Magpul sues Colorado

The CCDL et al. are already working on littigation against the CT gun ban. Stag Arms and some others are throwing their weight behind it as well. Donate now!
 
I understand the "too little too late" sentiment, However, I think that nothing could have been done to stop the passage of these laws in Colorado. The way that these laws were pushed through - lying to the public, with little or no input from Law Enforcement, and with complete disregard to the Constitution and the impact on the law abiding citizens is truly a case of modern day TYRANNY.

I applaud and support all those who initiated and are taking part in this law suit.

Keep in mind if it reaches SCOTUS and they win on the merits it will be binding in All States including the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. Even if they merely win in District Court on the merits and it is not appealed (unlikely) it would be persuasive authority and could be used to bring suit here.

This is very good stuff.
 
There was no way to stop this from passing. The marching orders from DC where issued and it would not have mattered if not a single person in that state wanted it. Same with NY and CT.
Show me one state that there wasn't a huge outpouring against the bills passed.
The only option now is to make these flunky's pay the price.
The best possible thing that could happen in CO now, is the recalls having success. After that, a wipe out in the general elections in 2014.
The court cases could take years. Sending a message by throwing these d-bags out will be quicker.
It will give the rest of them something to think about. Staying in power is what it's all about with them, nothing else.
 
The knee jerk political responses by politicians was what caused these states to pass unconstitutional limits on our 2A rights.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there were no public votes by citizens to these acts, only politicians dictating the passage of said new laws.

I commend Magpul for what they are attempting to do, whether I like the company or not.
 
Bravo Magpul. You can't file suit on something that hasn't occurred yet, so CO's ban would have been enacted regardless. I remember when people were lampooning Magpul for their sales to LEO only on good faith. This lawsuit clearly shows which side they're on.
 
Last edited:
Not many people know this but there is a recall effort in Colorado regarding the senate president that voted for the assualt weapons ban there.
Also the assault weapons ban in RI is stuck in commitee meaning it probably won't get through..at least this year.
ANy news on any gun bans in MA?
GGBoy
 
I know this is 2 week old news...

But, the State couldn't give 2 flying ****s less about a suit. It's not their money, they can drag it on as long as they want without worrying about "cost" or what's "right".

Magpul, et.al will eventually have to make a decision on if it's financially prudent to continue paying lawyers
 
JoeT said:
I know this is 2 week old news...

But, the State couldn't give 2 flying ****s less about a suit. It's not their money, they can drag it on as long as they want without worrying about "cost" or what's "right".

Magpul, et.al will eventually have to make a decision on if it's financially prudent to continue paying lawyers
Click to expand...

The CEO and founder of Magpull is a Marine. You gotta explain the words "quitting" and "withdrawal" to that guy. Some jarheads won't even use the reverse gear on their cars, out of stubornness.
 
Perhaps they will "give a shit" about the four efforts for a "recall election". I wish them ( the people fileing the recall) luck.
And as I am aware they have gotton enough signatures for two of them.
One of these being the anti-gun senate PRESIDENT!
 
I'm of the opinion that the measures in CO, NY, CT, etc. do not enjoy wide-spread support. They have all be filed and passed as 'emergency' legislation without the full benefit of the legislative process and proper input from the public. Similar measure in RI & MA will die in committee because they're not getting ramrodded through.

The Colorado lawsuit is good support evidence. Fifty four of the state's sixty-four elected sheriffs are going on record in a federal lawsuit as opposing a piece of legislation that they're expected to enforce. Forget the lawsuit for a moment. If all but 10 of the state's sheriffs are willing to challenge the state on this law it speaks volumes to the law's lack of popular support.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
I'm of the opinion that the measures in CO, NY, CT, etc. do not enjoy wide-spread support. They have all be filed and passed as 'emergency' legislation without the full benefit of the legislative process and proper input from the public. Similar measure in RI & MA will die in committee because they're not getting ramrodded through.

The Colorado lawsuit is good support evidence. Fifty four of the state's sixty-four elected sheriffs are going on record in a federal lawsuit as opposing a piece of legislation that they're expected to enforce. Forget the lawsuit for a moment. If all but 10 of the state's sheriffs are willing to challenge the state on this law it speaks volumes to the law's lack of popular support.
Click to expand...


There is hope. We continue to strive, continue to make gains.

We haven't had serious need yet in this country, well at least haven't had serious motivation, to start the whole process of enforcing 2A rights. Like the other civil rights movements. We will make slow progress, just like they did. There will be setbacks, just like they had with DOMA and the like. But we will continue to march forward, winning in court and winning our rights.

