What is the DOJ's reasoning for suing Colorado? Is it just empty lip service before mid terms or does it hold any weight for us?
What is the DoJ's reasoning? It is notoriously hard to look in people's heads. Judges usually word that statement as: it's not the court's task to speculate on the parties state of mind. Having said that ...
It doesn't help California at all. We already have
Duncan, which is deeply in the pipeline. In our 9th circuit, there is also
Gator (from WA state), also deeply in the pipeline. Both are pending at the Supreme Court. Which of the two cases the court wants to look at is a complex question, see Dvrjon's post above. The likely answer is: neither.
Does it help the people of Colorado? Probably not. It will likely take years to be resolved, perhaps 4-5 years. In particular since the plaintiff here is the federal DoJ, which is likely to completely shift its objectives after the next presidential election (2.5 years from now), the midterms (0.5 years from now), or Trump's next complete change in goals (every few weeks). It is likely the plaintiff (the DoJ) will lose interest. If the case were filed by a steadier party (such as an advocacy org with some staying power, like the CRPA), it might at least survive the duration. But even with that, the two 2A cases pending this year (
Wolford and
Hermani) are likely to change the landscape enough that the current filing becomes moot. Now, it's always possible to put new wine into old skins, and that may be faster than starting a new case from scratch. Or it may be worse, if the new argument is weighed down by the old stuff.
The fact that the federal DoJ is now making these arguments makes ZERO difference to the courts. Judges are highly trained to look at the reasoning and argument without beholding the person behind it. On the contrary, the current federal government and DoJ has thoroughly ruined the good will it used to have with the courts, and if anything a filing produced by the DoJ will be seen with suspicion.
On the other hand: If the current 2A Supreme Court cases go in our favor, and reform the
Bruen reasoning in a fashion that's easier to apply for gun rights, then this case gets a head start to help Colorado. So it could save them a few months.
The questions whether "magazines are arms" and whether "magazine capacity is protected by the 2A" have been litigated
ad nauseam in the other cases. Since those are still in process, we don't have a firm answer; in particular not one that "we" (meaning gun rights advocates, as opposed to MAGA adherents) particularly like.
So from a gun rights legal viewpoint, this is a waste of time. A nothing burger. I know that Kostas disagrees on Reddit. But we have to take into account that Kostas' pay check comes from an advocacy organization (the SAF) whose main donors are MAGA adherents, and whose main goal is enriching the Gottlieb family. That colors his public statements.
What does that leave? The only remaining answer is that this is political
grandstanding advertising. Look at it this way: Republicans are likely to get a massive shellacking in the midterms. And they're looking at a guaranteed loss in the 2028 presidential election, if current polls and the president's approval rating can be extrapolated. Why? It's not that the MAGA wing of the party is suddenly going to vote for something other than R, or stay home. We've just seen how well they can be energized in the Indiana midterms. It's not that democrats are going to become any less anti-R, or get disillusioned (they may get disenfranchised though). The basic problem Republicans face is the other half of their voters, the moderate / non-Trump / RINO / FUDD / never Trumper voters, who are mostly unhappy with the current state of affairs. To prevent them from sitting out elections or voting for moderate democrats, the party has to throw them some red meat. That's not going to be hot button issues (most of those don't care about ICE, Iran, and transgender rights), but cost of living, Epstein, and tangible real-world things. There are many gun owners and hunters in that demographic (as there also are among moderate/centrist democrats!), so throwing them some purported gun rights fodder that can be used for election advertising to the ill-informed gun owner voters is smart political tactics.
In summary: a publicity stunt.
