Denver Bump Stock / Binary Trigger / Mag Ban

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The final vote on the bill will be on Monday.

Right now the Bump-stocks are dead. There is no support for taking that out of the bill.

There was concern about how the magazine ban is not just a copy/paste of the state law. Councilman Flynn is looking for a way to make it so.



He actually has a chance to get enough votes to get a grandfathering added.

Please contact your councilperson and ask them to consider supporting making the Denver law truly in line with the state law. Otherwise, it puts a lot of their law abiding constituents at in legal jeopardy without making a meaningful change in the law. As Councilman Flynn says, a lot of 9mm handguns come with 17 round magazines. Imagine all the Glock17, Sig226 and Beretta 92 owners out there that are clueless that they are now afoul of the city law.

It boggles me that we have an actual live issue with guns and half of this thread is about the airport, and a thread about plastics bags get more posts.

[BPTactical]

Fuck the City and County of Denver.



With a 90# jackhammer soaked in Ebola, AIDS and herpes.

[kidicarus13]

Video @2:00... "...if you can prove you owned it."

[izzy]

Is this just for Denver or the entire state? The thread seems to indicate this is a Denver thing, the proposed law I just read seems to be a state wide thing. As was pointed out already their definition is total hogwash.

[00tec]

This thread is related to the Denver ban. There is another proposed bill that we spoke about in the "repeal the magazine ban" thread that is proposed at the state level.

[TFOGGER]

Part of me wants to say"let 'em pass this bullshit", and then use it as a stepping stone to get the Myers decision reversed. Denver is entirely too arrogant when it comes to flouting the laws of this state and the federal government. I'm not a Denver resident, so I don't have a dog in this fight, other than Michael Hancock pisses me off every time he opens that ugly hole under his nose...

[crays]

Color me uniformed... Myers decision? My googl-fu is not producing anything that looks relevant.

[TFOGGER]

The Myers decision is the one that concluded Denver had the right to regulate open carry, assault weapons, and magazines independently of State law.

In the 2003 legislative session, the General Assembly passed Senate Bills 24 and 25. Both bills were signed into law by Governor Owens on March 18, 2003. The bills contained sweeping legislative declarations that identify control of firearms as a state interest and seek to preempt conflicting local laws. Senate Bill 24 addresses primarily a uniform system for issuing permits for carrying concealed handguns, while Senate Bill 25 addresses other aspects of firearms regulation.

The City and County of Denver is a home rule city created and organized under Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution (the "home rule amendment"). Under the home rule amendment, a home rule municipality has the supreme power to legislate in matters of local concern. Historically, Denver has had a range of ordinances controlling various aspects of the possession, use and sale of firearms in the city.

In this action, Denver seeks a declaratory judgment that specified Denver ordinances are not preempted by state law and, alternatively, that Senate Bill 24 and 25 are unconstitutional under the home rule amendment to the extent that they seek to preempt local laws. The City seeks an injunction against state "enforcement" of Senate Bills 24 and 25 and asks that the Court enjoin the state from interfering with Denver's enforcement of its ordinances.

After the State's motion to dismiss for lack of standing was denied, the case was set for trial. Prior to the trial date, the parties reached agreement that there are no disputed issues of material fact and that the case could be decided as a matter of law on cross motions for summary judgment. Therefore, the trial date was vacated, and each party filed a motion for summary judgment. Those motions have been fully briefed, and oral argument was heard on September 24, 2004. As directed at oral argument, the parties have submitted supplemental filings specifying the relief they request. The City has also tendered to the Court copies of certain amended ordinances which had not been provided earlier.

The City's complaint addressed 15 specific ordinances and two regulations. Complaint, ¶ 7. One of those ordinances has since been repealed, and another has been amended. The State now concedes that nine ordinances and the two regulations do not conflict with state law.[1] Although they overlap to some extent, the retraining ordinances can be divided into five topical categories: (1) concealed handguns/firearms in vehicles; (2) open carrying of firearms; (3) assault weapons/Saturday night specials: (4) safe storage juveniles; and (5) firearms in city parks. In Summary, the State argues that all of the City’s ordinances in these areas are preempted by the States’s interest and participation in the field of firearms regulation. The City's position is that each ordinance must be examined separately and that the disputed ordinances either do not conflict with state law or address matters of purely local concern.

https://www.rmgo.org/news/news-archi...court-decision

[crays]

Thank you.

[Gman]

If you're not a resident of the City & County of Denver, what influence does one have on the Denver City Council?