Skip to Content
Top Stories

Colorado Supreme Court upholds ban on large-capacity magazines

4177504666_4773cdbbd1_k Cropped

DENVER (KRDO) -- The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the state's ban on firearms magazines holding more than 15 rounds doesn't violate the state's Constitutional right to bear arms.

The Supreme Court said in its decision that the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners group didn't prove that HB13-1224 -- the law that prohibits the sale, transfer, or possession of any "large-capacity magazine" capable of accepting, or that is designed to be readily converted to accept, more than 15 rounds of ammunition -- violates the state's right to bear arms.

"We emphasize that the Second Amendment applies with full force in
Colorado and our legislature may not enact any law in contravention of it. But Plaintiffs have challenged HB 1224 only under the Colorado Constitution. Reviewing that claim, we conclude today that the legislation passes state constitutional muster," the Supreme Court said in its decision.

The Supreme Court's ruling referenced that the law was passed in response to multiple deadly shooting sprees in the state, including the Aurora theater shooting, which killed 12 people and injured many others.

This is a developing story.

News / Politics / State & Regional News

Andrew McMillan

Andrew is the Digital Content Director for Learn more about Andrew here.



  1. “….. state’s Constitutional right to bear arms.”
    Thank goodness I follow the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
    Pass the laws you want up in Denver. Most are not following them and still get them. It is the burden of the police to prove that you did not have them prior to 2013. Law enforcement won’t enforce this law. I still enjoy my freedom regardless of how liberals feel.

    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.

    Argue it.

    Definition of infringe
    transitive verb
    1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
    infringe a patent

    This is what politicians do.

    1. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary…”
      Most people who want large magazines are not part of a well-regulated militia. They’re people with personal agendas trying to misuse the second amendment.

      1. No, there should not be any misuse to the 2A. If you want a high capacity magazine you should be able to have one cause this is America. They upheld a stupid law that is never enforced and no one cares to follow. But everyone that knows nothing about guns feels better today reading the headline. Meanwhile leave this state in any direction and buy magazines that hold as many rounds as you want and bring them back here cause, that’s right this is America!

          1. Considering the definition of militia is “All able bodied civilians who are of the age and other general criteria for military service” by virtue of being an armed american i am a part of a Militia. I.e. armed civilians who can be called on to fight enemies, foreign and domestic. Well regulated in this context doesnt mean “hampered excessively by red tape and meaningless laws” it means well organized. And to anticipate your response, yes, we are mostly not organized. But…..i think alot of people need to go back o school. The “a well regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state” is not the law part. It is an explanation of why “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Nowhere ever, until several years ago, did the left start trying to use the explanation as law. The “right to keep and bear arms” was of the people. Civilians. It doesnt say, “a well regulated militia being essential to the

          2. In response to neroaugustus91:
            You’re putting the cart before the horse. You’re right that you can become part of a militia if called upon, but until then, you are not part of it and are not well regulated or organized. So the second amendment doesn’t apply. And when you become part of that well regulated militia, you will be provided with the necessary equipment to fight the war by that organization to which you were called. Until then, you have no need for a larger capacity magazine for other than personal fun or intended mass killings, and the second amendment doesn’t apply to either one.

      2. ” They’re people with personal agendas trying to misuse the second amendment.”

        How is it a misuse of the second amendment? That makes no sense at all. Whats the personal agenda?

        1. I have no idea what their personal agendas may be. But they are typically not part of a “well regulated militia” which is what the second amendment is about.

      3. Liberals are under the illusion criminals obey laws. Just look what’s going on in the Liberal ran cities.

      4. The militia IS THE PEOPLE you dolt.

        The RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms….

        How confused are are you.

        Rush Limbuagh once said the Liberals are always finding words in the Amendments that are NOT there and ignoring the ones that are right in front of their face.

        Do you guys make up your own reality as you go along??

        1. “Rush Limbuagh (sic) once said…”
          That explains your idiocy if you believe all the whinings of Rush.
          You need to focus on the definition of “well regulated.” That’s the piece that’s missing in your interpretation.

      5. Well….. considering in this context well regulated means well organized and equipped, and the definition of militia is 1.) All able bodied civilian adults, who meet the criteria for military service. 2

        1. Only if properly organized. And “regulated” has nothing to do with being equipped.

      6. I personally don’t care what the 2A says about a militia and it’s regulation – for it simply doesn’t matter. What matters, is WHAT RIGHT is clearly given, and to WHOM THAT RIGHT is clearly given, and then, limitations placed on government as to their ability to control its scope.

        In this case, the founders could have given the right to bear arms to the militia, but they did not… they gave the RIGHT SOLELY to the people, and declared the right to be off limits to government control.

        With everything declared in the bill of rights, anything positive or asserted is in always given to the people, and limitations are always placed on the government.

        I really dont understand why anyone would not want to be armed. Local Governments over the USA have abandoned their citizens and left them completely defenseless sitting ducks… the same folks who steadfastly try to tell you that you don’t infact need a gun, because they are here to protect you from the bad guys.

  2. Not the 2nd Amendment, Article II Section 13 of the Colorado Constitution.

    “The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.”

    But what does one expect from the State Supreme Court, despite the fact that the bill was rammed through the legislature, witnesses were limited by the majority party, and the entire act is as worthless as can be.

  3. Its gonna be real easy to control you slaves when you willingly allow a calculated agenda to convince you guns are unnecessary. Agenda 21 is gonna eat you fools alive

    1. Oooook, now you just showed us what we are dealing with. Crazy!!!!

      Oh, slavery was ABOLISHED a long time ago so it is a NON ISSUE.

  4. Ive typed a well crafted articulate reply three times now ro have the site freeze and lose it or an ad pop up right where im typing and take me to another page, when i come back, my comments gone …so im annoyed and im gonna ve short.

    1. Welcome to KRDO! We all face the same problems here. But I think I got your meaning…

  5. Here’s the way this violates my second amendment rights. Smith & Wesson has developed a new pistol I would like to buy. Said pistol has a capacity of 17 rounds therefore I am unable to import the pistol into Colorado. this I have been harmed by the law and my second amendment rights have been trampled upon.

    I think we should severely limit the right of women to choose because abortion kills a person. And that’s the argument they use against my magazines which have killed no one. Infringe on my rights and I will infringe on yours. So decide which is more important killing your unborn child or allowing me to freely exercise my constitutional rights?

    1. Poor baby. Go start your own country. In the south. With the rest of the cons. We’ll even build you a wall.

    2. There’s nothing in the second amendment that says you can own any weapon you want, and many types of gun are restricted in ownership. So that part is a load of B.S. because it’s already been ruled on by the US Supreme Court.
      And the right for a woman to choose has also been ruled on the by the US Supreme Court. So if you don’t like the way the laws are, you know where you can go. There are lots of choices for you…

  6. If you listen closely you can hear the deep, mouth breathing “REEEEE” of all the conservative window lickers on this one.

Comments are closed.

Skip to content