DOJ filed suit against City of Denver...

Gather App
Guns.com Vault
dben002

dben002

US Veteran
Bronze Supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2015
Messages
3,285
Reaction score
5,670
City & State/Province
Triad Area North Carolina
Today, the Justice Department filed suit against the City of Denver, Colorado alleging that the City unconstitutionally bans certain constitutionally protected semi-automatic rifles. These laws unconstitutionally infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in common use for lawful purposes.

As the complaint explains, the City enforces an ordinance that makes it a crime to possess so-called “assault weapons.” But that the City’s ban includes AR-15-style rifles, which are the most popular rifles in America. Law-abiding Americans own tens of millions of rifles like those banned by the City.
 
Another example of cities and states enacting law's that infringe. Then they just enforce that law for years while it
goes through the court systems until it is finally settled one way or the other...even if they lose the law suit they have
years to enforce a law that should have never been passed to start with.
 
We have the same issue in Oregon... left-wing-nuts hold all the cards in our Legislature, and their efforts are still in court... the only way to stop them. I was born in Denver, and lived there for quite some time, and it's sad to see what was a nice town become a poster city for radical anti-American policies.
 
Harmeet doesn’t play…take note, commie playgrounds.
 
JMag said:
Harmeet doesn’t play…take note, commie playgrounds.
Click to expand...
If they get sued and have to pay real damages, that is the only way it will stop. Unless they pass a law that says "If you propose a law that is later found Unconstitutional you give up your gravy train position and are further barred from all public office or benefits associated with that position". Then, and only then will politicians start to follow the Constitution. Add on to this a loss of
federal monies paid to the state and cities...

It think this might get some attention where attention need to be gotten.
 
s&wchad said:
They should to go after states like CA, NY, Maryland and others who ban so called assault rifles. I suspect they chose to bring suit against a city for a reason.
Click to expand...
How about this:-

1) Denver is big enough and well known enough that people will take note of the case.

2) Taking on an entire state might be ill advised given the current "fun" in US politics.

3) There is something in the way the Denver law is written that gives the DOJ an "in".
 
RMGO currently has 4 AWB lawsuits, against Superior, Louisville, Boulder and Boulder County. Barry, the lawyer who was handling the cases has moved to DC and joined the 2nd Amendment Task Force. We do have someone with a high level of state knowledge working with the DOJ.
 
JMag said:
Denver, in the FO stage…stay tuned, there will be more.
Click to expand...
The Colorado "Assault Weapons Ban" SB25-003 will be taking affect on 08/01/26, even with the lawsuit from the DOJ.
Maybe a Federal judge can put an injunction on the bill?
 
The concept of paying damages is an interesting idea, BUT in this case tax money is paying the legal costs of BOTH sides. Any settlement costs would, likely, also be paid out of tax money.

Not being a lawyer, I don't know if this is feasible, but there is a US Code section (Title 93?) that permits suits where improper acts under color of law can result in damages. Now, if it was possible to go after whoever signed a bill into law (or voted for it?) that violated constitutional rights.................................
 
Baned 'Assault Weapons'. If DOJ uses the true meaning of assault weapons the AR15 would not be included. Guess it would be open to interpretation tho. A true assault weapon is fully automatic. The ATF regulates firearms by their mechanical operation not their cosmetic or military style features.
 
swincolo said:
The Colorado "Assault Weapons Ban" SB25-003 will be taking affect on 08/01/26, even with the lawsuit from the DOJ.
Maybe a Federal judge can put an injunction on the bill?
Click to expand...
I think it is more likely that a federal judge would issue an injunction barring the ATF from taking action against anti-2A cities and states.
 
