Boulder Colorado City Council passes new anti-gun law

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by mn_doggie, May 17, 2018 at 9:13 AM.

  1. mn_doggie

    mn_doggie Member

    From Boulder CO, Is anyone actually surprised at this?

    Opinions Rach?

    The Boulder City Council unanimously passed a sweeping gun control ordinance Tuesday night banning "assault weapons" and bump stocks, even as a pro-Second Amendment group threatened to retaliate by suing individual councilmembers.

    In a surprising turn, one Colorado councilwoman admitted that she disagreed with the ordinance "in many ways," saying it would invite a flood of litigation -- despite voting for it. (I'll bet the City Attorney was freaking out when the council woman said this. From my experience, they don't like personal opinions, especially when you vote against what you agree with stated either on the public record or to the press cuz it just leads to higher damages being awarded... mndoggie)

    Included in the definition are "all semiautomatic action rifles with a detachable magazine with a capacity of twenty-one or more rounds," as well as "semiautomatic shotguns with a folding stock or a magazine capacity of more than six rounds or both."

    Those possessing assault weapons already can keep them under the law, but owning bump stocks and high-capacity magazines will be become illegal in July. Certain law enforcement and military personnel are exempted from the ordinance.

    During the public comment period for the legislation, the nonprofit Mountain States Legal Foundation promised to sue the city for "violations of the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments," as well as the Colorado Constitution, Fox's KDVR-TV reported.
  2. Zorba

    Zorba "The Veiled Male" Member

  3. Rachgier

    Rachgier Administrator Staff Member

    No surprise here. A few months ago the RMGO had announced serving them with an intent to file, when the city council first announced they were considering this. The councilwoman saying she disagreed with it on many levels but voted for it anyways speaks volumes for how they will even bully their own kind to force these ridiculous laws and ordinances through.
    yworrydog and Zorba like this.
  4. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Suits are already being filed. And a state level equivalent of FOI request has been filed. The filer is expecting to find collusion, and potentially corruption, with mad mommies and the counsel. The counsel is dragging it out and charging her $1,200 for the documents, ims.

    Peace favor your sword,
  5. mn_doggie

    mn_doggie Member

    They can put the law on the books but the real damages come the first time they try to enforce it.
  6. Zorba

    Zorba "The Veiled Male" Member

    That's OK, that just adds to the lawsuit.
  7. mn_doggie

    mn_doggie Member

    Probably not.

    Courts have ruled many times that units of government can can reasonably charge for document when people ask for large amounts of documents. When someone walks into a City Hall and requests 5 years of documents often for a frivolous lawsuit, there is staff time needed to assemble those documents. Courts have said the rest of the citizens don't have to pick up the tab.

    In this case, we don't know how many documents are involved in that $1200 charge.

    This will be a civil rights lawsuit cuz constitutional rights are involved. There will have to be people who can show damages. Somebody needs to get their mags, firearms, taken away or get arrested for having them, etc.

    I'm not defending the City's actions. I think they are wrong.

    I posted this info on another gun forum. I can't believe the number of people who are upset cuz they didn't get to vote on the new law.

    Duh, this is a constitutional republic. That means we elect people to make laws. There are very, very few laws that "we the people" get to vote on.
    eldarbeast likes this.
  8. 1024Megabytes

    1024Megabytes Member

    Hopefully these crap civilian city gun laws get struck down. They are a complete violation of the Second Amendment.
  9. rmuniz9336

    rmuniz9336 Member

    Boulder! Doesn't surprise me one bit. You're talking about the same place that built a fence to keep the prairie dogs in.

    TNTRAILERTRASH Supporting Member

    Athens Tennessee comes to mind....................
  11. greg_r

    greg_r Lifetime Supporter

    Why should it be a civil rights lawsuit? This is not some private business refusing to make a cake. This is a government taking your constitutional rights away. Nothing civil about it. This is not a civil case, it goes beyond that.
  12. mn_doggie

    mn_doggie Member

    Rights enumerated in the US Constitution (in this case 2nd.) are typically considered a "civil rights" They are treated by courts differently and are usually tried in Federal Courts. Awards for violation of civil rights can be substantially higher than just monetary losses like in straight civil cases.

    From Wiki:
    Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression.

    And if you don't like Wiki here's what that bastion of conservationism the ACLU says:

    In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.

    When a person sells you a defective gun and you sue, that is a civil case. When a unit of government makes a law that violates the 2nd, that is a civil rights case. (For some reason I can't change the color of this last paragraph to black.)
    Last edited: May 18, 2018 at 11:17 AM
  13. ArmyScout

    ArmyScout Supporting Member

    Wouldn't surprise me to see ILL do the same thing. They already banned all Semiauto firearms from anyone younger than 21. And no retaliation of any kind by the ISRA or NRA. Another reason I am no longer a member of either.
    TNTRAILERTRASH likes this.
  14. greg_r

    greg_r Lifetime Supporter

    Thanks for making my point.

    It's not a matter whether I like wikipedia or not, what matters is what is correct.

    The ACLU quote is correct. There is a distinct difference between civil rights and civil liberties.

    Rights enumerated in the Constitution are called "civil liberties". Civil rights are related to race, sex, and origin. Only governments can violate your civil liberties. Joe Citizen can violate your civil rights.
  15. mn_doggie

    mn_doggie Member

    You are right. its not a civil case at all....its just a liberties case.

    And as often people do, I confused the word liberty with rights.

    And I now know the word civil should never be used in front of either "rights" or "liberty" it should only be used in front "case".
    eldarbeast and greg_r like this.