It's a good thing.
 
71montess said:
Gun rights and gay marriage rights equal ?
Click to expand...

All rights are equal.

Once you decide to use force to control the private lives of others you have lost. This is why America is so far away from free. Everyone has their exceptions -- their pet little irritations and vain moral beliefs that they want to force upon others. So we add each exception that can draw 51% of the vote and find ourselves with what little liberty remains.

The first step toward freedom is acceptance of the freedom of others. Control your self. Control your property. All else is outside of your control, as it should be. This is very simple, yet almost nobody can do it. So we get "freedom, but". And one bigot, one moralist, one slaver, one fool, and one busybody later we all end up wards of an overpowering police state.
 
There are rights given by god and there are rights given by man, this might not be the place to talk about it but who said to guys, girls or whatever can be given a right that was never theirs to begin with ? The men who wrought the 2nd amendment would laugh at your equating these two .
 
God? You know the mind of God? [rofl] This is how it always goes... How hard is it to mind your own ****ing business?
 
71montess said:
My fn tax money goes to something I DON'T AGREE WITH and you think I should mind my own mind ? Keep it civil fella. And stop inventing rights out of thin air !
Click to expand...

Two people want to do something that doesn't affect me or my property. Whether that something is (a) get married, (b) gamble, (c) use drugs, (d) fight, (e) have sex -- matters none to me. All of these things are illegal in some contexts, but not in others. There is the meddling and tiresome moralizing of man intruding itself into private life. It is evil. It is wrong. I pay taxes, and I can't see one reason why government needs to be involved in any of this. Get government out of marriage entirely.

Start at the root of the evil and kill it there. 99 times of 100 you will find that root in some law or some bureaucrat's office. Collectivism is the evil, government is its manifestation, and the source is the meddling fool who wants to force someone else to do his bidding. To be free you must tolerate the freedom of others. If you want to control others, expect to be controlled.
 
They have the right to be treated equally under the law. I happen to think that marriage doesn't belong in the realm of government to decide who can fornicate, and who can live together.

Since the government has decided to confer monies upon people who have decided to live together and form a legal bond, they have no business telling anyone who it is can form those bonds and treat them differently.

In my world, every pair who wants one gets a civil union legally, marriage is left up to the church.
 
I disagree, I'm not meddling in someone else's business, some things to me are tradition , not agreeing on an expanded definition of marriage and the use of my tax money to support it is how I feel. I feel the people pushing this expanded civil right are in my face and I'm pushing back, that's all. Other than that do as you please ! I agree if it doesn't harm me or my family within reason do it.
 
71montess said:
I disagree, I'm not meddling in someone else's business, some things to me are tradition , not agreeing on an expanded definition of marriage and the use of my tax money to support it is how I feel. I feel the people pushing this expanded civil right are in my face and I'm pushing back, that's all. Other than that do as you please ! I agree if it doesn't harm me or my family within reason do it.
Click to expand...

I understand how you feel, but we don't have a government that is based on tradition. :shrug:

Besides, the reality is that due to the so called "Marriage Penalty", it's likely they will pay MORE in taxes than single people would be paying. So you can take comfort in knowing that you will be compensated for their offense to tradition.
 
If nothing else, this is great marketing on their part. I'll continue to buy their products as I can.
 
71montess said:
My fn tax money goes to something I DON'T AGREE WITH and you think I should mind my own mind ? Keep it civil fella. And stop inventing rights out of thin air !
Click to expand...

My ability to engage in a contract and the associated relationship with an other consenting adult is none of your business. You don't want your tax dollars involved in that contract and relationship? Get the .gov out of the business of recognizing marriage and leave that to the church,
 
edmorseiii said:
My ability to engage in a contract and the associated relationship with an other consenting adult is none of your business. You don't want your tax dollars involved in that contract and relationship? Get the .gov out of the business of recognizing marriage and leave that to the church,
Click to expand...
The power of the ballot box , this is a great country !
 

Similar threads

Colorado Democrats Pushing 11% Excise Firearms Tax, Other California Gun Controls
Replies
6
Views
197
SpaceCritter
SpaceCritter
Colorado House Democrats Pass Bill Banning AR-15s and 9mm Pistols with Threaded Barrels
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Amputee Marksman
Amputee Marksman
Colorado gun group sues state over 'ghost gun' ban
Replies
1
Views
312
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
Colorado Spring ASD20 discusses arming staff and teachers
Replies
3
Views
165
fred6052000
F
True Velocity sues Sig Sauer, alleging stolen trade secrets
Replies
24
Views
459
drgrant
drgrant
Back
Top Bottom