June 11, 2013 10:58 AM UTC

BREAKING: Major, Misreported Developments In Gun Lawsuit

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

Yesterday, apparently under the radar of most local media, Gov. John Hickenlooper filed a motion in federal District Court requesting an injunction legally binding the enforcement of House Bill 1224, the bill restricting ammunition capacity to 15 rounds, to the technical guidance on the new law issued by the Attorney General a few weeks ago. Here's the key portion of the proposed injunction from Hickenlooper's attorneys:

The Technical Guidance is an “official written interpretation” of HB13-1224. It has been adopted by the Governor and the Colorado Department of Public Safety. Official written interpretations of criminal laws are binding and create an affirmative defense for individuals charged under those laws. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-504(2)(c) (providing an affirmative defense to criminal prosecutions contrary to “official written interpretation of the statute or law relating to the offense, made or issued by a public servant, agency, or body legally charged or empowered with the responsibility of administering, enforcing, or interpreting” it).

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), the Court hereby issues a preliminary injunction binding the Governor, and any of his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,to the conclusions of the Technical Guidance as the official interpretation of the chief executive and chief legal officers of the State of Colorado. [Pols emphasis]

Here's the full text of Hickenlooper's proposed injunction, along with his motion for the injunction.

What this means pending the court's approval, as supporters on House Bill 1224 have long insisted would be the case, is that the new law will be interpreted under this order in the reasonable manner specified by Republican Attorney General John Suthers in his guidance when it takes effect at the beginning of next month. It means that the law will not "outlaw all magazines" as gun lobbyists and opponents like Dave Kopel and his boss Jon Caldara claimed and virally spread. Kopel actually admitted this development was a possibility at the bottom of a story by 9NEWS a few weeks ago:

David Kopel, the lawyer suing the state over HB-1224, says the technical guidance does not change the suit because the guidance can always be changed and constitutional concerns remain over having vague language on the books.

He did concede that the court may decide to adopt the guidance or set down other clarifications of the law in its ruling. [Pols emphasis]

That's exactly what's happening, folks. Yesterday's proposed order also requests a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court on the major components of the magazine limit law. What we will then have, assuming their answers are consistent with this guidance, is ironclad assurance that the extreme interpretations of House Bill 1224 promoted by opponents will never be what is enforced as law. All of which would severely discredit the manufactured outrage over the passage of this bill, which was principally based on such misinformation.

And that's good, because those interpretations were always ridiculous, and only had credibility so far as a lazy, and in some cases willingly complicit media gave it to them.

Which brings us to the only media coverage we could find of yesterday's court action, by one Robert Boczkiewicz of the Pueblo Chieftain. We've commented on the Chieftain's dubious journalistic standards more than once, and this is a stunning example:

The filing states that the plaintiffs who sued to overturn the laws oppose Hickenlooper’s offer. He, as the state’s chief executive, is the defendant in the lawsuit filed May 17 by sheriffs, various organizations and individuals. 

The offer to postpone total enforcement [Pols emphasis] has a condition that would limit enforcement to terms stated in official guidance issued May 16 by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers to law enforcement officers. 

Folks, this story is nothing short of factually absurd. There is no "total enforcement" of House Bill 1224 proposed by anyone. The only enforcement of House Bill 1224 sought what that technical guidance memo from Attorney General Suthers specifies. Boczkiewicz reports this injunction as some kind of "compromise offer" from Hickenlooper, when in fact it would be a major victory for everyone who supports a sane and orderly implementation of this new law.

And that is why Kopel opposes this injunction–the only factually correct part of Boczkiewicz's ridiculous story. And think about that for a moment–why would Kopel oppose something that would limit the enforcement of this bill to a reasonable standard defined by a fellow Republican? The only possible reason: he doesn't want a reasonable interpretation. It's bad for fundraising.

As for the rest of the Colorado media, the same media that breathlessly stenographed Kopel's every word about this bill, in most cases without even the most rudimentary fact-checking?

At some point, they're going to have to admit how shamefully wrong they got this.