|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 18, 2013, 08:20 AM | #1 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
55 (updated) Colorado Sheriffs File Against The State
There are 64 Counties in Colorado. Yesterday, Friday May 17th, 54 of Colorado's Sheriffs (along with several other plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit in the US Federal District Court for Colorado.
The suit seeks to enjoin the State from enforcing HB 1224 (13-1225) and HB 1229 (13-1229), on 2A and 14A grounds. The suit also asks the court to declare the laws unconstitutional and grant a permanent injunction against enforcement. This lawsuit is David Kopel' first foray into the 2A lawsuit waters, as he is the lead attorney for the Sheriffs.David Kopel is an attorney with the Independence Institute and has filed many amici briefs in other cases. He is also a well recognized member of The Volokh Conspiracy blog. I will have the info for posting in the 2A Cases thread, likely Monday or Tuesday. |
May 18, 2013, 05:22 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
saw that in the paper today. Am very interested in that.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. |
May 18, 2013, 05:47 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Lines 100-104 deal with the ability and necessity of occasionally calling upon armed citizens to assist law enforcement. The argument is put forth that limiting the efficacy of citizen's arms impedes that purpose. The Ted Bundy case is cited as an actual example of Sheriffs doing just that.
No argument could be more literally in sync with the 2nd amendment's only announced purpose: the ability of the government to call forth an armed citizenry to effect security. In my opinion, this constitutional argument from 54 sheriffs is one of the strongest to date against AWB's and magazine limits. Quote:
Last edited by maestro pistolero; May 18, 2013 at 06:10 PM. |
|
May 18, 2013, 05:58 PM | #4 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,458
|
Quote:
This week's class was given by the department's armorer/firearms & tactics instructor/SWAT team leader. One of the things he said that I think most people missed but I latched onto was that he doesn't favor gun control or magazine capacity limits because he knows the citizens with carry licenses have been checked out pretty thoroughly, and he knows there may come a day when he needs one of us to save his life. He did not say, however, whether or not his chief subscribes to that philosophy. |
|
May 18, 2013, 06:23 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
Interesting fact: Colorado has 64 counties.
So thats more than 84% of the Sheriffs in Colorado who are against this law.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits". |
May 18, 2013, 06:34 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Kopel is a great guy - shot with him outside of Boulder.
If you want excellent scholarly books on the RKBA - google his.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 18, 2013, 06:43 PM | #7 |
Member
Join Date: May 18, 2013
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Posts: 30
|
Right after those magazine laws passed, I read that numerous sheriffs claimed they wouldn't even attempt to enforce the laws regarding "high capacity" magazines due to the fact that the law stated you can't purchase them after a date in July, but those that were purchased before the July date were legal to own/keep. Law enforcement stated that it would be nearly impossible to determine if magazines were bought before the July date, purchased out of state and brought in before or after the July date, etc. and that they weren't even going to bother trying to figure it out. Fortunately if the gun laws are repealed at least Colorado citizens will be able to purchase new 15+ rounders in the future. I plan on moving to Denver and hope the 30 rounders I currently own won't be an issue.
__________________
"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams |
May 18, 2013, 09:09 PM | #8 |
Member
Join Date: February 22, 2011
Location: Northern CO
Posts: 38
|
Here is a link to the press conference announcing the suit. Kopel is the perfect guy for this and Sheriffs Cooke, Maketa, and Smith are all great spokesmen for this topic as well. They also added another sheriff today. That is now 85% support.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49F1uWp7kMo III Percent- You will want to verify this, but I think Denver already has its own mag capacity limit of 20 rounds in city limits. |
May 18, 2013, 11:46 PM | #9 | |
Member
Join Date: August 11, 2009
Location: A Calguns Interloper
Posts: 39
|
Here is a link to Kopel's Blog entry on the Volokh Conspiracy websitehttp://www.volokh.com/2013/05/18/col...nti-gun-bills/
What I find most interesting is the inclusion of the bolded quote below. Is this a First? I think it will open up a whole new avenue of attack on the 2nd A. front if successful. Quote:
|
|
May 19, 2013, 12:18 AM | #10 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I hope that everyone reads this complaint. It is very readable and understandable. In each and every claim, David Kopel has explained in detail what is wrong with the enacted laws. Yet as detailed as it is, it is done in plain language.
I believe David has read through many, if not all, the suits we have been reporting on and he has distilled the basic arguments in the initial complaint that has been later shot down by the courts, across this nation, because they lacked certain elements in those other complaints. The State, I believe, is going to have a very difficult time defending these laws. |
May 19, 2013, 02:13 AM | #11 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,458
|
:groan:
I do wish people, especially people on our side, would use proper English. To wit: Quote:
[/rant] We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. |
|
May 19, 2013, 03:03 AM | #12 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,971
|
It is both a noun and a transitive verb. As a verb, it is synonymous with "lend".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loan 2 loan transitive verb Definition of LOAN : lendChecked my 1965 edition of Websters to see if there has been a relatively recent change in usage, but it is consistent with the above.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
May 19, 2013, 03:19 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,934
|
I was born in England, love the language, my pet peeve. Your, instead of you are!
I would say loan or lend? My favorite word "Whilst" Love that word. Back to the thread, you have to love these Sheriffs. |
May 19, 2013, 03:46 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,283
|
My friendly local gunshop in Windsor,Colorado,Bear Arms has a facebook page.They relay releases from Magpul to the facebook page.Magpul has joined the Sheriffs in this suit.
The fb post was Friday,and there is an update: https://www.facebook.com/beararmswindsor |
May 20, 2013, 07:03 PM | #15 |
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." http://www.volokh.com/2013/05/18/col...nti-gun-bills/ |
May 22, 2013, 09:26 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 23, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,039
|
According to recent articles in "The American Hunter", Magpul has also informed the Governor & state legislature that they plan to leave the state of CO as soon as a more suitable in a more gun friendly state has been secured.
In addition there are articles/news releases from the NRA urging hunters to boycott the state for future hunting trips. It is estimated that hunting is a $1.8 million industry in CO and while the outfitters, motel operators, restaurants, etc. will suffer the most, the state politicians will begin to get the monetary message. Several outfitters were interviewed and stated that they have been receiving quite a few cancellations for booked hunts and future hunt bookings are behind. Hopefully they (the liberal politicians) will begin to get the message that they can't trample the 2nd amendment without consequences! |
May 23, 2013, 02:58 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The problem with that view (and I do support them) is that the politicians really welcome the moving and don't care about the loss of income.
Let's say your state produces evil product X (legal pot, ****, guns or fois gras) - you ban and the producer of evil leaves. You are happy. The impact is that other folks who are damaged - vote you out. But the zealot will not change their views about stuffing grain down a duck.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 23, 2013, 03:58 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,171
|
The only way I can see something really hurting the politicians is if the suppliers for raw materials to Magpul also started closing up shop and moving as well, but seeing as such suppliers must be lucrative in their business in the event of such a thing as their major provider packs up and leaves. That is not likely to happen.
Regardless, I applaud Magpul for doing what they're doing, it's a shame that it's come to this since I'm sure a lot of innocent collateral damage (income wise) will occur from this move. Even worse still, as Glenn said, the politicians don't give a rats rear end, because they get exactly what they want. One less business that sells evil "x" item out of their state. |
June 22, 2013, 07:18 PM | #19 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Fifty-five county Sheriffs, 19 private businesses/asspciations and 3 individuals have joined in this lawsuit. New in the FAC are Rodney Johnson, Sheriff of Grand County and Colorado Youth Outdoors.
All the pertinant briefs have been RECAPped and are located on the Internet Archive. |
June 22, 2013, 07:32 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I am trying to imagine what standing the sheriff's would have in a case like this beyond the fact that they are also citizens. Anybody got a clue? Are there other examples of LE agencies suing over laws which violate civil rights?
|
June 22, 2013, 07:41 PM | #21 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As enforcers of the law, I would think that their standing is from the angle that the laws are vague and could engender several different interpretations. This leads to people in the same circumstances being treated differently, based solely on the opinion of a LEO.
|
June 23, 2013, 12:12 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Hmmm. Do you have to show harm to have standing?
|
June 23, 2013, 09:52 AM | #23 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yes you do. I'm not exactly sure how that will play out in regards to the 55 Sheriffs.
|
June 23, 2013, 03:31 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
I find it noteworthy that when gun control advocates claim favor for their positions among law enforcement, they like to trot out police chiefs, many if not most of whom are appointed to their positions by mayors, city councils, or other such government entities. Meanwhile, opposition to gun control seems fairly strong among sheriffs, the vast majority of whom are elected to their positions by the voters of their jurisdictions. This seems rather telling in regards to gun control and the will of the people.
|
June 23, 2013, 04:26 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
Quote:
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
|
Tags |
2a lawsuit , colorado anti-gun bills , david kopel , independence institute |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|