Boulder passes new Assault Weapon ban

It seems Boulder passes a ban on assault weapons and magazines over ten rounds. How does this square with the 2nd Amendment? I see both of these as infringements on a gun owner’s right to keep and bear arms. Also, if individual communities are allowed to pass laws which violate the Constitution or Bill of Rights doesn’t this leave us with a mess of individual districts that are free to make restrictions as they see fit?

5 Likes

10-round magazine limit
Featureless rifles

They’ve been in place in California for some time now.

4 Likes

Aside from it being unconstitutional, if in odds with state law I would think it would fall under preemption clauses, if CO has such in their state law.

3 Likes

Wait for it! This is only going to get better! None of what’s headed our way should be a surprise. Be aware of your surroundings!
This is just the tip of the iceberg! No laws, no judges, no constitutional theories are going to have any say in this matter!
Voting, don’t make me laugh!
Clean, lube, oil, round count! Stay calm and reload!
Good thing none of us owns an “assault rifle”.

As soon as the maniacs start using hammers and baseball bats, say good buy to construction and sports!
I’m just surprised that they haven’t banned cars and SUV’s!

Guess it’s time to get back to basics.

5 Likes

It squares with the Bill of Rights in that, unless and until a court rules that that law is unconstitutional, it is assumed to be so.

In practice anyway that is how it seems. You and I don’t get to decide, legally or officially, if it is Constitutional or not.

And similar bans/restrictions have been place in other jurisdictions for a long time.

4 Likes

The State of Utah has Jurisdiction over all of that, we even have a “Preemption Law”

Effective 5/4/2022
76-10-500. Uniform law.

(1) As used in this section:

(a) “Directive” means the same as that term is defined in Section 78B-6-2301.

(b) “Firearm” means the same as that term is defined in Section 53-5a-102.

(c) “Local or state governmental entity” means the same as that term is defined in Section 78B-6-2301.

(2) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right under Article I, Section 6, of the Utah Constitution and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform civil and criminal laws throughout the state and declares that the Legislature occupies the whole field of state regulation of firearms.

(3) Except as specifically provided by state law, a local or state governmental entity may not:

(a) prohibit an individual from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping any firearm at the individual’s place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in the individual’s possession or lawfully under the individual’s control; or

(b) require an individual to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.

(4) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all the state’s political subdivisions.

(5) Authority to regulate firearms is reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local or state governmental entities.

(6) Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local or state governmental entity may not enact or enforce a directive pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession, ownership, purchase, sale, transfer, transport, or use of firearms on either public or private property.

(7) This part does not restrict or expand private property rights.

(8) A violation of this section is subject to Title 78B, Chapter 6, Part 23, Firearm Preemption Enforcement Act.

4 Likes

Are these the new Canada-legal guns?

3 Likes

I personally am sick of the exploitation of the made up “Assault Weapon” term !! It’s designed to make any weapon “they” choose an assault weapon, scary black rifle in particular…

6 Likes

If someone can sue a gun company for showing a picture or advertising a gun in a way that entices a criminal to by it should we be able to sue someone for calling an AR 15 as an assault rifle. Shouldn’t we be able to sue for any negative references for self defense weapons.
Edit -I guess it falls under no good deed will go unpunished

1 Like

Not to split hairs, but there are probably hundreds if not thousands of criminals owning an AR-15 that will never shoot at, or hit, another person. Ex: white collar crime, cheating on income tax. driving over the speed limit, jay-walking, going back to work and not washing their hands, etc. An AR-15 cannot be a criminal - it is just a tool.

5 Likes

Colorado overturned preemption last November. IMO, it’s a way to lob a chaos bomb into the gun law fray. Imagine having to negotiate your way through different gun laws in every CO municipality.

The goal, presumably, is to make gun owners just give up.

It was obvious what would happen, and Boulder was the obvious initial city for it to happen.

2 Likes

Black Hawk , Just bring more 10 round magazines with you. You’ll just have to learn to how to change them a little faster.

1 Like

You know what California did, right? You’re only allowed to bring in a limited amount of ammo — 50 rounds at most, I think.

1 Like

It is the world in which we live where the “big brains” elected to office enact bans and the law enforcement community – which took an oath to defend the Constitution – enforce the bans. Don’t want to get in trouble and risk their jobs/pensions, I suppose.

1 Like

Time to learn to reload and collect tire weights.

1 Like