Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[OKTexas]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

Boulder has been a commie stronghold for a few decades now, they'll keep trying to deprive their citizens of their rights, bet on it.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm just saying if a pistol is used in a shooting during a carjacking or a robbery, the cops don't go to the guy who bought it 8 years ago and then had it stolen from his truck, and begin treating him as a suspect in the shooting; that doesn't happen.
Unless they actually recover the gun, they can't trace it at all, and they know damn good and well the guy in the suburbs who bought it back when, wasn't involved in some gang beef shooting at a waffle house, or a robbery.

Most gun crimes seldom happening with the criminal using a legal gun. But what they do is find out where the gun went after it left the buyers hands hopefully leading to the ultimate user of the person who committed the crime. If a crime was committed with a gun you owned but sold to somebody at a gun show or out of the paper, you could at least give them a description of the buyer if you didn't take his information or snapshot of his drivers license.

One of the first things they do I'm sure is to run the gun to see it's history. If it was reported stolen two years ago, they won't even bother you because you don't know who stole your gun and can't help them. If it's stolen from your home and you don't report it, you won't be able to file a claim with your insurance company because you need a police report for that.

The last gun I purchased was 10 years ago. After I paid for the gun, the store had to fire a shot from it to get the ballistics from the bullet that identifies the gun, and they send that information to authorities for them to enter it in the national database. So even if there is no gun, they know by ballistics that the bullet came from your weapon.

 

[freyasman]

I'm just saying if a pistol is used in a shooting during a carjacking or a robbery, the cops don't go to the guy who bought it 8 years ago and then had it stolen from his truck, and begin treating him as a suspect in the shooting; that doesn't happen.
Unless they actually recover the gun, they can't trace it at all, and they know damn good and well the guy in the suburbs who bought it back when, wasn't involved in some gang beef shooting at a waffle house, or a robbery.

Most gun crimes seldom happening with the criminal using a legal gun. But what they do is find out where the gun went after it left the buyers hands hopefully leading to the ultimate user of the person who committed the crime. If a crime was committed with a gun you owned but sold to somebody at a gun show or out of the paper, you could at least give them a description of the buyer if you didn't take his information or snapshot of his drivers license.

One of the first things they do I'm sure is to run the gun to see it's history. If it was reported stolen two years ago, they won't even bother you because you don't know who stole your gun and can't help them. If it's stolen from your home and you don't report it, you won't be able to file a claim with your insurance company because you need a police report for that.

The last gun I purchased was 10 years ago. After I paid for the gun, the store had to fire a shot from it to get the ballistics from the bullet that identifies the gun, and they send that information to authorities for them to enter it in the national database. So even if there is no gun, they know by ballistics that the bullet came from your weapon.

Ballistics is not the exact science they make it out to be, and new barrels and extractors change all that anyway.
My point is, I have heard a lot of people express concern over a gun they owned at one time being used in a crime, or buying a used gun, for fear of it having been used in a crime at some point..... and that is simply not something to be concerned about.

No one ever gets in trouble because of that shit, it doesn't happen.

 

[freyasman]

Speaking of fences you want to keep....

 

[Dragonlady]

you'll never admit that we lock up the wrong people will you?

60% of people in jails right now are not convicted of any crime, and we lock up people for nonviolent drug offenses and property damage more than we lock up the violent criminals that are actually the danger to society.

And when Chicago proposed non-cash bails for non-violent offenders, the Police Unions screamed bloody murder.

I agree we lock up people for non-violent offenses.

MERE gun possession is a non-violent offense.

Notice how all federal law enforcement is built around offences black men can easily be charged with, thus stripping them of their voting rights. Do you think it's an accident that since Ronald Reagan was elected, the number of black and brown men in federal penitentiaries has skyrocked 80,000 in 1980, to nearly 800,000 in 2008?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Notice how all federal law enforcement is built around offences black men can easily be charged with

It has? What offenses might those be?

