Jump to content

United States v City of Denver (Unconstitutional Weapons Bans)

mauserme

By mauserme
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

mauserme Member

mauserme

Posted
Posted

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-city-denver-unconstitutional-weapons-bans

 

Press Release

Justice Department Sues the City of Denver for Unconstitutional Weapons Bans

Tuesday, May 5, 2026
 

Today, the Justice Department filed suit against the City of Denver, Colorado alleging that the City unconstitutionally bans certain constitutionally protected semi-automatic rifles. These laws unconstitutionally infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in common use for lawful purposes.

 

As the complaint explains, the City enforces an ordinance that makes it a crime to possess so-called “assault weapons.” But that the City’s ban includes AR-15-style rifles, which are the most popular rifles in America. Law-abiding Americans own tens of millions of rifles like those banned by the City.  

 

“The Constitution is not a suggestion and the Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. “Denver's ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles directly violates the right to bear arms. This Department of Justice will vigorously defend the liberties of law-abiding citizens nationwide.”

 

“I have directed the Civil Rights Division, through our new Second Amendment Section, to defend law-abiding Americans from restrictions such as those we are challenging in these cases,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. “Law-abiding Americans, regardless of what city or state they reside in, should not have to live under threat of criminal sanction just for exercising their Second Amendment right to possess arms which are owned by tens of millions of their fellow citizens.”

 

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark decision District of Columbia v. Heller, held that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to possess weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes.

 

The Civil Rights Division’s Second Amendment Section enforces the Second Amendment. If you believe your right to keep and bear arms is being infringed, please submit a complaint through justice.gov/crt/second-amendment-section.

 

Updated May 5, 2026
 
 
Edited to add a link to
 
 

complaint_for_relief_-_us_v_city_of_denver_colorado_0.pdf

  • mauserme changed the title to United States v City of Denver (Unconstitutional Weapons Bans)
Yeti Member

Yeti

Posted
Posted

Nice to see, that’s a great start.  While it won’t help those of us law abiding citizens oppressed under PICA immediately, it lays another brick in the foundation to take back rights stolen over time. Can’t wait for more.  We would have never seen this under a President Harris.

 

Thanks for posting more positive news mauserme!

springfield shooter Member

springfield shooter

Posted
Posted
On 5/5/2026 at 12:50 PM, mab22 said:

And how is the 10th circuit makeup? 
This should take another what... another 3-5 years, so it wont be completed within this admins term?

 

 

All the more reason to vote for the Republican nominee in 2028.

Yeti Member

Yeti

Posted
Posted
On 5/5/2026 at 1:14 PM, springfield shooter said:

 

All the more reason to vote for the Republican nominee in 2028.

Even though we cannot control those oppressors who vote against a clearly defined right, the “not-messing-around” language in this suit as filed and the potential reasons this was filed in Denver give hope of some movement nearer term. Time will tell. 

mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted

So WHY Denver, and not ChiRaq or Crook county, anywhere Californistan. 


Also, If the weapons WERE/ARE BANNED shouldn’t the number of assault-style weapons recovered in the last year be 0 if the law was actually EFFECTIVE at BANNING something? 

From the article, 

Quote

Denver Police Chief Ron Thomas said of the roughly 2,100 guns recovered in Denver last year, fewer than 40 were assault-style weapons — a figure he cited as evidence the ban is working.

 

 

Yeti Member

Yeti

Posted
Posted

Denver has one of the oldest bans in the country.   This argument will take place in a strategic court.  Some of the inside players know Denver well.  The people who are running the strategy have a plan.

EdDinIL Member

EdDinIL

Posted
Posted

Keeping in mind I'm not a lawyer, I was under the impression you had to have legal standing to be able to sue another party.  What is the US Government's legal standing here, the fact that it's the US Government?  

yurimodin Member

yurimodin

Posted
Posted
On 5/6/2026 at 11:47 AM, EdDinIL said:

Keeping in mind I'm not a lawyer, I was under the impression you had to have legal standing to be able to sue another party.  What is the US Government's legal standing here, the fact that it's the US Government?  

This effects interstate commerce 🤣

mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted
On 5/6/2026 at 11:47 AM, EdDinIL said:

Keeping in mind I'm not a lawyer, I was under the impression you had to have legal standing to be able to sue another party.  What is the US Government's legal standing here, the fact that it's the US Government?  

Its on page 9 of the complaint. Deprivation of Rights... (Only we the Feds get to do that 😉 ) 


(I had to do some manual copy so I may have missed something)
 

Quote

The United States Is Authorized to Bring This Action under 34 U.S.C. § 12601

38. As pertinent to this action, 34 U.S.C. § 12601(a) (“Section 12601(a)”) states:

It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers … that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

 

39. The City is a governmental authority, as that term is used in Section 12601(a).

 

40. The Department is a governmental authority, as that term is used in Section 12601(a).

 

41. Denver Law Enforcement Officers are agents of (and are otherwise acting on behalf of) the City and the Department for purposes of enforcing the City’s criminal laws, including the Ordinance.

 

42. Denver Law Enforcement Officers are fulfilling (and will continue to fulfill unless enjoined) their statutory duty to enforce the criminal laws of the City, including the Ordinance. When Denver Law Enforcement Officers enforce the Ordinance, they are engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers.

 

43. As set forth above, the Ordinance violates the Second Amendment. Accordingly, there is a pattern or practice of conduct by Denver Law Enforcement Officers that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution. Therefore, Defendants are in violation of 34 U.S.C. § 12601(a).

 

44. 34 U.S.C. § 12601(b) (“Section 12601(b)”) states: Civil action by Attorney General Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of paragraph (1)3 has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.

 

45. The United States brings this action pursuant to the authority set forth in Section 12601(b) to remedy Defendants’ violation of Section 12601(a).

 

Howard Roark Member

Howard Roark

Posted
Posted
On 5/5/2026 at 5:54 PM, Molly B. said:

I love this!

Yes, me as well!

 

Is this maybe the first time the Federal government (executive branch) has sued a state or local over 2A violations? Even if not the first, it is definitely awesome.  And in a way, it creates the kind of split, similar to a circuit split, that may nudge the black robed 9 to take an AR15 case.  When is that dumpster fire Easterbrook going to release his empty headed opinion in the 7th Circuit? He is such a failure.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...