Lawsuit Filed Against Boulder, Colorado, Ban on Rifles, Magazines

Gun Watch ^ | 22 May, 2018 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

On 15 May, 2018, the Boulder, Colorado city council unanimously passed an ordinance banning the possession of various firearms and accessories.  The ordinance is so new that it has not shown up in the municipal code yet. The ordinance is voluminous and detailed. The brief for the ordinance cites several biased and partisan "studies" to attempt to make the case to pass the ordinance. The ordinance likely violates Colorado's preemption statute and State and Federal Constitutional protections.  The ordinance casts a wide net.

Legal pushback, in the form of a lawsuit, followed shortly after passage, as opponents to the measure had promised. From the denverpost.com:

Radio and TV personality Jon Caldara, the Boulder Rifle Club and Bison Tactical have filed a federal lawsuit claiming the city of Boulder’s new ordinance banning assault weapons and increasing the age of legal gun ownership to 21 violates their constitutional rights.

Bison Tactical, a Boulder-based maker and seller of shooting gear, the rifle club and Caldara, who lives in Boulder, would continue possessing and selling assault weapons if not for the unanimous decision Tuesday to ban the weapons inside city limits.

“The right of self-defense is an unalienable, natural and fundamental right,” says the lawsuit filed Wednesday by Mountain States Legal Foundation attorneys Cody Wisniewski and Sean Smith. “The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution memorializes the right of self-defense.”

The Mountain States Legal Foundation sums up the legal challenges succinctly. From mountainstateslegal.org:

Legal Question:

Whether a municipality can undermine the exercise of fundamental and unalienable rights and ignore the U.S. Constitution and controlling Supreme Court precedent?

Whether a municipality can ignore its state constitution and state law by infringing upon and criminalizing an individual’s unalienable and natural right to self-defense, and the right to keep and bear arms?

The lawsuit filing is available on line. Obvious arguments against the ordinance under the Second Amendment are listed.  Here are a few in the filing.
From Caldera V. City of Boulder:

87. The Second Amendment protects firearms in “common use, ”which “could contribute to the common defense.” United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 – 179 (1939).

88. Detachable magazines are an integral part of “Arms,” and thus, are protected by the Second Amendment.

89. Detachable magazines are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as self-defense.

I was surprised I did not find a reference to Caetano V. Massachusetts in the lawsuit. Caetano is a unanimous Supreme Court decision declaring all bearable arms in common use are protected by the Second Amendment. The rifles and magazines affected by ordinance 8245 are far more common than the stun guns Caetano was concerned with.

Ordinance 8245 shows an interesting set of exemptions. It exempts members of the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) from the ordinance. To become a member of the ROTC, a university student need only sign up for a class.  Army, Navy, and Air Force ROTC programs are all available at Boulder, Colorado.  From proposed ordinance 8245: (edited to show proposed ordinance without stike-throughs and underlines)

5-8-25. – Exemptions from Chapter. 

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to forbid any officer of the
United States including but not limited to federal agents and United States Marshals, any sheriffs, constables and their deputies; any regular or ex-officio police officer; any other peace officers; or members of the United States Armed Forces, Colorado National Guard or Reserve Officer Training Corps from purchasing, having in their possession, displaying, concealing or discharging such weapons.

Colorado is in the jurisdiction of Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Tenth Circuit has not ruled on the Constitutionality of a ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons" (variously defined) or or magazines with a capacity of over a certain number of rounds. Such bans have been upheld in the Second Circuit, the Fourth Circuit, and the Seventh Circuit, under very dubious reasoning. The Circuit Courts are attempting to rewrite the Heller case in order to write semi-auto firearms as not protected by the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has refused to review those cases. Some have claimed the court is looking for a clear split in the Circuits in order to accept a case.

That might happen in the Tenth Circuit. I consider it unlikely. The Boulder ordinance is likely to be found in violation of the State preemption law, thus rendering the Second Amendment challenge mute. From findlaw.com:
Colorado Revised Statutes Title 29 Government Local § 29-117-103

A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law.  Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.

The Boulder ordinance is believed to be impotent by all sides. Its passage is political virtue signaling.  It will accomplish nothing but entangle the city in a lawsuit the citizens may not pay for. Deep pockets outside the City have already offered to aid its attempts to disarm its citizens. From the dailycamera.com:

City Attorney Tom Carr said Boulder has received offers of gratis help from "outside law firms" that will reduce the impact of both cost and time to city staff.

In any case, Boulder is a wealthy city. They can afford such extravagances.

It would be ironic if the Tenth circuit struck down the ordinance on Second Amendment grounds, creating a Circuit split, to take the case to the United States Supreme Court.

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch 

[marktwain]

The Boulder law violates the Colorado preemption law. It seems likely to be struck down before the Second Amendment charges are heard.

[Ancesthntr]

Sue every member of the council INDIVIDUALLY for deprivation of civil rights under color of law, under 42 US Code Section 1983. Their status as government officials doesn’t protect them, it is the very reason for their liability.

[mountainlion]

Boulder= 34 square miles surrounded by reality!

[PROCON]

RKBA Ping List

This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

[dsc]

“Sue every member of the council INDIVIDUALLY for deprivation of civil rights under color of law”

Oh, hell yes.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Yep. Politicians shouldn’t be exempt from civil rights violations.

[mylife]

I imagine Magpul is not amused by this law.