 

[JoeB131]

I agree. Not enforcing federal gun laws doesn't work. What does work is enforcing federal gun laws. It's been done and it worked.

Good. Let's pass some meaningful laws and enforce them.

 

[JoeB131]

Aunt Becky likely didn't use a gun during the act of selling drugs, and likely doesn't have a lifetime of crime going back to her teen years.........

You know, little things like that change the equation....

Neither did the lady who got five years. All she did was enroll her kid in another school district where they aren't shooting the students.

I explained that to him repeatedly, but you know what it's like trying to make a liberal see something outside of their paradigm.

What he's making reference to is an earlier discussion we had about that college scam where the rich and famous mothers were paying off administrators to get their kids in the school. He made the comparison to some black lady who sneaked her kid into a suburban high school where she didn't live. She also had a criminal history and another criminal case pending in court when they busted her. She got a few years in prison over those things while the wealthy college mom got a slap on the hand.

The criminal conduct was some undercover cop asked her where they could score hookers and drugs ,and she told them. She didn't sell the drugs herself. They only targeted her AFTER she fought the school district on the residency issue.

I tried to explain to him the difference between ripping off the taxpayers and paying off a big shot in college. He thinks it's the same thing. As you pointed out, I also explained that the wealthy college mother never so much as had an outstanding parking ticket while the mother with the kid in public school had a record, but he's convinced it was irrelevant and all about race. Forget the fact it wasn't even the same judge in both cases.

Actually, what the rich white lady did was infinitely worse, because her child wasn't in any real danger.

Of course it's about race. Everything in this country is about race.

 

[JoeB131]

Not for the same thing which I already gave you a link to. As always Joe

Actually, it's exactly the same thing.

The system treats white people differently than it treats people of color.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, it's exactly the same thing.

The system treats white people differently than it treats people of color.

No, they treat people differently based on their conduct in court, their conduct with police, their conduct with the jailer, their past criminal record among other things.

Sneaking your kid into a public school you are not paying for is robbing the taxpayers. Paying off some dress shirt to get your kid into their college hurts nobody, and don't say it hurts the people that deserved to be there, because they will just find the next best college or one even better. They stole nothing from nobody.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The criminal conduct was some undercover cop asked her where they could score hookers and drugs ,and she told them. She didn't sell the drugs herself. They only targeted her AFTER she fought the school district on the residency issue.

No, you can't get charged for telling the cops that. You have to set it up. That happened to one of my Facebook friends. He met some guy at a bar and they became friends. Eight months later, his new friend asked him if he had any nose candy. He said he didn't deal with that shit, but another friend of his did. They met at his house and the next thing he knew, his front door was being rammed down. His new friend was undercover. They arrested him too for setting the deal up. Much like this woman, he not only didn't sell any drugs, he never took drugs in his life outside of pot.

Actually, what the rich white lady did was infinitely worse, because her child wasn't in any real danger.

Of course it's about race. Everything in this country is about race.

The rich white lady was not only going to pay for her child's college, she gave the administrator more money and didn't rip off the public at the same time. If your kid is not a problem and you want them to go to a better school, you apply for a school voucher that the Republicans stood behind and Democrats fought to stop to take care of their vermin in the teachers union.

Everything in this country is not about race. Everything in your head is.

 

[JoeB131]

Sneaking your kid into a public school you are not paying for is robbing the taxpayers. Paying off some dress shirt to get your kid into their college hurts nobody, and don't say it hurts the people that deserved to be there, because they will just find the next best college or one even better. They stole nothing from nobody.

You got it completely wrong.

Sneaking your kid into a better school hurts nobody, and probably HELPS society in the long run as he will get a decent education.

Getting your kid admission to college she didn't earn actually does hurt the person who didn't get in but earned it.

 

[JoeB131]

The rich white lady was not only going to pay for her child's college, she gave the administrator more money and didn't rip off the public at the same time. If your kid is not a problem and you want them to go to a better school, you apply for a school voucher that the Republicans stood behind and Democrats fought to stop to take care of their vermin in the teachers union.

