2nd Amendment Extremists Lose as Judge Upholds Two Colorado Gun Laws


Sanity refers to a human mind that is sound, rational, and healthy, and the condition is woefully lacking in great numbers of Americans on a number of issues. One could not possibly expect any sane human being to actively support policies that give people the tools to cause mass destruction of human lives, and it is precisely why gun zealots advocating for more guns in the hands of more people are considered at least irrational and likely insane. On Thursday, a federal judge issued a ruling that probably drove irrational gun fanatics crazy because she upheld what any rational human being would consider sane gun safety laws.

Since suffering two very high-profile and deadly mass shootings in their state, and witnessing, with the entire nation, the mass execution of twenty innocent school children and six adults, Colorado Democrats had seen enough and passed two gun safety laws. The laws, one requiring background checks for all private gun sales and transfers, and one banning ammunition magazines holding more than 15 rounds were the subject of a lawsuit filed by gun fanatics and Colorado County Sheriffs whose job is, among other things, protecting the public from gun violence.

After a two-week civil trial a U.S. District Chief Judge, Marcia Krieger, ruled the lawsuit lacked standing and dismissed it, and said the plaintiffs presented absolutely no evidence that limiting gun magazines to 15 rounds seriously diminished anyone’s ability to defend themselves.

She said, “Of the many law enforcement officials called to testify, none were able to identify a single instance in which they were involved where a single civilian fired more than 15 shots in self defense.” Addressing the county sheriffs complaint that expanded background checks were abusive and a violation of Colorado gun fanatics 2nd Amendment rights, Krieger said there were over 600 firearm dealers in the state actively performing private background checks and that it took less than 15 minutes for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to run a simple background check. However, the county sheriffs did not file suit over the time it took to run a background check, they sued to strike down the law and allow any lunatic, or criminal, to easily acquire a firearm; especially one with a high-capacity magazine.

Joining the Colorado County Sheriffs in the lawsuit was the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Association (RMGOA) represented by Dudley W. Brown who was recently elevated to lead the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR). The county sheriffs could not bring the lawsuit of their own accord, but they could join the other gun-zealots and give credence to the gun fanatics’ claims that background checks and 15-round magazines were an atrocity. Dudley W. Brown spoke for the gun zealots as a chief lobbyist for the gun owners’ groups.

Oddly, Brown claimed his group was responsible for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s primary defeat. Brown claims NAGR attacked Cantor for “giving lip service” to a proposed Virginia gun sales check after the Virginia Tech mass shooting in 2007 despite Cantor’s “A” legislative rating from the National Rifle Association. It gives new meaning to lunacy when a staunch supporter of 2nd Amendment rights faced attack ads for a passing remark in the wake of a mass shooting seven years ago. However, groups like RMGOA and NAGR are going to oppose any sane gun safety laws, but the Colorado County Sheriffs should welcome the idea of fewer guns in the hands of lunatics. Unfortunately, it is groups like the county sheriffs and other law enforcement officials who are most likely to champion more guns in the hands of more lunatics and openly refuse to enforce existing gun laws.

Last Monday, an official with New York Oath Keepers called on all law enforcement officers to disobey orders to enforce constitutional laws they deemed unconstitutional and then denied his group held “far-right, anti-government views.” The Oath Keeper, John Wallace, was incensed over an “alleged” New York  State Intelligence Center counter-terrorism bulletin that linked the Oath Keeper’s organization and similar groups to the recent shootings of law enforcement officers by extremists. Likely, the bulletin referred to the Oath Keepers joining the Cliven Bundy armed standoff with federal agents and the murder of two Las Vegas police officers and a “good guy with a gun” at the hands of two lunatics who joined the Bundy standoff. Wallace bemoaned the bulletin was the product of “left wing” and “communist” organizations such as the New York Times, CNN, and Huffington Post.

Wallace’s call for law enforcement to disobey laws they deem unconstitutional mirrors other Oath Keepers, former sheriff Richard Mack, and assorted lunatics gathered at the Bundy standoff as an integral part of the “fight against socialist tyranny.” Wallace’s main complaint though, like the Colorado County Sheriff’s suing the state, is that New York’s Safe Act, which stiffens gun laws, was another unconstitutional law police should not enforce even though a state Supreme Court judge dismissed a challenge to the law in April. According to Wallace, “honorable men and women simply will not submit to a tyrannical lust for power by the political incompetence of the governor and the president,” and said law enforcement officers would interpret laws on their own to determine whether they were constitutional.

Even if one sets aside the asinine idea that law enforcement refuses to enforce legally passed laws due to their absurd contention they have authority to determine the constitutionality of a law, it is sheer lunacy to oppose gun restrictions meant to protect the lives of innocent civilians. What most Americans will take away from the federal judge dismissing Colorado sheriff’s lawsuit against sane gun laws is that there is no reasoning with gun zealots and gun safety laws are reasonable. One may have thought the brutal murder of two Las Vegas police officers by gun fanatics standing with seditionists Cliven Bundy, Oath Keepers, former sheriff Richard Mack, and armed militias would stun some sense into gun-crazed law enforcement officers, but obviously that is not, and will never be, the case.

At least, and this is important, a federal judge recognized that Colorado’s two basic gun safety laws do not abridge any 2nd Amendment advocates’ rights, and it should embolden other sane state legislatures to follow Colorado’s lead and protect their citizens’ lives. Because one thing is certain, many county sheriffs and other law enforcement officials have no interest in, and no intention to, protect the public from more mass shootings; even when police officers are gunned down. The real tragedy is that despite overwhelming public support for sane gun safety laws, there are just enough 2nd Amendment lunatics who support county sheriffs, the NRA, Oath Keepers, open-carry bullies, and Republicans who love the idea of well-armed citizens with “far-right, anti-government views” armed and ready to “fight against socialist tyranny” and destroy any semblance of sanity in America.



57 Replies to “2nd Amendment Extremists Lose as Judge Upholds Two Colorado Gun Laws”

  1. It amazes me that the Colorado Sheriffs Association is advocating people have more extreme fire power and high capacity magazines. How about when they have to answer that call with some nut holed up in his house and ready to do battle. Chances are he will be better equipped than law enforcement. Kind of like shooting yourself in the foot.

    If legislators want to stand idly by then perhaps the Federal courts are the answer. We have to confront this issue, it’s a scourge on society. Sometimes you have to kill the host to get rid of the virus.

  2. If the court decided that single shot rifles and pistols were the only legal weapons it still would not abridge any 2nd Amendment advocates’ rights.
    The oath keepers selection of what laws they will and wont follow are “suspiciously” far right wing. Go through the police departments of this country and fire any police employee who is a member of this organization. DO the same for the military.
    Justification? Its easy. These people follow laws we find unlawful.

  3. Yet another of gazillions of examples of how stupid, not just ignorant, these knuckle draggers are.They hide behind the second amendment and spout great conspiracies of “socialist plots” and society gone mad from liberal poison but, under it all, is a group of selfish children playing with guns and dressing up in their camo attire just looking for an excuse to go play bang bang.

  4. The Gazette has also obtained hundreds of messages sent by Maketa to the women in question. One message is a selfie of a shirtless Maketa with the caption, “Wish you were with me.”
    I don’t think so!!

  5. It is disturbing that a Colorado sheriff was a part of this lawsuit.You would think anybody in law enforcement would not want citizens carrying weapons even they do not possess while on duty.

    The judge stated their lawsuit had no merit, and they did not adequately argue how limiting rounds to only 15 violated their 2nd amendment rights. It doesn’t. What are thesr idiots trying to do? Blow away people to bits?

  6. “U.S. District Chief Judge, Marcia Krieger, ruled the lawsuit lacked standing and dismissed it, and said the plaintiffs presented absolutely no evidence that limiting gun magazines to 15 rounds seriously diminished anyone’s ability to defend themselves.”

    So when these sheriffs find people in possession of larger magazines, they’ll do their duty to the Oathkeepers, and just ignore it? State law enforcement should get involved and see if any of these sheriffs are really just gun-runners with badges to help move their product. I’ll bet they have lots of side deals that involve the purchase and distribution of assault weapons, and without performing background checks. When things like this don’t add up, it’s because money is involved, somewhere.

