Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

Someone or group needs to get this to SCOTUS. It is flagrant abuse of 2A, all due process and abuse of search and seizure.

I am going to suggest that you venture over to YouTube and search for the phrase “sovereign citizen.” What you will get is an amusing collection of people spouting a word salad of various US Codes and legal-sounding phrases based around the central concept that they have found the magic incantations that cause the laws not to apply to them. Said videos invariably end with the sovereign citizen having their windows broken out, being dragged from their cars and stuffed into the backseat of a patrol car. One of the phrases they love to shout is “under color of law.” Doesn’t seem to help any.

We’re venturing into tinfoil hat territory here...

You're not going to get anywhere with this. The law has been around for quite a while and there have been many successful prosecutions under it.

But the problem in trying to apply it in a Second or Fourth Amendment context is that you've got to clearly show that a "right" has been violated. And since it's a criminal statute, you've got to prove the case, and each element of the violation, beyond a reasonable doubt.

With regard to the Second Amendment, it's only recently (by the legal calendar, which measure time in decades) that the Second Amendment has been held to apply to individual persons (Heller). And in Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that there could be limitations upon that right. If you're going to try to apply 18 USC 242 to defeat "Red Flag" laws, you've got to first prove that such laws violate the Second Amendment. Nobody's done that yet, and that going to stop any criminal prosecution for 18 USC 242 right in its tracks.

With regard to the Fourth Amendment, it may be a little easier. There is a larger body of case law defining the parameters of when LEOs act unlawfully in making seizures, but not in firearms cases, so you've hit another dead end.

Briefly, the origins were after the Civil War where Southern states resisted African Americans from becoming full citizens through things like the KKK and government official suppression by law enforcement and other government officials (see the Colfax Massacre, etc.). The original source for the language was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and it has been amended multiple times since then. At first, the law was used in the FDR administration to go after law enforcement officers abusing prisoners and citizens. Later during the Civil Rights era starting in the 1950's, it was used by the federal government to help curtail local law enforcement trying to prevent integration from intimidating, harassing, and attacking civil rights protesters and affiliated individuals.

Technically, any abuse of a government official of an individual's constitutional rights could theoretically be prosecuted by the federal government but the rub is that a federal government seldom has prosecuted officials unless the issue has involved racial mistreatment under the constitution.
https://origins.osu.edu/article/policing-police-civil-rights-story/page/0/0

However, The Third Enforcement Act, also known as The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides: a partial remedy where individuals who have been mistreated can sue a government official for violations of their constitutional rights,

"“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.”
https://steeringlaw.com/civil-right...urt-for-violating-your-constitutional-rights/

Have fun storming the castle boys!!! (Princess Bride movie quote).
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...D39EE9DFE9650846A55CD39EE9DFE965084&FORM=VIRE

Elkins45 said:

I am going to suggest that you venture over to YouTube and search for the phrase “sovereign citizen.” What you will get is an amusing collection of people spouting a word salad of various US Codes and legal-sounding phrases based around the central concept that they have found the magic incantations that cause the laws not to apply to them. Said videos invariably end with the sovereign citizen having their windows broken out, being dragged from their cars and stuffed into the backseat of a patrol car. One of the phrases they love to shout is “under color of law.” Doesn’t seem to help any.

We’re venturing into tinfoil hat territory here...

Click to expand...

Very well stated.

Sovereign only applies to, well, nobody.

Elkins45 said:

I am going to suggest that you venture over to YouTube and search for the phrase “sovereign citizen.” What you will get is an amusing collection of people spouting a word salad of various US Codes and legal-sounding phrases based around the central concept that they have found the magic incantations that cause the laws not to apply to them. Said videos invariably end with the sovereign citizen having their windows broken out, being dragged from their cars and stuffed into the backseat of a patrol car. One of the phrases they love to shout is “under color of law.” Doesn’t seem to help any.

We’re venturing into tinfoil hat territory here...

Click to expand...

The whole sovereign citizen notion is taken from the concept of absolute personal sovereignty in a state of nature (where no government exists). What they are missing is that this is essentially a philosophical construct because absent Robinson Crusoe conditions, babies are born to families/groups and thus in a society whether they like it or not. Contra John Locke, there is no blank slate as any such new born would die and thus society precedes individuals.

The language of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, public proclamations by constitutional conventions, and consistent declarations of popular sovereignty by different American revolutionists emphasized the nature of We the People as sovereign to make the break with an actual sovereign, King George III. Thus, it is an easy step for those so inclined to move to the idea that the People are composed of individuals and thus each individual has as much right to create a new set of rules for themselves as the American revolutionaries had in committing treason against the Crown usually because of some ideas rooted in claims of natural rights in a state of nature.

Essentially, sovereign citizens believe that they can take back their personal approval of a social contract and often apply that to specific cases--taxation is a popular one for example. In extreme cases, they believe that they can create a new sovereign government even of a postage stamp sized compound wherein a new nation-state is born which has all of the rights under the law of nations as any other state. In part, to thwart this, several governments in the American Revolution specifically passed ordinances/statutes declaring the common laws of Great Britain still applied absent any action by the legislature to overturn them. This was to deny that a state of nature existed which would necessitate a new social contract. Some of the secessionist states did something similar during their conventions on whether to leave the Union.

Frank Ettin said:

While the delusional and fantasy world of the sovereign citizen/FMOTL/moor can be interesting, it is mostly off-topic for this thread, and THR generally, except, perhaps, if it directly relates to a.RKBA or firearms issue under discussion.

Click to expand...

Sorry Frank. I've been working on a manuscript for a particular state's Bill of Rights and have this stuff on tap as background.

Frank Ettin said:

While the delusional and fantasy world of the sovereign citizen/FMOTL/moor can be interesting, it is mostly off-topic for this thread, and THR generally, except, perhaps, if it directly relates to a.RKBA or firearms issue under discussion.

Click to expand...

I can see a tangential connection (more accurately a parallel) in that we occasionally see posts here where people make the assertion that “shall not be infringed” means that no government may pass any sort of law restricting firearm use or ownership at all. NFA 34 and GCA 68 therefore are unconstitutional and shouldn’t apply to them. I’m pretty sure I’ve read at least one post here advocating the SCOTUS be arrested for treason for upholding any sort of gun law, and at least one person has asserted they should be able to own nuclear weapons. I would imagine it’s a similar mindset, and the Venn diagram between 2A absolutists and Article 4 freemen would have a big overlap. I imagine if it weren’t for good moderation we would see a bunch more of it here.

badkarmamib said:

It also goes to show how some people can misinterpret their understanding of the law to give them the illusion of having an imaginary freedom. So, thanks for posting.

Click to expand...

It’s the difference between viewing one’s opinions through the filter of the Constitution vs viewing the Constitution through the filter of one’s opinions.

@Spats McGee
Speculation is that the Supreme Court may issue major rulings on qualified immunity this term as they have three cert petitions before them dealing with the issue and have repeatedly rescheduled one case (Baxter v. Bracey) for consideration at conference.
https://www.unlawfulshield.com/2019...er-several-major-cases-on-qualified-immunity/

ACLU has an amicus brief for the Baxter petition asking that qualified immunity be abolished.