No, she ripped off the person who got good grades but didn't pay off an administrator.

That's infinitely worse.

No, you can't get charged for telling the cops that. You have to set it up. That happened to one of my Facebook friends. He met some guy at a bar and they became friends. Eight months later, his new friend asked him if he had any nose candy. He said he didn't deal with that shit, but another friend of his did. They met at his house and the next thing he knew, his front door was being rammed down. His new friend was undercover. They arrested him too for setting the deal up. Much like this woman, he not only didn't sell any drugs, he never took drugs in his life outside of pot.

1) Nice people you hang around with... really classy.
2) You make my point, that what was done to this woman was entrapment...

 

[2aguy]

you'll never admit that we lock up the wrong people will you?

60% of people in jails right now are not convicted of any crime, and we lock up people for nonviolent drug offenses and property damage more than we lock up the violent criminals that are actually the danger to society.

And when Chicago proposed non-cash bails for non-violent offenders, the Police Unions screamed bloody murder.

I agree we lock up people for non-violent offenses.

MERE gun possession is a non-violent offense.

Notice how all federal law enforcement is built around offences black men can easily be charged with, thus stripping them of their voting rights. Do you think it's an accident that since Ronald Reagan was elected, the number of black and brown men in federal penitentiaries has skyrocked 80,000 in 1980, to nearly 800,000 in 2008?

Those black and brown men are incarcerated in democrat party controlled cities.

The Crack epidemic? The black community leaders wanted longer sentences for crack cocaine because of the violence associated with it....that's why. Also, when the democrat party destroyed the public schools and destroyed the black families in the cities the democrat party controlled, they created a feeding ground for crime and violence..........

The democrat party doesn't care about blacks, hispanics, asians or whites.....they just care about votes every 2 years.....

 

[2aguy]

Sneaking your kid into a public school you are not paying for is robbing the taxpayers. Paying off some dress shirt to get your kid into their college hurts nobody, and don't say it hurts the people that deserved to be there, because they will just find the next best college or one even better. They stole nothing from nobody.

You got it completely wrong.

Sneaking your kid into a better school hurts nobody, and probably HELPS society in the long run as he will get a decent education.

Getting your kid admission to college she didn't earn actually does hurt the person who didn't get in but earned it.

Hey...shit head......I agree......you shouldn't have to sneak your kid into another school....you should just be able to use the public funds designated for education to send your kid to whatever school you can get that kid into.....it is shitheads like you that prevent black and hispanic kids from escaping democrat party crap schools...that is you, you idiot.

You fight school choice...you fight vouchers.....you want those kids trapped in the schools that do not teach them....not us.

It is your system that forces that mother to only send her kid to the school in her neighborhood instead of to whatever school they can get into...that's on you.

School Choice, school vouchers where the whole freight of the tuition follows the kid would give minority kids a future....but you don't want that. You want them trapped.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, she ripped off the person who got good grades but didn't pay off an administrator.

That's infinitely worse.

So how much money did it cost this person she ripped off?

1) Nice people you hang around with... really classy.
2) You make my point, that what was done to this woman was entrapment...

Who said I hung around with him? He was a guy who loaded and unloaded my truck that sent me a friend request on Facebook. He's a white guy who got entrapped too so what's your point? They were both setup the same way.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You got it completely wrong.

Sneaking your kid into a better school hurts nobody, and probably HELPS society in the long run as he will get a decent education.

Getting your kid admission to college she didn't earn actually does hurt the person who didn't get in but earned it.

How did it hurt them when they probably went to another equal or better school and got accepted?

Over half of my property taxes go to support our schools. So don't give me this bullshit that when some lowlife brings their kids into our school system is not ripping me off. The more kids in our schools, the more classrooms they need to have. The more classrooms they need to have, the more teachers they need to hire with wages and benefits that we pay for. the more classrooms and teachers, the higher our taxes go.

