Boulder Colorado Firearms Registration Certification

A Boulder, CO resident who had their firearm “certified” under the city’s new “assault weapons” ban brought this to us. We’ve been wanting to see one but not many people are interested in registering their firearms.

In order to be part of Boulder’s “This-Is-Not-A-Registry” program, anyone who owned one of the banned firearms prior to June 15th, 2018 must go to the police department and have it “certified” before Dec 31st, 2018. They must then keep the certificate with the firearm at all times – forever – otherwise they’re a criminal. Lose this piece of paper? The firearm will be confiscated. Don’t comply? Criminal. Allegedly there are no copies of these certificates kept.

Requirements for certification include: Valid photo ID, the firearm being certified (unloaded and secured in vehicle), and a new background check. If the the background check comes back clear, two certificates per firearm will be issued. The cost is $20 for the first firearm and $5 for each additional firearm.”

Boulder’s ban includes:

1.) All semi-automatic center-fire rifles that have the ability to accept a detachable magazine and have a pistol grip, telescoping stock, or off hand stabilization feature.

2.) All semi-automatic center-fire pistols that have the ability to accept a detachable magazine other than in the pistol grip or has any other secondary stabilization feature.

3.) All semi-automatic shotguns that have the ability to accept a detachable magazine, or have a fixed magazine over 5 rounds, or have any secondary stabilization features.

Read the “assault weapons” ban ordinance in it’s entirety here.

And read the bump stock/magazine ban ordinance here.

20 thoughts on “Here’s What Boulder, CO Is Making Gun Owners Do!

  1. Gary O'Malley says:

    Seems like an “abridgement” to me. Anyone challenging the law?

  2. Paul Ingram says:

    Move out of Boulder Co.

    1. sammy says:

      No one should be forced to move out of their home because of such an unconstitutional law. I know someone who will not comply. No one should comply.

  3. Laura snider says:

    The first step in gun confiscation- registering your guns

  4. Chad says:

    Sounds like Boulder is being run by Nazis or socialists…….same thing

  5. Mark says:

    Never go to Colorado

  6. PavePusher says:

    The gun-owning residents there should just mail in bottles of fresh piss

  7. John R. PylesIII says:

    The City Council of Boulder Colorado and the author of this obvious criminal violation of OUR Constitutional rights to be jailed immediately PERIOD, they don’t even have that type of authority anyway!

  8. Rick says:

    well if your republican and you did not vote . Then you are the problem BUD. They will take everything unless you stand up. But republicans have a problem with voting. So if you lose your guns then you should have voted.

  9. Brian says:

    How is this different than a Poll Tax? When you have to pay and get permission to exercise your rights, they are no longer rights.

  10. Noncompliant says:

    Do NOT comply. Resist by any means necessary

  11. Kevin Watson says:

    I have a conceal carry permit. What happens when I go to Boulder?

  12. bannkam says:

    The democrats have proposed gun bans in many states: CA – Salwell, and NJ Rep Spallone has proposed HR 7115 which is “all parts” ban directed to PRODUCT SAFETY COMMITTEE, and includes advertisement, information/internet, sales and finally CONFISCATION. Signed by many other democrats, it is a huge – guns, shotguns, handguns – vague law – replacement parts will not even be allowed. I believe they are getting ready for a revolt – and I’m so tired of the OLD promise by the left: “no is taking your guns”. Don’t believe a word of it. All these bans include confiscation. And it will ONLY be confiscation from private citizens – as everyone else, including criminals WILL STILL OWN THEM.

  13. Joe says:

    Bad news for everyone. States are wanting to limit or remove fire arms which in the end will lead to socialism

    1. Infringed upon says:

      Apparently Joe you fail to understand what is going on. Socialism (aka communism) is the roots of America and this issue of gun registration is a result of those socialist roots. Perhaps this video on FDR’s “New Deal” much like Ocasio’s globalist New Green Deal will help you get up to speed.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g704XrSx2FM

      Then you can view the real agenda behind gun registration in this John Birch Society video.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXgnQkeOn-8

      And, finally a quick lesson in America’s political terrorism to shine a nice bright light on what is really going on in America.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR8FDaL9vNY

      Know a scam when one presents itself folks.

  14. Gene Ralno says:

    Since the city will keep no records, it would seem owner “certificates” may easily be created. The city would not be able to detect violations without hiring expert examiners to perform forensic analyses. Anyone coming under suspicion would have ample time to simply — run to Denver. This whole circus was invented and implemented by a moronic mob of pettifoggers who hate guns and believe they should control the citizens.

    As a footnote, it seems the citizens are smarter than the bosses and consequently, only the very stupid will comply with this law. The smart ones will simply hunker down, keep their “listed” arms hidden until this insanity goes the way of Canada’s long gun registry and Maryland’s ballistic fingerprint disaster. Even the democrats know this is a tyrant-to-be dream intended to garner votes and not increase public safety. They know Boulder is a safe place to live and the peril exists only in their imagination.