  7. So limit the rights/privileges of the many because of the actions of a few mentally ill people. A better choice enact common sense legislation that limits what someone who suffers from mental illness can purchase or have in the houshold. Like the I’d card 55 used in Germany which shows all that the individual is special. Or allowing mental health professionals to report suspected violenc r prone patients to the data base so they can’t purchase firearms. If you ban or try to confiscate weapons you will be opening a can of worms as history does repeat itself.Why should legal law abiding citizens who own firearms be punished for the actions of thugs and crazy people.

  8. Who is being punished? Limiting magazines to 15 rounds punishes no one. Banning assault type rifles is legal and the right thing to do according to the Supreme Court. No ones penis extenders are being confiscated.

    What history? There is no history to repeat from banning guns

  9. Gun registration and universal background
    checks is just common sense. Sure some
    who shouldn’t own any guns will slip
    thru but it is still a good law.
    And, ANY ‘hunter’ who has already
    pumped 15 rounds into an unarmed deer
    and needs to stop and reload? Well, maybe
    they should take up another sport, ya think?

  10. Better yet, Shiva, let them keep all of the “arms” available at the time of writing of the Constitution – not just single-shot, but muzzle-loading flintlock firearms, swords, etc. If this was the way the law was interpreted, mass murders by individuals would be almost nil.

  11. You sound as though you believe that only mentally ill people with guns present a danger to others or infringe on the rights of others.

    This is not the case. It has been shown time and time again that people who are not diagnosably mentally ill are a major cause of gun-inflicted deaths.

    Every idiot too damn stupid to lock up their guns or who leaves loaded ones lying around, or handles guns carelessly or has anger or impulse control issues should have to prove why they should be permitted to own a gun.

    The right to own a gun stops where others’ right to life and liberty begin.

  12. You know what I find most disturbing of all about gun fanatics? They NEVER, EVER seem to acknowledge the huge amount of senseless carnage that occurs when gun owners are criminals or simply irresponsible. They seem to think their rights to carry guns supersede the rights of everyone else, including the right to be safe. The concept that all rights go hand-in-hand with responsibilities seems to elude them, because they either whine or resort to mindless vitriol whenever anyone suggests sensible gun control laws or actions like gun registration. I’m glad this judge stood up for common sense and the rights of everyone, while she handed these fanatics a reality check–including the so-called law enforcers.

  13. Hillary was right. If you walk around in public — including at dining establishments, shopping malls, bars, etc. — waving your loaded assault rifle at everyone, yelling epithets at passersby, daring anyone to try to take it from you … yeah, you’re a terrorist.

  14. No room for Bundy-type cops, bad enough they beat the hell out of everyone as it is. If these “lawmen” want to side with the extremists, then get rid of them all and hire ones who will follow the law. Problem solved.

  15. I agree. And I think we need to address the other amendments with the same zest and zeal!

    Lets start with the 1st amendment and how it only applies to the screw driven, manual printing press.

  16. Except for Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao Tze Tung, Stalin, Hitler.. But sure.. I mean.. Other than those examples there isn’t a single example in history of gun control/disarmament of the people being used against them. Not a single one.

  17. Common sense for whom?

    And if I don’t “need” a standard capacity magazine.. Why do the Police? I mean.. really.. How many civilians do the cops need to be able to shoot in order to hit their “suspect”?

  18. Are you at war with the police? Is this your jealousy? What does your having a single shot weapon have to do with the police having a 15 shot? Has insane wayne told you to whine about the cops? Are you a grown up?

  19. Nice try, but in all the cases you note none of the civilians would have had a prayer against those leaders military. I laugh when you bring up Hitler as if the Jews could have lasted more then 3 minutes. Sorry, you have been steered wrong

  20. Ah, can you name some examples in American history of genocide? Don’t worry you wont or cant but a little hint it was against people who you could give 2 shits and a side of piss about. GTFOH WITH THAT BULLSHIT

  21. djchefron..

    Ask the Native Americans how well things went for them when they were disarmed.
    What? You need another one? Ok.. How about the blacks? The Democrat party tried , and succeeded, for decades at keeping them disarmed. It went pretty well for them as well as I recall my history.

    But, as I said.. Other than THOSE examples.. Not once has it ever been done.

  22. I dont think it doesnt apply to muskets. But since you need to be extreme, remember the court says that the type of weapons you can own can be determined by the government. And as far as I have seen, people like you shouldnt have anything more then muscats.

    You are the reason 30,000 people died from guns each year. You need to be diarmed

  23. Of course they were disarmed. They were at war with the US government. The Govt won. Did you expect the Native Americans to keep their weapons? Are you that poorly educated?

  24. Its truely funny. In every case insane wayne has given you, the people you note would have been easily decimated had they been armed.

    Your education is terribly lacking

  25. Why do the Police need them. Further. Why do I need to be at “war” with them?

    I asked a question. If I, as a supposed “Hunter”, need more than 15 rounds to take down a deer.. and that makes me a poor hunter.

    What does it make a Cop, who needs more than 15 rounds to take down a suspect.. In a heavily populated area? That would make him just a poor steward of his firearm would it not? And since we’re all about protecting the general public from such poor stewards why do the Cops “need” such capacity?
    Not only do the Cops carry, without protest from those like you, Hundreds of rounds of ammunition in standard capacity and larger magazines.. but they also carry fully automatic weapons.

    Why do they “Need” them?

  26. One has nothing to do with the other. This is just another worn out and tired whine from people like you.
    How many cops do ypou see with fully auto weapons? Around zero.

    Time for you to grow up.

  27. I would ask them but they were wiped out because others had the guns and decided they were all powerful and took what didn’t belong to them. And before you even cry crocodile tears for African Americans, I have one question. Do you support reparations?

  28. So… 1 instance. That’s the best you can do? A single instance of people completely loaded with illegal weapons.. People having broken dozens of Federal, State and local laws before they even left the house.

    And since the Police need such firepower to repel and answer to CRIMINALS why should I be disarmed? Is it your contention that such criminals will never target me? Or another civilian?

    You do realize that your entire argument is prefaced with the notion that criminals will obtain weapons that are illegal for them to possess. That they will break any and every law that you pass and not a single law will prevent them from obtaining such weapons.

    And your answer to that is to disarm me and others of the weapons that we ARE legally allowed to possess.

    Allow me to rebut your half baked notion.
    Since a drunk driver killed my cousin… It it my belief that you should not be allowed to drink alcohol nor own a car. After all.. If it saves just one life…

  29. LOL, you get funnier and funnier.
    Why should you be armed? Why? Is it your thought that all who kill with guns are criminals? Nay charles, most are jsut like you. Unbalanced, inferior and desperate for their first kill.
    Allow me to rebut your silliness.
    Remember that carrying a gun can be perceived as a threat. Think about it.

  30. Shiva..

    Of course they were disarmed? Why? Just because you lose a war does not mean that you should be automatically disarmed en masse. When you lose a war your representatives gather and the terms of armistice are laid out. Then the terms for the greater, long term peace.

    Not.. You lost a war.. Now we’ll disarm you.. And then wipe you out.

    But that is what does happen.

    Just as has happened over and over and over again when people with guns decide that they should be the only ones with them.

    Because THEY are the ones you can trust.. right?

  31. BTW, preventing the manufacturers from making certain guns will in time prevent the “criminals”(you, your neighbors, the drunks etc) from having these guns

  32. djchefron..

    You would ask them but they were wiped out? Wait a minute.. That doesn’t happen. You said so yourself. When people are disarmed they aren’t wiped out.

    And yet here you are telling us that they do.

    So which is it?

  33. This is sad. You seem to have no idea of what you are talking about. Then you go on making up senarios that are laghable.

    Why should you be armed?

  34. Shiva.

    As to the “Type” of weapons..

    You need to reread your Heller decision.
    The court ruled (erroneously because it was historically inaccurate) against the possession of short barreled shotgun because it had no equivalent military use.

    Meaning.. that weapons that DO have military use are legal.

  35. Shiva.

    Why should I be armed? Because the Cops are, at best, 15 minutes away from my house. Because I’m not followed by armed security. Because the courts have ruled over and over again that the Police have no duty or obligation to protect me.

    Why should you be allowed the freedom to speak?

