CO Supreme Court, not surprisingly, upholds CO magazine ban.https://kdvr.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2020/06/CO-SupCo.pdf
"... the court concludes that the legislation is a reasonable exercise of the police power that has neither the purpose nor effect of nullifying the right to bear arms in self-defense."
"Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (a Colorado nonprofit organization), the National Association for Gun Rights (a Virginia nonprofit organization), and John A. Sternberg (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) challenge this law as an infringement on the right to bear arms—not under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but under article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution. Plaintiffs construe HB1224’s definition of “large-capacity magazine” to encompass all magazines with removable base pads because such magazines can be “readily converted to acceptmore than fifteen rounds of ammunition.”§18-12-301(2)(a)(I). They argue that HB1224 therefore operates to ban practically all detachable magazines, violating Coloradans’ state constitutional right to bear arms in defense of home, person, and property.
We disagree. We conclude that Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the definition of “large-capacity magazine” is inconsistent with the provision’s plain text because it ignores the narrowing language, “designed to be
readily converted to acceptmore than fifteen rounds of ammunition.” §18-12-301(2)(a)(I) (emphasis added). Relying on our long standing test under Robertson v. City &County of Denver, 874P.2d 325 (Colo. 1994), for examining challenges brought under article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution, we hold that Plaintiffs failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that HB 1224 violates the state constitutional right to bear arms. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
We emphasize that the Second Amendment applies with full force in Colorado and our legislature may not enact any law in contravention of it. But Plaintiffs have challenged HB 1224 only under the Colorado Constitution. Reviewing that claim, we conclude today that the legislation passes state constitutional muster. Because Plaintiffs do not challenge HB 1224 under the Second Amendment, we do not address whether the legislation runs afoul of the federal constitution. That separate question is simply not before us."