After Supreme Court ruling, it’s open season on US gun laws, including Colorado

FILE – Tributes hang on the temporary fence surrounding the parking lot in front of a King Soopers grocery store in which 10 people died in a late March mass shooting, Friday, April 9, 2021, in Boulder, Colo. A federal judge has temporarily blocked the town of Superior, Colo., from enforcing parts of a new gun control ordinance, including a ban on the sale and possession of assault weapons, in a lawsuit brought by the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the National Association for Gun Rights and a Superior resident. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, File)

WASHINGTON | The Supreme Court ruling expanding gun rights threatens to upend firearms restrictions across the country, including a town in the Denver-Aurora metroplex, as activists wage court battles over everything from bans on AR-15-style guns to age limits.

The decision handed down in June already has led one judge to temporarily block Louisville, adjacent to Boulder, from enforcing a ban on the sale and possession of certain semi-automatic weapons.

The first major gun decision in more than a decade, the ruling could dramatically reshape gun laws in the U.S. even as a series of horrific mass shootings pushes the issue back into the headlines.

“The gun rights movement has been given a weapon of mass destruction, and it will annihilate approximately 75% of the gun laws eventually,” said Evan Nappen, a New Jersey gun rights attorney.

The court battles come as the Biden administration and police departments across the U.S. struggle to combat a surge in violent crime and mass shootings, including several high-profile killings carried out by suspects who purchased their guns legally.

And given the sheer number of cases now working through the courts, a lot more time will be spent in courtrooms no matter who wins.

“We will see a lot of tax dollars and government resources that should be used to stop gun crime being used to defend gun laws that are lifesaving and wildly popular,” said Jonathan Lowry, chief counsel and vice president at Brady, the gun control group.

Congress broke through years of deadlock to pass a modest gun violence prevention package weeks ago, and the House voted to renew a ban on high-powered semi-automatic weapons, though that effort is likely doomed in the Senate as Republicans push back on firearms restrictions and say recent spikes in gun violence should be met with a stepped-up police response.

The Supreme Court decision struck down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need to get a license to carry a concealed gun in public, saying it violates Second Amendment rights. Several other states including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island have similar laws expected to be directly impacted by the ruling.

In Massachusetts, for example, police chiefs can no longer deny or impose restrictions on licenses just because the applicant doesn’t have a “good reason” to carry a gun. New York quickly passed a new concealed-weapon law, but Republicans there predict it will also end up being overturned.

In its New York ruling, the high court’s conservative majority also changed a test lower courts had used for evaluating challenges to gun laws.

Judges should no longer consider whether the law serves public interests like enhancing public safety, the opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas said. Instead, they should only weigh whether the law is “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

“Basically, the Supreme Court has given an invitation for the gun lobby to file lawsuits against virtually every gun law in America,” Lowry said.

The Supreme Court has ordered lower courts to take another look at several other cases under the court’s new test. Among them: laws in California and New Jersey that limit the amount of ammunition a gun magazine can hold and a 2013 ban on “assault weapons” in Maryland.

Gun rights groups are also challenging similar bans in California, New York, New Jersey and Delaware.

“The rifles at issue in this case are the sorts of bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes that responsible and peaceable people across the United States possess by the millions. And they are, moreover, exactly what they would bring to service in militia duty, should such be necessary,” a New Jersey lawsuit brought in June by the Firearms Policy Coalition says, referencing the language of the Second Amendment.

The ruling also has come up in challenges to restrictions on gun possession for 18- to 20-year-olds in Texas and Pennsylvania. And it has been cited in a case challenging a federal ban on gun possession for people convicted of nonviolent crimes punishable by more than a year behind bars, as well as a prohibition on concealed guns on the subway in Washington, D.C.

In addition, a gun rights group is suing Colorado over the state’s 2013 ban on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds, saying the high court ruling reinforces the group’s argument that it infringes on Second Amendment rights. And the ruling has public defenders in New York City asking judges to drop gun possession cases.

Not all those lawsuits will necessarily be successful. The Texas attorney general, for example, argues the Supreme Court ruling doesn’t affect the state’s age limit law, and more state and local governments can certainly defend their gun laws as being in line with U.S. history.

Adam Skaggs, chief counsel and policy director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, predicted that when the dust settles, only laws “along the margins” will eventually be struck down.

“Most judges are going to see these for what they are, which is overreaching and lacking in any merit,” he said.

Backers of gun restrictions can also look to a concurring opinion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Kavanaugh stressed that the Second Amendment does allow for a “variety” of gun regulations. He cited the use of background checks and mental health records as part of a licensing process to carry a gun and noted that states can forbid the carrying of firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings.

But the Colorado decision handed down last month, while still early in the process, was a rosy sign for gun rights groups.

U.S. District Court Judge Raymond Moore, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, said he was sympathetic to the town’s goal of preventing mass shootings like the one that killed 10 people at a grocery store in nearby Boulder last year. But Moore said he didn’t know of “historical precedent” for a law banning “a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” so the gun rights groups have a strong case against the ordinance.

Encouraged by that decision, Taylor D. Rhodes, the executive director of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, told The Associated Press that his group was considering going after other gun measures in Colorado, where Democrats hold the majority in the state legislature and the governor’s office.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Rhodes said: “The Bruen decision gave us a 4-ton wrecking ball.”

___

Richer reported from Boston.

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
FactsOverFeelings
FactsOverFeelings
5 days ago

Supreme Court: States can’t be trusted to write their own gun laws, only the federal government should do that.

Also Supreme Court: The federal government can’t be trusted to make abortion laws, only the states should do that.

We’re devolving into a Christo-fascist theocracy.

DICK MOORE
4 days ago

Even Google couldn’t define Christo-fascist theocracy, so I don’t feel so bad having not a clue what you mean.

Joe Felice
Joe Felice
4 days ago
Reply to  DICK MOORE

On the other hand most other people totally understand.

Doug
Doug
4 days ago
Reply to  DICK MOORE

Funny. I found it easy enough. Christian fascism is a far-right political ideology that denotes the intersection between fascism and Christianity. It is sometimes referred to as “Christofascism”, a neologism coined by liberation theologist Dorothee Sölle in 1970.

Don
Don
4 days ago

The difference between these two things is that the Constitution has a say on one of them, which is under the Courts purview, and the other doesn’t. The court never said that the federal government can’t pass a law about abortion, but it did say that the Court should not have a say because abortion is NOT in the Constitution and the “decision” that decided it was, was based on a made up lie and even patron saint RBG knew that. It’s sad you don’t know the difference between these two things, or you do, and you are willfully lying to deceive other people. A pretend politician on a tiny local newspaper trying to lie to as many people as he can find. Sad.

Factory Working Orphan
Factory Working Orphan
4 days ago

If there’s one thing marxists truly despise, it’s Christians.

FactsOverFeelings
FactsOverFeelings
4 days ago

If there’s one thing intelligent people despise, it’s a group of people whose entire belief system is based on believing what you’re told and not questioning it in the face of insurmountable evidence that it’s false. Christians and Republicans overlap in that ideology.

Doug
Doug
4 days ago

My thought exactly

GeneD
5 days ago

From the lawsuit supporting assault weapon possession: “And they are, moreover, exactly what they would bring to service in militia duty, should such be necessary,”

Ummm, militia armed to fight against what? Not enemies external to the US government (us), I’ll bet.

BTW, whenever you see words like Freedom, Coalition, Patriot, Institute, Independence, Great, or Caucus in a group’s name, be wary and follow the money. You can bet they are not self-funded.