View Single Post
Old May 20, 2013, 07:03 PM   #15
Charles Mosteller
Junior Member
Join Date: April 13, 2013
Posts: 10
From a pro-gun rights perspective, one paragraph of the lawsuit that individuals that frequent this forum might want to pay special attention to is the following one.

168. The individual right to keep and bear arms and to use those arms for self-defense extends to all firearms that are “in common use at the time.” Id. at 627. The Court emphasized that the Second Amendment does protect firearms which are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Firearms which do not meet this standard may be banned if they are “dangerous and unusual weapons.” The paradigmatic examples of the latter category are sawed-off shotguns and machine guns. Id. at 625, 627.

While the sheriffs in question may view sawed-off shotguns and machine guns to be paradigmatic examples of arms that rightly belong to the category known as "dangerous AND unusual weapons," it is not an assertion that should be accepted at face value. Certainly, many would agree with it, just as many would agree that virtually any weapon should fall into that category.

That paragraph aside, the lawsuit certainly has a number of very pro-gun morsels in it.


One additional point to highlight, according to the following link, "Friday afternoon, Grand County Sheriff Rodney Johnson joined the case, bringing the number of plaintiff Sheriffs to 55 out of the 62 elected County Sheriffs in Colorado. (Denver and Broomfield have appointed Sheriffs who run the jail, but do not have the comprehensive responsibilities of the elected Sheriffs.) The Complaint will be amended next week to reflect Sheriff Johnson’s participation."
Charles Mosteller is offline  
Page generated in 0.04160 seconds with 7 queries