Constitutional Challenge Brought Against Colorado Firearm Laws

Earlier today a group of plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against Governor Hickenlooper pleading that two firearm laws recently enacted in Colorado violate the United States Constitution.  The plaintiffs include 54 Colorado county sheriffs, several firearm manufacturers and dealers, disabled individuals, shooting clubs and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.  A copy of the complaint is attached.
  • Ban on large capacity magazines.  Effective July 1, 2013, this law will prohibit the sale, transfer or possession of magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition or more than eight shotgun shells, or which can be readily converted to do so.  Magazines that are lawfully possessed before July 1, 2013 will be grandfathered, but cannot be transferred or sold. Plaintiffs argue that because most magazines can be “readily converted” to hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition, HB 1224 amounts to a ban on most currently used magazines for handguns and a large fraction of rifles, in violation of Heller and McDonald.  Plaintiffs also argue that the requirement that grandfathered magazines must be “continuously possessed” to remain grandfathered also violates Heller and McDonald.
  • Required background checks.  Effective July 1, 2013, this law will require background checks for all transfers of firearms.  Exception is made for transfers between immediate family members, for transfers of antique firearms and for temporary transfers at shooting ranges or while hunting. Plaintiffs argue that the breadth of this ban violates Heller, which only spoke of allowing 2nd Amendment exceptions for restrictions on commercial sales of firearms.  Plaintiffs also argue that in practice few, if any licensed firearm dealers will conduct the required background check for the $10 maximum fee allowed by the law, so that in effect this law amounts to a ban on private sales and transfers.
  • Plaintiffs with disabilities.  Plaintiffs argue that both laws violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, because they subject persons with disabilities to discrimination in their ability to self-defend.
Cooke v. Hickenlooper raises substantial questions about the constitutionality of these laws.  We will continue to follow this case with interest.
Share this Post
Posted in