Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Hickenlooper
Colorado Court of Appeals
Decided March 24, 2016No. Court of Appeals No. 14CA2178Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
JUDGE GRAHAM,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
[49 I concur with my colleagues' disposition in Part IV of the opinion, but I respectfully dissent to Part III, which deals with the plaintiffs' challenge to H.B. 18-1224. In light of older Colorado precedent and recent United States Supreme Court jurisprudence, I conclude that a reasonablenéss test cannot be applied to the fundamental right to possess a firearm for self-defense under article II, section 18 of the Colorado Constitution. I would therefore remand with directions to determine whether the prohibitions imposed by H.B. 18-1224…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- District of Columbia v. HellerSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- McDonald v. City of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- United States v. MarzzarellaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
- Colorado Outfitters Ass'n v. HickenlooperCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2016
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.