Colorado Gun Restrictions Upheld By Federal Judge

Colorado Gun Restrictions Upheld By Federal Judge

A federal judge upheld gun restrictions in Colorado on Thursday, throwing out a lawsuit aimed at overturning the state's new gun laws, Fox 31 and the AP report.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger upheld restrictions that limit the size of ammunition magazines and expand background checks on firearms sold online and between private parties, according to the AP.

Many of Colorado's sheriffs had refused to enforce the gun laws, despite a December 2013 ruling -- also from Krieger -- that said the sheriffs don't have legal standing to challenge the laws in their official capacity.

In a ruling Thursday, U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger said both laws are constitutional and that they don't infringe on individuals' right to bear arms.

The judge further said that limiting magazine sizes doesn't obstruct individuals' ability to protect themselves and that the expansion of background checks "is no more severe" than the requirements already in place before the new law.

Welllllllll, it looks some sanity has finally prevailed in Colorado, and the laws passed are NOT unconstitutional... Hopefully, other states will use our example to start applying some common sense....

:woo hoo:

Remember when Obama refused to defend Clinton's DOMA act? Will these sheriffs continue to refuse to arrest people for the badly worded magazine ban?

LJ: Yip Yap Yap

Fred: Yeah, but Yip Yip, Yap Yap?

Yip Yap Yip Yap

Insert Yip Yap here________________

LOL wrote: LJ: Yip Yap Yap

Fred: Yeah, but Yip Yip, Yap Yap?

Yip Yap Yip Yap

Insert Yip Yap here________________

Fish gotto swim, birds gotto fly.

[youtube:1eh1i4hm][/youtube:1eh1i4hm]

Perhaps the sheriffs should follow the lead of the President in enforcing or not enforcing laws.

Gee, I hope they do decide not to enforce them. It will be fun to notify the DOJ and the Governor about the selective enforcement.

I'm typing slow so the OP can try to grasp the reality of the unenforceable law regarding magazine capacity. The burden of proof lies with law enforcement and they have no way to determine when a magazine was acquired. Hence, gloat all you want, it means nothing.

Using Bob's example from another discussion, I'm glad to see you agree they don't infringe on individuals' right to bear arms.

Back to the reading comprehension and reasoning issue, or in your case lack of. Presume whatever you want, it is likely wrong.

Comprehend this:

In a ruling Thursday, U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger said both laws are constitutional and that they don't infringe on individuals' right to bear arms.

The judge further said that limiting magazine sizes doesn't obstruct individuals' ability to protect themselves and that the expansion of background checks "is no more severe" than the requirements already in place before the new law.