Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

As the different states towards Enact controversial new gun control laws After deciding on New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, One such law was recently upheld by a federal court in Colorado. that in Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Superior, District Judge Raymond P. Moore granted a request for a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of an ordinance passed by the city of Superior, Colorado to prohibit the sale or possession of a wide range of firearms.

According to Section 10-9-40, “Possession and Sale of Unlawful Weapons,” “unlawful weapon” means “assault weapon, high-capacity magazine, rapid-fire trigger activator, blackjack, gas gun, metal knuckle, force Gravity” is defined. Knife or switch knife. § 10-9-20. An “assault weapon” is then defined as a centerfire semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and also has one of the listed specifications, a centerfire semiautomatic pistol with any of them. A centerfire semi-automatic pistol with a fixed magazine capable of holding more than ten (10) rounds, any semi-automatic shotgun with any of the listed specifications, any modified firearm. Can be used as an assault weapon, and any part designed to convert a firearm into an assault weapon.

Under the standard of a TRO, the burden is very high. Competitors must create

“(1) likelihood of prevailing on the merits; (2) Irreparable loss unless a judgment has been issued. (3) the harm threatened is greater than the harm that the preliminary injunction might cause to the other party; and (4) that the order, if issued, would not adversely affect the public interest.”

Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Jewell, 839 F.3d 1276, 1281 (10th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Even under this standard, Judge Moore found that the statutory warrant was warranted.

Moore, an Obama appointee and former chief federal public defender for Colo. and Wyoming, correctly found that the law is clearly inconsistent with controlling precedent. Court in District of Columbia v. Heller The Second Amendment protects weapons “ordinarily used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

Judge Moore opined that “the Court agrees with the City’s stated argument. “However, the Court is unaware of any historical precedent allowing a government agency to completely ban a type of weapon that is normally used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether at home or in public.”

The court also notes that the law contains strange contradictions and fails to protect citizens who possessed these weapons before the critical date or moved to the area after the deadline. Accordingly, Judge Moore believes:

As previously discussed, the Court concluded that the Second Amendment covers the conduct referred to in the article. And also, as previously discussed, the Court is unaware of the historical precedent allowing the City of Superior to enact such an ordinance that would, in effect, ultimately ban all assault weapons. “Therefore, notwithstanding the Town of Superior’s substantial and legitimate concerns, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs will likely prevail on their claim on this provision.”

As I have It has already been writtenA rush to pass such laws is likely to magnify court losses and extend precedent in favor of gun ownership. States like New York have been endless sources of such laws, which ultimately limit gun control options. This is yet another example of such impromptu buyback laws that should be hailed by gun rights groups as easy targets for challenges.

Write a comment:

*

Your email address will not be published.

logo-footer