Boulder AR-15 Ban

[NFATrustGuy]

I wonder if people out there just have the money to do it...

That could very well be the case. Money is all relative. $300 is chump change if you're accustomed to paying $800,000 for a not-so-spiffy 3 bed, 2 bath home with a 2 car garage!

[KevDen2005]

That could very well be the case. Money is all relative. $300 is chump change if you're accustomed to paying $800,000 for a not-so-spiffy 3 bed, 2 bath home with a 2 car garage!

My thoughts exactly. I think up until the last decade rural Boulder County had a lot of woodsmen and conservatives and maybe still do. But the cost of a suppressor and tax stamp is just not worth it to most middle class people I think.

[Skip]

My thoughts exactly. I think up until the last decade rural Boulder County had a lot of woodsmen and conservatives and maybe still do. But the cost of a suppressor and tax stamp is just not worth it to most middle class people I think.

There is a lot of gun hypocrisy in Boulder. All the trash migrating into Boulder encourages the wealthy Libs to buy guns and they quietly do so.

How many times have we heard of a home invasion in Boulder resulting in a shooting? A few years ago it was like every few months. Boulder Co did the typical "we're seeing if charges will be filed against the homeowner" dance and then dropped it.

I don't know if they would support a black rifle ban because of their programming or not. I suspect many mostly own handguns and probably think the same way fudds do about the subject (not my gun, not my problem).

[def90]

There is a lot of gun hypocrisy in Boulder. All the trash migrating into Boulder encourages the wealthy Libs to buy guns and they quietly do so.

How many times have we heard of a home invasion in Boulder resulting in a shooting? A few years ago it was like every few months. Boulder Co did the typical "we're seeing if charges will be filed against the homeowner" dance and then dropped it.

I don't know if they would support a black rifle ban because of their programming or not. I suspect many mostly own handguns and probably think the same way fudds do about the subject (not my gun, not my problem).

I've been here since 2000 and I can only think of two.. one was a drunk girl, the other was a guy tripping his balls off.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Skip]

I've been here since 2000 and I can only think of two.. one was a drunk girl, the other was a guy tripping his balls off.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Those are the high profile ones.

Crazy dude that shot his neighbor over a squirrel (I don't think that person died).

[Aloha_Shooter]

At least that garbage piece of “journalism” educated me about bump stocks. Apparently a bump stock is used to turn a “non-assault” weapon into an “assault weapon.

So he now admits a standard AR is not an "assault" weapon?

[johngraves2]

I know it is from RMGO, but this is the letter they just sent to Boulder City Council. They say if they proceed with the weapons ban RMGO will also challenge other laws they currently have.

February 22, 2018

City of Boulder
1777 Broadway St.
Boulder, CO 80302

COUNCIL MEMBERS

Aaron Brockett
Bob Yates
Cindy Carlisle
Jill Adler Grano
Lisa Morzel
Mary Young
Mirabai Kuk Nagle
Sam Weaver
Suzanne Jones

An open letter to the Boulder City Council:

I am the staff attorney for Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. RMGO is a non-profit organization devoted to defense of the right to keep and bear arms for all law-abiding residents of the State of Colorado.

I am writing concerning news reports that you are considering enacting a gun control bill that would include a ban on firearms, firearm magazines and firearm accessories. News reports suggest this bill would be along the lines of ordinances enacted in Denver.

RMGO opposes such bills in their entirety as a gross infringement on the right to keep and bear arms as outlined in the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions. Additionally the Colorado legislature has preempted and occupied this field, as outlined in C.R.S. § 29-11.7-103. RMGO is quite familiar with this statute, since we helped shepherd it through the Colorado legislature.

We are aware that a trial court decided, using criteria very specific to Denver, that some of the gun control ordinances then in effect in Denver were not pre-empted under this law. This decision was not overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court, due to an even split among the justices at the time. RMGO is very confident this decision would have no application to Boulder. None of the unique circumstances about crime and crime control the court pointed to in sustaining some of the Denver ordinances apply to Boulder, which is an extremely crime free city.

Accordingly RMGO would request that the council abandon this effort. Should the council elect not to, RMGO does anticipate litigation against the city to strike an ordinance down as both unconstitutional and pre-empted by the State legislature.

You should also be aware that certain current ordinances of the City of Boulder are, in my opinion, also pre-empted. The legality of those ordinances would be litigated as well. These include B.R.C. sections 5-8-4, 5-8-8, 5-8-9 and 5-8-15.

In short, taking action to further restrict firearms within the City of Boulder will result in litigation to decide the constitutionality and legality of both the current Boulder gun control scheme and the assault weapon ordinance the city council is considering. RMGO would additionally seek attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and Colorado law.

Sincerely,

James O. Bardwell, Esq.

[def90]

I have a feeling that the Independence Institute would go after them pretty hard as well as a couple of their top guys live in Boulder.

I’ve sent letters to all the members asking what the possible ordinance may include as well as what their basis is for this.. of course not a single reply and I even know one of them personally.

[johngraves2]

Glad to see you are helping to fight this. I know not many people think much of Boulder, but like it has been pointed out, if Boulder tries to do this, other cities will too.

[Alpha2]

I just read the Judge Meyer decision on the lawsuit between Denver and the State of Colorado.

It seems to me that the decision upholding Denver’s assault weapon ban was based on Denver convincing the judge that Denver was unique in population density and crime rate such that it has different needs as compared to the rest of the state.

The concept of State preemption was discussed because the State had recently enacted a law stating that the State was assuming authority for all laws concerning firearms. Judge Meyer mentioned in his ruling that the Denver assault weapon law existed before the State law declaring the regulation of firearms to be a State issue. In his discussion of whether or not a State could just declare itself sole authority on an issue, Judge Meyer cited several cases that suggest that a State declaration should be weighed heavily, but the declaration of authority isn’t an automatic win for the State.

In lawyer terminology, the discussion of whether a State can just declare itself the supreme authority on an issue and the issue of whether the State’s preemption legislation was enacted before or after the Denver assault weapon ban would be referred to as Dicta. It’s important discussion, but it’s not the primary reason the case was decided the way it was.

In the vernacular of my favorite Civil Procedure Professor, Lucy Marsh, the black letter law from the Meyer decision is that if a local municipality can convince the court that that particular municipality has sufficient special circumstances that require special laws for that particular municipality, then that municipality can make its own special law.

Of course if Boulder pulls this shit, the State should argue that the timing of the State preemption law is VERY significant and should preclude Boulder from enacting an assault weapon ban. They’ll also argue that Boulder doesn’t have the population density or the crime rate of Denver—as others have already pointed out in this thread.

Bottom line is that the way I’m reading it, I think it could happen and the ultimate decision as to whether it’s upheld will be left to the court system. As we’ve all witnessed, the courts have increasingly become heavily influenced by politics and frequently issue strained decisions inline with their party’s position on any given issue.

This opinion brought to you live from a booth at Chili’s—because this is what nerdy folks do when they’re having dinner alone! :-)

give me a call, I'll join you for dinner. I'm retired now, got nuthin' but time on my hands. Oh, you're buyin'.