2020 CO 66
Colo.2020Background
- After the Columbine (1999) and Aurora (2012) mass shootings, Colorado enacted HB 13-1224 (2013), which generally prohibits sale, transfer, or possession of "large-capacity magazines" (LCMs) — defined to include devices "capable of accepting, or that is designed to be readily converted to accept, more than fifteen rounds." The law contains grandfathering and limited exceptions.
- Plaintiffs (Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, National Association for Gun Rights, and an individual) sued Governor Polis under article II, § 13 of the Colorado Constitution, arguing the statute’s "designed to be readily converted" language sweeps in nearly all detachable magazines (most of which have removable base pads) and therefore nullifies the right to bear arms for self-defense.
- The trial court held a week-long bench trial, found the statute’s purpose was to reduce deaths from mass shootings, found removable base pads were designed for maintenance (not extension), and upheld HB 1224 as a reasonable exercise of the police power (and constitutional under intermediate scrutiny).
- The Colorado Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Plaintiffs sought certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court challenging statutory construction and the proper constitutional standard (and arguing Heller/McDonald require heightened review).
- The Colorado Supreme Court (en banc) reaffirmed Robertson’s "reasonable exercise" test for article II, § 13 claims, rejected plaintiffs’ broad statutory reading, held Heller/McDonald do not control interpretation of the state provision, and affirmed that HB 1224 does not nullify the state right to bear arms in self-defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether this Court should resolve the conflict over Robertson’s reasonableness standard and whether Heller/McDonald displaced it | Robertson is inconsistent with Heller/McDonald; state right should receive heightened or "common-lawful-use" style scrutiny | State argues Robertson remains binding for state-only article II, § 13 claims and federal cases do not control state constitutional interpretation | Court reaffirmed Robertson: state courts independently interpret article II, § 13; Heller/McDonald do not bind Colorado on this issue |
| 2. Whether Robertson’s "reasonable exercise" test equals rational basis or requires a distinct inquiry | Plaintiffs: Robertson is inadequate post-McDonald and should yield to a more demanding test | State: Robertson is distinct from rational basis and remains the proper, state-specific test | Court clarified Robertson is distinct from ordinary rational basis: requires an actual legitimate police-power purpose and forbids laws that nullify the right to self-defense |
| 3. Whether HB 1224’s definition of "designed to be readily converted" sweeps in most detachable magazines (statutory construction) | Plaintiffs: removable base pads mean most detachable magazines are "designed to be readily converted," so the statute effectively bans common defensive magazines | State: wording is narrower; "designed to be" implies purpose/intention (objectively assessed) and does not include magazines merely "capable" of conversion | Court held statutory text and legislative history show "designed to be" is narrower than "capable of"; plaintiffs’ broad reading is rejected |
| 4. Whether HB 1224 violates article II, § 13 by nullifying the right to bear arms in defense of home, person, and property | Plaintiffs: the law burdens core self-defense rights by removing common magazines and thereby nullifies the right | State: law serves legitimate public-safety purpose (reduce mass-shooting lethality), leaves ample means for self-defense, and includes grandfathering | Court held HB 1224 is a reasonable police-power regulation that does not nullify the right to bear arms in self-defense; statute upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. City & County of Denver, 874 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1994) (art. II, § 13 challenges are reviewed under a "reasonable exercise" police-power test)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (U.S. Supreme Court recognizing an individual Second Amendment right; not controlling for Colorado article II, § 13 interpretation)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporation of the Second Amendment against the states; Court held not binding for interpretation of distinct state constitutional text)
- People v. Nakamura, 62 P.2d 246 (Colo. 1936) (historical Colorado precedent treating article II, § 13 as an individual right for self-defense)
- People v. Blue, 544 P.2d 385 (Colo. 1975) (upholding felon-in-possession regulation under article II, § 13 as a permissible police-power exercise)
- People v. Ford, 568 P.2d 26 (Colo. 1977) (confirming limits: statutes may restrict possession where purpose is not constitutionally protected)
- Town of Dillon v. Yacht Club Condos. Home Owners Ass'n, 325 P.3d 1032 (Colo. 2014) (discussion of police power and rational-basis review in Colorado constitutional context)