that whole court. So why do it? Why intentional make case law that other courts can reference against your cause?
It's almost like the whole thing was orchestrated not to actually accomplish anything, but just as a fundraiser. *coughs*
They can always say, "We tried".
[hahhah-no]
That attempt was like trying to dig a hole in water.
Here you go Dudley:
Attachment 82094
If it had people wouldn't be so blas? about it. (EDIT: The 3rd to last word should be "bla-ZAY" phonetically but apparently the BBS doesn't like accent marks.)Quote:
Originally Posted by TEAMRICO
The problem with the law is it was passed under the umbrella of Police Power. Which means if they think it's for your own protection, they can do what they want. They haven't actually *banned* any firearms, just the scary things which make them effective against assholes.
Definition of police power
: the inherent power of a government to exercise reasonable control over persons and property within its jurisdiction in the interest of the general security, health, safety, morals, and welfare except where legally prohibited
They justified their ruling with a feel-good statement not based on fact.
Quote:
"These statistics have been deeply felt in Colorado, where LCMs played a lethal role in the Columbine and Aurora massacres. Finally, the record supports the trial court’s finding that the pause created by the need to reload or replace a magazine creates an opportunity for potential victims to take life-saving measures. In short, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated the reasonableness of the General Assembly’s choice to set a limit on the number of rounds that can be fired before a shooter needs to reload," the ruling stated.
That's what you get for trying to use French in 'Murica! [fagpole]Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinjmpr
"No Compromise" Dudley.. Seriously starting to look in to Wyoming or Montana.
No Arizona?Quote:
Originally Posted by def90
The real question is "how much money did Dudley line his pockets with from this adventure".
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiememphis
Montana if you like 8 or 9 months of winter.
Wyoming if you like flying kites.
Arizona is the one I'd pick.
South Dakota?
blase' got you down?
I assume you could Appeal this to the US Supreme Court under McDonald? The way Roberts has been voting, we might as well just wait to see if Trump can pull out another miracle in the fall. If we can make sure that we don’t lose any headway on the court we have four years to try to put at least one or two more conservatives on the court and make Roberts irrelevant. If Trump loses we’re in the same boat we are right now at least until someone croaks, or the Dems try to pack the court.
They could pursue a completely separate case in the 10th circuit federal courts, then work up, but there is no appeal to SCOTUS from this one. SCOTUS doesn't interpret our state constitution for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand
In short, Dudley either intentionally f%$ed it up or he's seriously got something wrong with him where he couldn't see how it would f$#k up (not sure if that is possible to that level....), but in any circumstance, he shouldn't be leading a gun rights organization if he can't figure out how to avoid shooting ourselves in the foot with a loaded gun.... all while everyone is screaming "it's loaded you moron!", and then he pulls the trigger with one of the most progressive courts in the entire country in the chamber.
Thought about it, no skiing in Arizona though. Looking for good hunting and fishing along with some winter sports opportunities. Thought about the Reno area but Nevada seems like it’s going downhill as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiememphis
Actually, there is skiing in Arizona.Quote:
Originally Posted by def90
In fact, I was there in June a couple of years ago and actually had some snow coming down on me while I was riding my motorcycle up near one of the ski areas.
North West Wyoming and you avoid the constant major winds. Go up near Cody.Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
I think this is the kind of case I think we need though. Most of the state with bans have federal circuit that also seem to be fairly liberal too, so you don?t get a conflicting interpretation at the federal level. If this went through the 10th, what are the chances that they would overturn it and then you would have compare and contrast with places like the ninth.
And work... where?Quote:
Originally Posted by WETWRKS
Everyone that moves gets a full time job convincing the internet how much better everywhere else is.
I live in the Sonoran desert (Tucson), and there is skiing 45 minutes away from us, it's no Colorado slopes, but it's there. Flagstaff gets you some really decent skiing.Quote:
Originally Posted by def90
Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
My brother has spent years trying to talk me into moving to Wheatland. The employment options are dismal.Quote:
Originally Posted by CS1983
I could get decent work in the Jackson area, might even be able to afford to live on the Wyoming side of the pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by CS1983
We looked at Wyoming before. Where we’d want to go is the NW corner because of the Carmelite monks, but employment sucks there. Same for Montana and Idaho; both states talk a good game but they both suck for actually doing more than scraping by. The population just doesn’t support good paying jobs that have enough turnover to be available, nor pay to afford much in contrast to the cost of living. Now, if/when I can get a stable remote job that would be a different story. I’ll Doc Hollywood the real estate market and not look back, if the situation presents itself.
It’s funny, cus IT is generally one of those “go where I want” fields, but not in those areas.
We did over a year of research on Oklahoma: online, interviewing people, and on the ground. The reality of it simply didn’t mesh the way we thought it would. 20 acres there couldn’t keep us. It just sucked. Some things one just doesn’t know until they dive in. Montana has a lot of Attaboys, but their homeschooling and vaccination laws are one giant pile of shit. Libertarian my hairy ass. As it is, we are set on staying in the general Rocky Mountain region, whether that be here or elsewhere. But I’m done with humidity, ticks, chiggers, and good ole boys’ slobbering over bullshit tree stand hunting. And white tail deer are not my cup of tea. If it doesn’t bugle I simply don’t care.
CO can fully crap itself on the liberal laxative, but it’s not going to change how I live my life, conduct my personal business, etc. I’m already wet, so the liberal rain doesn’t concern me.
Dudley can piss himself on the public stage all he wants. But it ain’t gonna change how I approach the state authorities, cus I don’t recognize them.
I'm in I.T. too, I'm just waiting for my company to allow remote again and I'll move. We're going to look at the western slope too.
People bitched because the NRA didn't want to pursue certain cases in court, particularly DC v. Heller. The good guys won on Heller but the guiding principle that the NRA was using was to avoid cementing bad law in case the court pursued ideology instead of strict constitutional law. This was a classic example of the court following political or ideological trends instead of strictly reading the law (another good example was the New Jersey Supreme Court ignoring the state constitution's clearly written statute in order to allow the Democrats to replace Torricelli on the 2002 ballot with Lautenberg. Torricelli was clearly going to lose so the Democrats needed to replace him on the ballot no matter what the law actually said.
In this case, pursuing the case was sheer stupidity and it has now cemented the magazine limit. Thanks Dudley.
It could still be challenged under the 2nd Amendment. Dudely admits he didn't do that initially because of the make up of the SC in 2013.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter