Denver Leaders Reject Justice Department's Demand That City Repeal 'Assault Weapons' Ban

The Take

Jordan Calloway · Government Secrets & FOIA

# THE TAKE: Denver's Performative Stand Against Federal Overreach Denver's defiance is theater masquerading as principle. Yes, the DOJ demand was audacious—a federal power grab wrapped in Second Amendment rhetoric. But let's be clear: Denver's 37-year-old ban has *zero* enforcement mechanism teeth. The city criminalized possession while allowing grandfathering, creating a legal fiction everyone ignores. Mayor Hancock gets progressive credibility points for saying "no" to Washington without actually sacrificing anything. It's political judo—use federal aggression to appear principled while the ban sits dormant on the books. Real courage? Repealing it honestly. Or actually enforcing it. Instead, Denver chose the safest option: defiance without consequences, righteousness without risk. A billboard against federal power that costs them nothing. The DOJ overstepped. Denver's response was just smarter theater.

What the Documents Show

Dhillon cited the U.S. Heller decision, arguing the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms for self-defense. Denver's response, delivered May 4, was unambiguous defiance. City Attorney Brown stated that the ordinance "has withstood legal challenges, kept violent crime low, and was democratically enacted," before directly rejecting the federal demand: "Reversing a common-sense ban that has worked for 37 years and bringing assault weapons back into the City's neighborhoods is not one of them." Mayor Johnston reinforced the stance with characteristic bluntness: "Denver's law has stood for 37 years because it works, it saves lives, and it reflects the values of our community. No demand or lawsuit from Washington is going to change that." What the mainstream coverage of this clash typically underplays is its significance as a test case in federalism—and its implications for other cities.

Follow the Money

Denver isn't a small municipality; it's the capital of a major state with substantial resources to defend itself in litigation. The city's willingness to stand against a direct Justice Department directive signals that localities may increasingly view Washington's constitutional interpretations as negotiable rather than binding, at least when local policy enjoys democratic support. The fact that Denver's ordinance has remained on the books for nearly four decades while surviving legal challenges suggests the constitutional question itself isn't as settled as federal officials claim. The other overlooked angle: Denver's assertion that the ban has actually worked. Brown specifically cited low violent crime rates as evidence of the ordinance's effectiveness—a claim rarely examined seriously in national gun debates, which typically pit abstract constitutional arguments against abstract crime statistics. Whether or not one agrees with gun restrictions, Denver's leaders are essentially arguing that empirical outcomes matter more than constitutional theory in this case.

What Else We Know

For ordinary citizens, this standoff raises a practical question: if Washington can demand local governments reverse laws that their constituents democratically support and that have endured decades of legal scrutiny, what authority remains local? The answer will likely come in courtrooms, but Denver's defiant response suggests the country may be heading toward another protracted constitutional fight—this time not over whether cities can restrict guns, but over whether they have any power to do so at all.

Primary Sources

• Source: ZeroHedge
• Category: Government Secrets
• Cross-reference independently — don't take our word for it.

Disclosure: NewsAnarchist aggregates from public records, API feeds (Federal Register, CourtListener, MuckRock, Hacker News), and independent media. AI-assisted synthesis. Always verify primary sources linked above.