We had this exact same problem years ago. Lowlife kids were coming here from Cleveland to go to our suburban schools. Teachers assaulted once a month or more, drug activity on the grounds, police constantly being called to those schools to break up gang fights. People with civilized children moving out because of the dangerous environment lowlife kids created.

People who sneak their lowlife violent criminal children into our school system should be locked up for the minimum of 10 years.

 

[woodwork201]

so then you're not serious about controlling crime.

Sure I am. First thing, realize what we are doing doesn't work.

Second thing, fix the underlying CAUSES of crime- racism, poverty, mental illness

Third things, get rid of the ******* guns because they make being a criminal a lot easier than it would be if they weren't available.

If the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians would stop releasing violent gun offenders over and over again, that would stop the gun crime problem....

If you arrested and kept felons caught with guns locked up for 20-30 years for that violation, that would stop gun crime and murder.

If you kept gun criminals who use guns in crimes locked up for life, that would stop gun crime cold.......you would see a 95% or more drop in gun crime over night...

But no....the democrat party keeps releasing the actual gun criminals who do all of the shootings in these democrat party controlled cities..

You have to explain that, and you won't..

Once again, and I'll say it every time I see your suggestion: If an armed robber robs you with a knife, are you any less robbed? Raped at knife point instead of at gun point - any less raped? There's no such thing as a gun crime. Punish crime and lock up criminals and crime will go down.

 

[woodwork201]

Sneaking your kid into a public school you are not paying for is robbing the taxpayers. Paying off some dress shirt to get your kid into their college hurts nobody, and don't say it hurts the people that deserved to be there, because they will just find the next best college or one even better. They stole nothing from nobody.

You got it completely wrong.

Sneaking your kid into a better school hurts nobody, and probably HELPS society in the long run as he will get a decent education.

Getting your kid admission to college she didn't earn actually does hurt the person who didn't get in but earned it.

Hey...shit head......I agree......you shouldn't have to sneak your kid into another school....you should just be able to use the public funds designated for education to send your kid to whatever school you can get that kid into.....it is shitheads like you that prevent black and hispanic kids from escaping democrat party crap schools...that is you, you idiot.

You fight school choice...you fight vouchers.....you want those kids trapped in the schools that do not teach them....not us.

It is your system that forces that mother to only send her kid to the school in her neighborhood instead of to whatever school they can get into...that's on you.

School Choice, school vouchers where the whole freight of the tuition follows the kid would give minority kids a future....but you don't want that. You want them trapped.

There's no such thing as public money.

 

[woodwork201]

Since the federal gun laws on the books have not been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court it doesn't matter if you think they are unconstitutional or not

My question is, do you think they're unconstitutional? You certainly support them. You're a gun controller. Just accept it. Wear it. Be proud of your views. Get the t-shirt.

You keep arguing that the government does have the right to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms if they infringe in ways you approve. Once you've agreed that they have the right to infringe, or to go against the Constitution in any thing or in any way, then all that's left is to decide who it is that gets to decide what's OK and what's not. Guess what. You're not the one that gets to decide. That means that you're deciding for me, and I object to that, and someone else is going to decide for you and you will, in the end, object when you realize that they have gone beyond what you hoped they'd do.

If a law was the law until it was declared unconstitutional then anyone who violated the law before such a declaration must still be a criminal, it was the law of the land when they broke it, so they must complete their sentence before being freed. Do you believe that? Or do you believe that once a law is declared unconstitutional, everyone convicted based on that law must be freed, proving that an unconstitutional law is actually not the law at all.

You show us why, in the end, the ability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms in the United States will, for all intents and purposes, be taken from us. Most people, literally most, who claim to support the right to keep and bear arms, who claim to be pro-gun, who claim to be pro-2nd Amendment, who claim to be constitutionalists, are absolutely none of the above.