Boulder bans assault weapons, gun owners sue

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Fascists: The city council in Boulder, Colorado, this week passed a local law banning “assault weapons” and other gun accessories.

Its city council unanimously passed an ordinance on Tuesday to ban the sale and possession of assault weapons, bump stocks and high-capacity magazines — becoming one of a handful of cities nationwide that has taken action to change its gun laws in the wake of the Parkland, Florida, shooting massacre.

…The new law requires people who own bump stock devices and magazines that hold 10 or more rounds of ammunition to dispose of or sell the firearm accessories by July 15, according to Colorado Public Radio.

A lawsuit against the law was immediately filed.

I think however that this quote by the city councilwoman who proposed the law illustrates best its stupidity.

“It felt like a no-brainer to propose this.”

That’s right, it is very clear that the council and this councilwoman used no brains at all in writing and approving the law. It not only is vague, unenforceable, and oppressive, it puts the blame for past murders on innocent law-abiding citizens.

The problem however is that this might very well be constitutional. As long as this local ordinance does not violate Colorado state law, it would be permissible under the Constitution, as the second amendment was designed to limit federal authority, not state or local authorities. As such, it illustrates the growing rise of fascism in some communities within the U.S., places where the majority sees nothing wrong with oppressing a minority, merely because they disagree about public policy. Expect more of this in the coming years. Expect also that these fascist localities to become havens of poverty, crime, oppression, and economic collapse.



  • Orion314

    Time to outlaw stupid.

  • D. Parker

    Not sure I am 100% with you on your constitutional analysis. If what you state about the 2A not applying to states or municipalities was true, then why did SCOTUS rule against Chicago in McDonald v. City of Chicago based on the 2A ruling in Heller? IANAL, but it seems to me that the ruling was a clear statement that the 2A rights that the court said exist are protected against the action of states and locals by the 14th. Certain categories of restrictions are permitted under Heller, but others are not, and if they are not, then under McDonald they are not permitted by any government level.

    Would the SCOTUS uphold the sort of bans Boulder passed? Maybe, but if they upheld, they’d probably do so because they thought the bans fit in the permissible restrictions category (sigh). Not because Boulder is free to trample the 2nd.

  • D. Parker: You’re analysis is correct, and from a legal perspective I stand corrected. However, with the increasing tide of people in America who now think it is okay to oppress others (as witnessed by this very law in Boulder), I have a shrinking faith in the court doing the right thing. We need only look at the recent court rulings in connection with Trump’s immigration directives. None have followed the law very properly. Most were decided to oppose Trump, regardless of the law.

    I fear we are approaching a time in America when the use of government to oppress will become an accepted cultural fact. We might actually be there already.

  • m d mill

    The second amendment specifically does not state “this only applies to federal law” , nor does it require you to be member of a State Militia.
    The right to bear arms will not be infringed, even if your particular State were to outlaw Militias or gun ownership.

    But more generally,
    Would you say that restricting freedom of speech or religion or the Press is constitutionally permissible if it is based on state/local law?
    I would think the bill of rights apply to all american citizens in any state, all the time, regardless of local or state laws (although technically the first amendment only states “Congress shall make no law…”, and does not restrict the states from doing so), and I think all Supreme Courts have upheld this interpretation?

  • D. Parker

    So you are worried that SCOTUS will not be faithful to the constitution? I totally agree. So if thats what you meant, then I withdraw my objection. I suspect that had the founders anticipated that SCOTUS would grant themselves a special role in passing constitutionality judgment on legislation, then they would have either preempted that move, or they would have put some limitations on it.

    I certainly think they would have rejected the idea that a front line federal judges could invalidate actions of other branches founded on their enumerated powers. That’s the really scary part, as you point out.

  • wayne

    Complex Topic—
    some additional factoids to ponder;
    -Our Federal government was created by the separate & sovereign State’s of the union, and only exists because of the State’s.
    -The direct-election of federal senator’s however, has rendered the Senate moot, for the reason they are no longer accountable to the States for which they were designed to represent. (House is directly elected, as it should be.)

    -The Constitution: if we look at the 1st 10 amendment’s, some would argue….
    “…the Constitution doesn’t apply to Americans, it doesn’t apply to citizens, it doesn’t even apply to “people.” It applies to the federal government. The body of the Constitution tells the federal government what it is allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it (election procedures and such). Where exceptions were meant to apply, they are specifically stated. And there are no exceptions stated for any type of guns, for any type of speech, for any specific crimes, or for crimes where non-citizens are involved….”

  • This is a test of the new anti-spam filter.

  • pzatchok

    California has successfully outlawed several specific firearms.

    But they did it by taking the manufacturers to court because the firearms were just poorly built and effectively unsafe.

    I owned one of those ring of fire hand guns and it did truly stink. It was junk. So I turned it in during one of those gun buy back programs. Actually got more in groceries than I paid for the gun.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *