Colorado Supreme Court to Rule on Gun Magazine Ban

The Colorado Supreme Court is considering reversing a ban on limits to gun magazines. Currently, the state has a law that placed a ban on magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds (Slevin 2019). The law was passed by a Democrat-controlled state legislature and signed by Governor Hickenlooper in 2013 after the July 2012 Aurora shooting in an attempt to decrease the number of deaths from mass shootings. In 2008, the United States Supreme Court handed down District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that Americans, provided by the Second Amendment, have a right to handgun and common firearm ownership for self-defense purposes in their homes and that a 32-year handgun ban in D.C. was unconstitutional. Various gun lobbies, specifically the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) and the National Association for Gun Rights, have been fighting the ban since 2016. A Colorado district court ruled in 2016 that the law prohibiting “the sale, transfer or possession of large-capacity magazines for firearms” was constitutional. Two years later, a court of appeals upheld this decision as a “reasonable exercise of the state’s police power for the protection of public health and safety” (Baumann 2019).

The influence of interest groups is a major component to this politically-charged issue. The RMGO’s attorney, Barry Arrington, argued a few weeks ago that the Colorado high court is obligated to extend broader rights and protections: “Since the U.S. Supreme Court has found that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right, the state has a heavier burden to prove that the magazine limit is needed...they cannot meet that standard” (Slevin 2019). However, Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson argues that the justices can place more weight on the Colorado Constitution and the legitimate government interest than on the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Slevin 2019). The influence of the gun lobby nationally is much more discussed than the impact the lobby has at the state and local levels. Protected by the First Amendment right to petition the government, lobbying is considered free speech. The RMGO and other pro-gun rights groups are attempting to signal to the Colorado Supreme Court that there is major support for striking down this state law. Whether or not this is the same type of pressure exerted on legislators, as the Colorado Supreme Court justice nominees are not confirmed by the Colorado Senate like Supreme Court justice nominees are by the U.S. Senate, interest groups are still able to rally public support via “outside” lobbying (Adler, Jenkins and Shipan 2019). Furthermore, lobbyists often revolve from government jobs to the private sector, so there is expert knowledge about what kinds of legislation and arguments are more or less likely to persuade a court. Since judges face retention elections, lobbyists can rally supporters to vote for or against the retention of certain members of the judiciary. Figure 1 demonstrates how gun rights supporters contribute and communicate more than gun control supporters. To what extent these statistics have affected the lower courts and will affect this high court is unknown, but they provide an interesting factor to consider when studying what kind of relationship there is between legislation, lobbying, citizen’s political activism and court rulings.

Figure 1.

State legislators also play an important role when studying at the magazine ban itself. Colorado Revised Statute 18-12-302, which went into effect July 1, 2013, outlines the prohibition, penalties and exceptions surrounding large capacity ammunition magazines. Parties in the Colorado General Assembly were highly divided at the time, and still are today. State Representative Lori Saine of Firestone, a Republican, has been sponsoring bills to repeal this ban and other similar laws since 2014: “The Colorado magazine ban imposes a burden on the constitutional right of citizens to protect themselves” (Baumann 2019). Across the aisle, Democratic Senator Rhonda Fields and then-Democratic Senator Mary Hodge sponsored the 2013 magazine ban. Hodge has explained, “I guess we leave it up to the courts to decide, but I still think we need to do more to prevent gun violence...I haven’t evolved at all. I think I’m still in the same place” (Baumann 2019). Being one of the most partisan debates in contemporary politics, it is no surprise that legislators fought hard to both pass and prevent the high-capacity ban. Political scientists Hinchliffe and Lee (2016) argue that party polarization is general is greater in electorally competitive states. Colorado, having high turnover in the state legislature and commonly termed as “purple”, is a highly competitive state. Figure 2 also helps depict the views of gun control vs gun rights in the country. However, one crucial “dimension” is missing that explains why Colorado sees Republicans so often sees Republicans in office: intensity of feeling (DeSilver 2013). This factor can give conservatives a clear edge when it comes to voting in Colorado and the “swing” that can sweep Republicans into office.

Figure 2.

Possible solutions to this issue lay within the ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court. The Court could uphold the constitutionality of the ban, or rule that it violates the rights of Colorado residents. The Court could also choose to suggest that the state legislature should clarify the wording of the law in their judicial opinions, which would give interest groups another opening to submit input. If the Court does not rule that the ban violates any right, there are still various loopholes in the state law. The statute dictates that assembled magazines cannot be sold, however most retailers and private individual sellers are able to circumvent this rule by selling the high-capacity magazines in disassembled form. Stores are even able to sell “parts kits” which customers can purchase and then assemble themselves. Furthermore, residents who owned the magazines before 2013 are able to keep them. Clearly the intent of laws can be different than how individual citizens choose to obey them or find ways around them. The Colorado General Assembly should consider closing the loophole and be careful moving forward when choosing the wording of statues in order to pass effective legislation that prevents massive gun violence.

Works Cited

Adler, E. Scott, Jeffery A. Jenkins, and Charles R. Shipan. 2019. The United States Congress. New York: W.W. Norton & Company (November 16, 2019).

Baumann, Joella. 2019. “Colorado Supreme Court To Decide Fate Of Ban On High-Capacity Magazines.” Colorado Public Radio. https://www.cpr.org/2019/04/23/colorado-supreme-court-to-decide-fate-of-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines/ (November 15, 2019).

DeSilver, Drew. 2013. “Colorado Recall Points to Greater Intensity among Gun-Rights Supporters.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/11/colorado-recall-points-to-greater-intensity-among-gun-rights-supporters/ (November 15, 2019).

Hinchliffe, Kelsey, and Frances Lee. 2016. “More Party Competitive States Have More Polarized Legislatures.” USAPP. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/11/03/more-party-competitive-states-have-more-polarized-legislatures/ (November 18, 2019).

Slevin, Colleen. 2019. “Colorado Supreme Court Considers Reversal of Ban on Gun Magazine Limits.” The Denver Post. https://www.denverpost.com/2019/11/13/gun-magazine-limit-colorado-supreme-court/ (November 15, 2019).