  15. Infringed upon says:

    Government is pushing Americans into civil conflict through the age old process of divide and conquer. They (on the dark web) are openly discussing the manifestation of what they call race war. Make no mistake about it once you register your guns they will come for them as they have throughout history time and time again. Oddly enough citizens are divided strongly upon this issue and most people think other types of people can have their right to guns taken away for some reason which is not defined in the 2nd amendment and those people who think like this are now under pressure to surrender also. The definition of inalienable is that you cannot give away, surrender, trade, or have the inalienable possession taken or sanctioned by any person or authority. The fact that citizens have desired and allowed for guns to be taken from a single person for what they consider to be a reasonable sanction is why you must now surrender your right also. Governments prey on the weak and divided therefore division politics are why you are here at this junction being requested to surrender. Division politics are on everything you can tune into on the internet and TV for a reason, see how good it’s working. I’m a conservative that has some liberal things I enjoy and I have been watching liberals push gun control for over 35 years and now that we are at the point of surrender or resist I find it amusing that liberal Boulder is resisting the same gun control that liberals are and have been pushing.
    Please allow me to make this Patriot Point, the Government will kill you liberals just as fast as they intend to kill off conservatives so perhaps we both have some common ground to build upon prior to the conflict they are bringing to all of our doors. If we allow them to push us into the upcoming civil conflict then we get what we deserve. FEMA camps will be opening soon for both liberals and conservatives. If surrendering suits you then so be it but perhaps you should view this video first.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quhNvOXBCMs

  16. Infringed upon says:

    New Mexico Sheriff’s declare 2nd Amendment sanctuary counties.

    https://www.koat.com/article/gun-proposals-causing-sheriffs-to-take-action/26438196

    Gun control = genocide.

    Depopulation nation, USA.

    Red flags are unconstitutional both at the federal & state level.

    The case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) was the first time the U.S. Supreme Court declared an act of Congress to be unconstitutional. (The case concerned a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789.) In his opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall relied almost exclusively on the specific language of the Constitution, saying that it was the “paramount law of the nation” and that it constrained the actions of all three branches of the national government. The whole point of a written Constitution, Marshall asserted, was to ensure that government stayed within its prescribed limits: “The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and [so] that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written.
    ” In cases where a law conflicted with the Constitution, Marshall wrote, then “the very essence of judicial duty” was to follow the Constitution.
    Marshall also asserted that the courts had the responsibility to understand and articulate what the Constitution means: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” The decision concluded “a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    It has been written into USSC opinions time and time again that Americans do not have to comply with laws contrary to the supreme law of the land known as The Constitution. Many such USSC opinions exist. Anybody can write letters on a piece of paper and demand it be adhered to but that doesn’t mean you must comply. In fact if the letters on paper do not comply to the law of the land it is our duty to reject it.

    Know a scam when one presents itself.

  17. Infringed upon says:

    Look what we have here, another USSC opinion from my files.

    Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham,
    394 U.S. 147 (1969)

    MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.
    The petitioner stands convicted for violating an ordinance of Birmingham, Alabama, making it an offense to participate in any “parade or procession or other public demonstration” without first obtaining a permit from the City Commission. The question before us is whether that conviction can be squared with the Constitution of the United States.
    On the afternoon of April 12, Good Friday, 1963, 52 people, all Negroes, were led out of a Birmingham church by three Negro ministers, one of whom was the petitioner, Fred L. Shuttlesworth. They walked in orderly fashion, two abreast for the most part, for four
    Page 394 U. S. 149
    blocks. The purpose of their march was to protest the alleged denial of civil rights to Negroes in the city of Birmingham. The marchers stayed on the sidewalks except at street intersections, and they did not interfere with other pedestrians. No automobiles were obstructed, nor were traffic signals disobeyed. The petitioner was with the group for at least part of this time, walking alongside the others, and once moving from the front to the rear. As the marchers moved along, a crowd of spectators fell in behind them at a distance. The spectators at some points spilled out into the street, but the street was not blocked and vehicles were not obstructed.
    At the end of four blocks, the marchers were stopped by the Birmingham police, and were arrested for violating § 1159 of the General Code of Birmingham. That ordinance reads as follows:
    “It shall be unlawful to organize or hold, or to assist in organizing or holding, or to take part or participate in, any parade or procession or other public demonstration on the streets or other public ways of the city, unless a permit therefor has been secured from the commission.”
    “To secure such permit, written application shall be made to the commission, setting forth the probable number of persons, vehicles and animals which will be engaged in such parade, procession or other public demonstration, the purpose for which it is to be held or had, and the streets or other public ways over, along or in which it is desired to have or hold such parade, procession or other public demonstration. The commission shall grant a written permit for such parade, procession or other public demonstration, prescribing the streets or other public ways which may be used therefor, unless in its judgment the public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience require that it be
    Page 394 U. S. 150
    refused. It shall be unlawful to use for such purposes any other streets or public ways than those set out in said permit.”
    “The two preceding paragraphs, however, shall not apply to funeral processions.”
    The petitioner was convicted for violation of § 1159 and was sentenced to 90 days’ imprisonment at hard labor and an additional 48 days at hard labor in default of payment of a $75 fine and $24 costs. The Alabama Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction, holding the evidence was insufficient “to show a procession which would require, under the terms of § 1159, the getting of a permit,” that the ordinance had been applied in a discriminatory fashion, and that it was unconstitutional in imposing an “invidious prior restraint” without ascertainable standards for the granting of permits. 43 Ala.App. 68, 180 So.2d 114, 139, 127. The Supreme Court of Alabama, however, giving the language of § 1159 an extraordinarily narrow construction, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the conviction. 281 Ala. 542, 206 So.2d 348. We granted certiorari to consider the petitioner’s constitutional claims. 390 U.S. 1023.
    There can be no doubt that the Birmingham ordinance, as it was written, conferred upon the City Commission virtually unbridled and absolute power to prohibit any “parade,” “procession,” [Footnote 1] or “demonstration” on the city’s streets or public ways. For in deciding whether or not to withhold a permit, the members of the Commission were to be guided only by their own ideas of “public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience.” This ordinance as it was written, therefore, fell squarely within the ambit of the many decisions of this Court over the last 30 years, holding that a law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to
    Page 394 U. S. 151
    the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority, is unconstitutional. [Footnote 2]
    “It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official — as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official — is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.”

    You have heard me state it before and now you get to hear it again; Know a scam when one presents itself folks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *