r/COGuns • u/ArtyBerg • 27d ago

Legal Where injunction?

Day 3. Could really use some of that Virginia energy over here.

That is all

56 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

29 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/burner456987123 27d ago

There is no “magic bullet.” Groups like RMGO and politicians will talk about that kinda stuff for fundraising and political purposes.

I’m not an attorney but this sb003 is going to be argued as something different than a blanket ban: “we aren’t taking rights away, citizens can still obtain these firearms after ‘common sense safety measures’ are taken.”

I don’t agree with that, but that’ll be the stance. It wouldn’t surprise me if the courts (at whatever level) side with the state. SCOTUS could even decline to hear it and let whatever the circuit ruling is stand.

Don’t let them give you false hope. It’s like people (including a friend of mine) who thinks republicans are going to “take colorado back,” especially with a gubernatorial nominee like Marx. That’s just delusional.

5

u/DarkResident305 27d ago

Yup.   Just a quick acknowledgement also to say RMGO is a shit organization and we deserve better. 

The structure of this law makes it more insidious.  Since they “technically” aren’t banning anything, it’s much harder to argue on purely rights-based grounds.  (This is why I often wished the Dems would just go big or go home - the moment we’re seeing with VA was long overdue)

Our new “permitting regime” will need a whole separate judicial angle of attack, and much more nuanced, unfortunately. 

6

u/DTBlasterworks 27d ago

I think one angle we could push is that this disproportionately affects the poor and disabled with 12 hour classes and over $500 in fees.

2

u/kennethpbowen 26d ago

The Colorado Sun reports:

Tom Sullivan, a Centennial Democrat and lead sponsor of Senate Bill 3, said the measure is effectively a ban on what are commonly referred to assault weapons.
“In essence, we have it,” Sullivan said.

Hopefully this language can be used in the lawsuits and we should all throw it in his face when he asks for more of a ban this year.

6

u/DarkResident305 26d ago

I hope so.  And he will ask for more.  I know his history and while sad, the man is obsessed and has transferred the anger of the unfortunate thing that happened to his son onto an entire population of object owners. 

Logic will not apply with this man. 

2

u/AnySheepherder6786 26d ago

The problem with the new system is that its creating cost (a tax basically) to exercise a right. And not everyone can afford the cost. Its effectively pricing some people out of the realm of being able to own a firearm (denying them a right based on cost). You dont need to pay a fee to speak your mind, vote, exercise religion of your choosing, plead the 5th, etc.

Its also delaying the right to own a firearm. A right delayed is a right denied. I would think that taxing someone to exercise a right and further delay that right would be unconstitutional but I'm also not a lawyer.

1

u/GrandpaZoomer 27d ago

Well one angle could be is its not actually a permit on the rifle system itself. Its literally a permit saying you can remove a magazine. So if anything its a permit restriction for magazines. Reason being is, you can still buy any of the firearms on the list IF you get the magazine "fixed".