DOJ sues Denver over 'unconstitutional' Weapons Ban

Wednesday, May 06, 2026

Less than 24 hours after Denver Mayor Mike Johnston publicly pushed back on a U.S. Department of Justice demand to repeal the city's longstanding ban on assault weapons, the DOJ followed through with its threat to take the matter to court.

Posted by lfthndthrds at 09:32 AM | 27 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The U.S. Department of Justice sued Denver on Tuesday over the city's longstanding ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, making good on its threat to do so if city officials did not end the ban voluntarily.

[image or embed]
-- The Denver Post (@denverpost.com) May 5, 2026 at 4:06 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

$1 Billion for a ballroom?

Maybe there should be no restrictions on automatic weapons.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2026-05-05 03:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in common use for lawful purposes,"

POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Prevention of theft seems right.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2026-05-05 03:24 PM | Reply

"But that's not necessarily the case, according to Janet Carter, a Second Amendment litigator with Everytown Law.

"The Second Amendment is not a blank check for gun rights advocates," Carter said. "It has always allowed for the regulation of particularly dangerous weapons and for weapons that are not in common use for self-defense.

That's why efforts to challenge these laws have failed all across the country.

Courts applying the new history and tradition test that was established in the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision have overwhelmingly agreed that banning assault weapons is constitutional."

from the article

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-05 03:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And there's this bit of history:

"Expert Brief
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

"A fraud on the American public." That's how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun.

When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum."

www.brennancenter.org

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-05 03:29 PM | Reply

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-05 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag

The 2nd Amendment states explicitly "the right to keep and bear arms" This means all arms, including firearms, bayonets, knives, swords, bows&arrows etc...

The 2nd was written because governments tend to become overbearing at times, not for hunting or simply self defense.

Besides all of that, it's a U.S. constitutional right, guaranteed to anyone no matter what state they live in.

#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-05 03:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We need guns to protect us from fascism!"
-Fascists

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-05 04:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

5 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Why does a dictator have use for the 2nd Amendment?

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2026-05-05 04:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"weapons of war" *facepalm*

In any case, SCOTUS has reused to take cases challenging state level bans and have in dicta to several 2A decisions indicated that they would uphold certain types of restrictions.

The key issue that isn't clear to me is whether they would still consider AR-15s to be unusual and dangerous weapons.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-05 04:17 PM | Reply

#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Even the current standard test (Bruin) from SCOTUS doesn't give all inclusive, unrestricted rights to bear arms. To say 2A gives "an unfettered individual right to a gun" is not aligned with current case law.

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-05 04:19 PM | Reply

I just don't know who to believe, Rwing Justice and Nixon Appointee Warren Burger or LeftHoldingTurds....

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-05 05:14 PM | Reply

6947!

-lfthandturds

#11 | Posted by alexandrite at 2026-05-05 05:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"Don't take your guns to town" - Johnny Cash

#12 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2026-05-06 09:52 AM | Reply

is not aligned with current case law.

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-05 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag

Show me in the constitution where "current case law" applies to any of that you just vomited up.

#13 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 11:44 AM | Reply

#11 | Posted by alexandrite at 2026-05-05 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bless your heart... Did you actually come up with something humorous, or did you steal that from the BlueCry app?

#14 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 11:45 AM | Reply

Party of Small Government doing authoritarian things. What a surprise.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-06 01:23 PM | Reply

The 2nd Amendment states explicitly "the right to keep and bear arms" This means all arms, including firearms, bayonets, knives, swords, bows&arrows etc...

The 2nd was written because governments tend to become overbearing at times, not for hunting or simply self defense.

Besides all of that, it's a U.S. constitutional right, guaranteed to anyone no matter what state they live in.

#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds

So that means i can have a tank, RPG, and thermonuclear missile?

I love how when repubs hate something, like education, they want it to be a state issue. When they love something, like guns, they want the feds to force it on the states.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-06 02:47 PM | Reply

You left yourself open the stupid argument that the right to bear arms is in the constitution but the right to an education isn't.

#17 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-06 02:57 PM | Reply

You left yourself open the stupid argument that the right to bear arms is in the constitution but the right to an education isn't.

#17 | Posted by ClownShack

The constitution says that an insurrectionist can't run for president so clearly we can just ignore it when we want to.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-06 02:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

One thing Trump has proven is when you're rich enough, laws do not apply to you.

Especially when 1/3 of the nation openly supports his criminality and corruption.

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-06 03:00 PM | Reply

"The 2nd Amendment states explicitly "the right to keep and bear arms" This means all arms"

No, it does not, as court after court after court has confirmed.

Do they forbid the sale of history books where you're from?

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-05-06 03:49 PM | Reply

So that means i can have a tank, RPG, and thermonuclear missile?

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-06 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

I love it when the idiots out themselves like this...

bUh mY nUcLeAr mIsSiLe!!!!

#21 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 03:50 PM | Reply

No, it does not, as court after court after court has confirmed.

Do they forbid the sale of history books where you're from?

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-05-06 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Where's that part in the constitution? Is it over there next the amendment that guarantees women the right to have an abortion?

#22 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 03:52 PM | Reply

I love it when the idiots out themselves like this...

bUh mY nUcLeAr mIsSiLe!!!!

#21 | Posted by lfthndthrds

So you agree there is a level of destructive power that people can't be allowed to own? Where is your threshold? People can't have the power to destroy a million people at once, but thirty people at once is allowed?

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-06 04:00 PM | Reply

The 2nd was written because governments tend to become overbearing at times.
#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds

For example, an overbearing Government with a majority Congress of of Northern Abolitionists could ban firearms, making it easier for Slaves to escape, threatening our Southern Way of Life.

Not that you'd ever agree with that. Even though it tracks perfectly with what you just said.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-06 04:06 PM | Reply

"Where's that part in the constitution?"

In the courts' repeated rulings.

Did you miss the part in the Constitution about THAT branch of government?!?

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-05-06 04:08 PM | Reply

" I love it when the idiots out themselves like this..."

Um ... you posted idiocy.

Folks pointed out the idiocy.

Does your translation app have problems with words like "all" ... ?

Because that word has an inclusive aspect to it. "All" arms would include machine guns, shoulder-to-air missiles, and yes, dirty bombs.

Did you mean to use the word ALL?

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-05-06 04:16 PM | Reply

Besides all of that, it's a U.S. constitutional right, guaranteed to anyone no matter what state they live in.

#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Not when the Constitution was written.

When the US Constitution was written, it applied ONLY to the federal government.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state, governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments.

Wikipedia

So, by originalism, all gun control at the state or local level would be very obviously constitutional.

But we all already knew that Conservative judges do not have any actual values, they only appropriate "values" when it is convenient to achieve their ends.

#27 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2026-05-06 05:26 PM | Reply