In Calif the AR ban went into effect in the 1979 period. Registrations became mandatory and the list was utterly stupid, they missed some named others as OK same gun different brand etc. Meanwhile in the 45 years that have followed their stupid law, you cannot use an AR anywhere but at a range, you cannot fire or carry it in a national forest, sell it in this state or leave it to a relative when you die. The ban has been an on/off thing for all of these years but appointed judges keep right on stalling and finding new ways to keep owners from using their firearm. Lawyers and judges now in effect run the USA as they all get rich getting paid to stall and sue each other over and over. Lawyers are so greedy they now advertise on TV, ambulance chasers begging for you to involve them in every part of your life. Everything involving our freedom has to have a "Mother May I ?" attached to it or someone gets sued. Think politicians are the problem? They are usually lawyers too and so are the judges who approve or disapprove of everything we do buy sell and use.
 
WR Moore said:
The concept of paying damages is an interesting idea, BUT in this case tax money is paying the legal costs of BOTH sides. Any settlement costs would, likely, also be paid out of tax money.

Not being a lawyer, I don't know if this is feasible, but there is a US Code section (Title 93?) that permits suits where improper acts under color of law can result in damages. Now, if it was possible to go after whoever signed a bill into law (or voted for it?) that violated constitutional rights.................................
Click to expand...
Its time someone in the US DOJ grew a set and handled this the proper way and prosecuted those who do this CRIMINALLY not civilly:

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights​


If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
 
dben002 said:
Today, the Justice Department filed suit against the City of Denver, Colorado alleging that the City unconstitutionally bans certain constitutionally protected semi-automatic rifles. These laws unconstitutionally infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in common use for lawful purposes.

As the complaint explains, the City enforces an ordinance that makes it a crime to possess so-called “assault weapons.” But that the City’s ban includes AR-15-style rifles, which are the most popular rifles in America. Law-abiding Americans own tens of millions of rifles like those banned by the City.
Click to expand...
Thank goodness I live on the Western Slope in Colorado. As far away as I can get from Denver without getting into Utah.
 
I left Greenie land in 2014 when House Bill 1224 passed and Magpul left for TX&WY.
The 15 round mag limit was the end of it for me. I still have relatives down there
but try real hard to only visit once or twice a year. Other than that Stapleton Airport
is the only contact I have.

My relatives still have all the "bad" guns and such they always had. They've decided
to light up anyone who physically tries to take their "stuff". And (Although I think it's
a little bit too late) they've gotten into local politics to try and right transgressions.
I guess we'll see how that works out.
 
Mike LaNier said:
We have the same issue in Oregon... left-wing-nuts hold all the cards in our Legislature, and their efforts are still in court... the only way to stop them. I was born in Denver, and lived there for quite some time, and it's sad to see what was a nice town become a poster city for radical anti-American policies.
Click to expand...
Interesting you would say this.
My understanding is that you can still own a sub-machine gun if you pass the background and pay the tax stamp fee. AR style rifles are still for sale.

Although “they” may hold cards but so far their hand hasn’t been enough to pass the restrictive legislation.
 
The trouble with suing any kind of government agency is that the PEOPLE who enacted the illegal "law" never get punished for their actions. The city of Denver didn't enact this stupid law--PEOPLE enacted it. They're the ones who should pay the price for their stupidity.
 
Denverd0n, you are correct. I inadvertently transposed DIA with Stapleton.
I apologise for my error.
 
S o what happens when they take someones property and the law is struck down.. Do they give the property back? or are the people run through the ringer with lawyers fees and court costs to get it back?
 
If you’re a party in the litigation, you may be able to have the court order the return of your property. If you’re just a spectator you’ll have to file your own action to get an order for the return of your property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TeamPB
5 PM Colorado vs DOJ May 5th deadline !?!
Replies
3
Views
178
Mike LaNier
M
S
Injunction against Virginia's AWB to be expanded state wide on July 21, 2026
Replies
2
Views
206
stansdds
S
S
Update on anti-2A proposed legislation in Virginia
Replies
1
Views
446
Jaco1234
J
Onomea
  • Locked
NRA says it opposes idea of banning transgender Americans from owning guns
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Tom S.
Tom S.
TXBryan
Mexico sues U.S. gunmakers
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Oldsalt66
Oldsalt66

Latest posts

Back
Top