Federal judge issues injunction for assault weapon ban

AP Photo/Lisa Marie Pane

In states that allow cities to create their own gun control laws, assault weapon bans are pretty popular. It lets city officials signal to the Democratic Party that they hold the right opinions. That way, if they decide to seek higher office, the party knows they think the right way.

And, to be fair, they’ve been successful with these. Numerous challenges have fallen by the wayside over the years, allowing these bans to stay in place.

So when Superior, Colorado decided to pass a ban, they were probably pretty confident it would hold up.

That confidence was…misplaced.

A U.S. District Court judge granted a restraining order to a group that advocates for gun rights. That ruling prevents the Town of Superior from enforcing a newly-adopted gun control ordinance.

On Friday, the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and a Superior resident filed a motion asking the U.S. District Court judge for a restraining order to prevent that ordinance from being enforced. The same day, the judge ruled the Town of Superior cannot enforce its new ordinance for 14 days.

Taylor D. Rhodes, the executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners said he is pleased with the ruling, “This victory is a sign of what’s to come.”

He also says thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling, in New York state, Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which the Supreme Court ruled for that the Second Amendment confers the right to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense, his organization has legal standing to continue to challenge local gun control efforts.

“It was never constitutional to begin with, there is no history and tradition to banning a certain classification of weapon or a firearm accessory.”

Now, this appears to just be a temporary injunction rather than a complete overturn of the law. Yet even there, it’s still a significant victory. After all, if there were no hope in hell of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners winning, they wouldn’t likely have gotten the injunction.

And yes, Bruen is part of why the injunction was likely issued.

Regardless of the judge’s personal views on the subject, the truth of the matter is that the Supreme Court issued a ruling on how lower courts are to view gun control cases. It explicitly laid out just what criteria they could consider in determining the constitutionality of a law, and assault weapon bans just don’t make the cut.

So today we have an injunction that blocks an assault weapon ban from going into effect but tomorrow, we’re likely to see Superior’s law get overturned completely.

This is why Bruen mattered. This is the legacy of that case, a legacy that may well save hundreds of millions of lives in the future.

Superior thinks their assault weapon ban will do the same thing, but we know that historically, gun control doesn’t deliver on its promises. Not without some hinky stuff being done to provide evidence, anyway.

Luckily, the courts have ruled and this is just the first example of Bruen’s long-term effects that we’ve seen.

Expect to see more.