  36. Image and video hosting by TinyPic

    I know reading comprehension is not required for homeschooling but the decision was about handguns and I quote
    “According to the Court, the ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of ‘arms’ that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in a home be disassembled or locked made “it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” These laws were unconstitutional “under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.” But the Court did not cite a specific standard in making its determination, and it rejected the interest-balancing standard; proposed by Justice Breyer, and a “rational basis” standard.

    The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas.”

  37. I agree about the police . As a matter of fact, I had to read parts of the article twice to make sure I was reading it right.

  38. Its just sad: Gordon Klingenschmidt, wingnut extraordinaire, just won the nomination for a seat in the Colorado state House of Representatives.

    Last year, “Dr. Chaps” Gordon Klingenschmitt announced that he was running for a seat in Colorado’s legislature and his long history as a disgraced former Navy Chaplain who brags about having successfully performed an exorcism on a lesbian soldier and who has stated again and again that demonic spirits are behind everything from abortion to gay marriage to ENDA to President Obama to Madonna won him the support of the vast majority of GOP caucus-goers earlier this year, setting up a primary showdown against another GOP hopeful which took place last night.Klingenschmitt won that primary race by several hundred votes, becoming the official Republican nominee for House District 15

    Just plain insanity

  39. I guess this is your well regulated militia in action

    Ohio Group Toting AR-15s Through Neighborhood Indicted On Menancing Charges

    EAST PRICE HILL, Ohio (WKRC) — Four people seen toting high-powered weapons through East Price Hill [Cinncinnati] were indicted on menacing charges. Video of the young people showed them flaunting the fact they had AR 15’s slung over their shoulders. The group walked through a neighborhood and posted the video on YouTube. The video was full of racial slurs. [Since removed from YouTube]

  40. We don’t have to look far to see where this love for guns and hate for people is coming from.
    “Further, the process of transformation,
    even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
    catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

    “even if it brings revolutionary change”

    They had their “Pearl Harbor” and squandered it on visions of conquest until Americans said “No” in the voting booths.

    Their disregard for the real American values that they cite so often and well being of most of the population is proof enough that they will welcome a “Revolutionary change” in spite of the suffering it will bring, if it puts their “American Century” back on track.These people have destabilized several nations already and we are next. Hiding in the shame that their overwhelming mistakes brought upon their failed Project For a New American Century , they are now back as the Foreign Policy Initiative and Still plotting.

  41. Again you haven’t read the decision or understood it. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. So if a state bans concealed carry then its banned. You cannot compare Chicago which is a city in a State with D.C being a federal district. Since the state has passed conceal carry laws then whatever bans Chicago had was null and void.

  42. Hopefully none.

    But with quality body armor so readily available to anyone, if you really have to ask you should have “Remember the L.A. bank shoot out” tattoo’d on your forehead before you can even buy the 15 round airsoft mag..

    Since that L.A. shootout, there is no telling whats in the trunk of that LEO cruiser going buy.

  43. Anne, In many places, the Sheriff is an elected office that often leads to higher positions. Its sad when an ideology trumps common sense and sadder and also dangerous when unreasonable adherence to that ideology trumps the safety of citizens. How he squares it with his deputy’s who may one day face those weapons is beyond me. Unless he’s “Boss Hog” and hand picks his force based on like mindedness rather than ability.

    Its time to help the president to get a grass roots constitutional amendment on gun control on the 2016 ballot instead of leaving it to an obstructionist congress that we know never will do the right thing..

  44. I live near Arlington, Texas where the gun nuts carry long rifles in public, scaring the hell out of ordinary people who don’t know whether they’re about to be killed or not.

    They stand in the street hading out copies of the Constitution but they don’t bother READING IT!

    Yes, we have the right to own firearms, but the Founders they pretend to love and follow said very clearly that the reason for our being able to bear arms is because A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The rectal termini who wave the Second Amendment in our faces don’t belong to any militia! Furthermore, the Founders could never have imagined the kinds of arms that are available now, had they been able to imagine assault type weapons, they may have put restrictions on arms.

    Do I own weapons? Yes, a revolver that has never been used except at a target range. I hope to never use it in anger or…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.