Sweeping new gun control laws, which went into effect on July 1 in Colorado, will continue after a federal judge said there was basically \u201cnothing for her to rule on\u201d after attorneys for both sides came to a partial agreement on late Tuesday.<\/p>\n
On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Marcia Krieger stated that there was \u201cnothing for the court to enjoin\u201d regarding the new gun control laws that took effect in Colorado on July 1st.\u00a0 Her ruling came after attorneys for both the state of Colorado and sheriffs who filed a federal lawsuit against the new laws met late Tuesday to work out new wording regarding two of the more controversial aspects of the legislation.\u00a0 Colorado\u2019s new gun laws were passed in response to the mass shootings that occurred last July in Aurora, Colorado, and in December at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.<\/p>\n
Tuesday\u2019s last-minute meeting came in advance of Wednesday\u2019s court hearing in which lawyers representing the sheriffs sought a preliminary injunction against the new laws.\u00a0 The lawsuit, filed by nearly all (55 out of 64) of Colorado\u2019s county sheriffs, contends that the new gun laws violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n
The agreement reached Tuesday focuses on two of the more controversial aspects of the new magazine ban. \u00a0As the law is written, the ban includes magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition as well as those that are \u201cdesigned to be readily converted to accept\u201d more than 15 rounds.\u00a0 The clarity of this statement quickly came under fire because most magazines have removable bases for cleaning purposes, and extenders can be added to increase their capacity.\u00a0 The sheriffs contend the wording of the new magazine ban makes enforcing the law \u201ctoo confusing.\u201d<\/p>\n
Also at issue was another part of the law which requires owners of \u201cgrandfathered\u201d larger magazines to maintain possession of those magazines at all times in order to keep them legal.\u00a0 Concerns were raised as to whether someone handing over such a magazine to a gun shop owner for maintenance would be considered a violation of the law.<\/p>\n
Both sides agreed Tuesday that magazines do not violate the law simply because they have removable bases.\u00a0 They also agreed to rewording language regarding \u201cgrandfathered\u201d larger magazines so that anyone temporarily handing over such a magazine for maintenance purposes or lending such a magazine out would not be in violation of the law.\u00a0\u00a0 It was also agreed upon that the words \u201ccontinuous possession\u201d mean that an owner would have to deliberately relinquish ownership of such a magazine in order to be in violation of the law.<\/p>\n
The Colorado Attorney General\u2019s Office is charged with drafting the new wording regarding the aspects of the agreement.<\/p>\n
Although Tuesday\u2019s agreement helps to clarify some of the ambiguity surrounding the magazine ban, the federal lawsuit will move forward.\u00a0 Both sides hope Tuesday\u2019s agreement will allow them to focus on the bigger issue of constitutionality.\u00a0 No trial date has been set.<\/p>\n
While the laws were seen as major victories for Democrats, lawmakers are now dealing with the political fallout.\u00a0 Two Democratic lawmakers, Senate President John Morse and Senator Angela Giron, face potential recall for supporting the laws.\u00a0 If the recall elections occur, they would be the first in the state since it adopted the process in 1912.<\/p>\n