10th Circuit Ruling on CO Gun Laws Case

[Robert]

Two years ago the County Sheriff's of Colorado filed suit over the new mag limt and other lass put into place. The initial case was struck down by the trial court but after appeal the 10th Circuit has vacated the trial court ruling on procedural grounds. This opens up, and lays the foundation, for an entirely new trial on the matter. Here is the press conference from yesterday.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZLkAOMeMLQ&feature=youtu.be

 

[230RN]

Maybe I'm hearing or interpreting it wrong...15:50 or so.

For "standing," it can't be a "speculative harm."

Yet it was a speculative law in the first place, positing that crime will drop if it's passed.

So the legislature is allowed to speculate on what's good for the health, benefit and welfare of the people of the state, but the people are not allowed to speculate on what harm might come from the law when it is challenged.

Mmmkay.

Thanks for posting the video.

Terry

 

[Devonai]

It was unsurprising that Kopel et al wouldn't tip their hand as to the new evidence of standing, but I'm just as curious as the reporters.

 

[MErl]

"So the legislature is allowed to speculate on what's good for the health, benefit and welfare of the people of the state..."

Pretty much yes. The legislature doesn't have to provide any evidence when passing a law and 'because we want to' is a valid reason for introducing a bill.

 

[Frank Ettin]

"So the legislature is allowed to speculate on what's good for the health, benefit and welfare of the people of the state..."

Pretty much yes. The legislature doesn't have to provide any evidence when passing a law and 'because we want to' is a valid reason for introducing a bill.

Well we elect our legislators, and it's up to us to decide if they are doing what we want them to do. We have the power to hold our legislators accountable at the ballot box.

The Constitution does not bestow wisdom. It's up to the body politic to be wise and to use the processes provided for in the Constitution to make wise decision and promote wise policies. A "system" can't be wise. A "system" is just a mechanism. It is up to those using the mechanism to use it wisely.

The reality is the we live in a pluralistic, political society, and not everyone thinks as we do. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role government. So while we may be using the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give you to promote our vision of how things should be, others may and will be using those same tools to promote their visions. The Constitution, our laws, and our system give us resource and remedies.

We are "the system." We elect our representatives. We have the final say at the ballot box. If some of us aren't happy with how things are working it means we're failing to get enough people to go along with our values and beliefs. If we don't like the results we're not effectively using the tools the system provides.

 

[lemaymiami]

Very well said Mr. Ettin.... The first sentence of your second paragraph should be the opening remarks for every class on constitutional law and related topics...

As a side note I recently had a senior in college on my skiff for a day on the water and was distressed to learn how little the individual knew of politics/current events... Fine young 'un, well spoken, bright, but just plain ignorant of current events. Wish it weren't so.

 

[Speedo66]

Well we elect our legislators, and it's up to us to decide if they are doing what we want them to do. We have the power to hold our legislators accountable at the ballot box.

We are "the system." We elect our representatives. We have the final say at the ballot box. If some of us aren't happy with how things are working it means we're failing to get enough people to go along with our values and beliefs. If we don't like the results we're not effectively using the tools the system provides.

That would be all well and good if the "system" did not choose who you get to vote for. Putting their cronies on the ballet does not give you much of a choice. The two major parties often work it out between themselves, one side choosing not to run a candidate.

I've seen elections where all the candidates were cross endorsed by everyone, including minor parties, effectively totally disenfranchising the voters.

 

[Frank Ettin]

That would be all well and good if the "system" did not choose who you get to vote for....

Phooey! We are the system. Get involved. Participate.

 

[Iggy]

The trouble with our legislative and court systems is that the occupants are winners.

They won an election or were chosen from a group, thus they are winners and as such, consider themselves wiser and better informed than those that elected them.

This gives them to right to guide, direct, and command their electors.

 

[Old Fuff]

I think that Frank has a point. I have a feeling that come this next election the "system" is going to take it in the shorts.

They're an awful lot of thoroughly ticked off voters out there.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The trouble with our legislative and court systems is that the occupants are winners....

You want the business of government to be conducted by losers? By failures? So the guy who can't manage to hold a steady job is your first choice for mayor?

....They won an election or were chosen from a group, thus they are winners and as such, consider themselves wiser and better informed than those that elected them....

Well as a matter of fact the winners in this world generally are wiser and better informed. That's how they achieved what they have.

It's all the usual laying of blame. Things aren't working out because my parents failed me, my teachers failed me, my spouse failed me, my boss failed me, and the system is failing me. But no parents, teachers, spouse, boss, or system is, nor every will be, perfect.

 

[danez71]

Frank, the Constitution is all about equality.

No need to participate any more than feeling the Bern.

Sorry for my legal forum lapse


Can you explain this in short hand?

Am I understanding right that basically this will be a fresh new trial for the same thing?

And it seems the good guys have more evidence to suport thier case....?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank, the Constitution is all about equality....

Where does it say anything in the Constitution about equality? Applying the Constitution does mean that everyone is the same in the eyes of the law. But some people are still better at some things than are other people. Some people are smarter. Some people work harder. Some people are more successful.

But we digress.

...Can you explain this in short hand?

Am I understanding right that basically this will be a fresh new trial for the same thing?...

First, this was really two cases consolidated, and here's the decision: Colorado Outfitters' Association v. Hickenlooper (10th Circuit, 14-1290, 2016) and Beicker v. Hickenlooper (10th Circuit, 14-1492, 2016).

No, there won't be a new trial of those cases. Those cases have been tossed out. The 10th Circuit ruled that none of the plaintiffs had standing to sue. So those two cases are all done.

The good news is that as a result, any decisions made by the District Court (the trial court) on the merits of the suits (i. e., that the challenged laws were constitutional and valid) are a nullity. So basically, the slate has been wiped clean.

The silver linings that Kopel apparently sees are (1) any conclusions we don't by the District Court about the Second Amendment issues disappear; and (2) what the 10th Circuit said about standing can help frame new lawsuits more likely to withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

 

[danez71]

Thanks for the explanation Frank.



It was meant as a joke and an apology for it all at theach sa me time.
A twisted reference to the false belief of many, that SCOTUS rules for equality and fairness rather than for the Constitutional Right and the strong desire of many to not have to paticipate in the system any more than voting for the man (Bern) that promises equality for all.

, the Constitution is all about equality.

No need to participate any more than feeling the Bern.

Sorry for my legal forum lapse

 

[Frank Ettin]

... It was meant as a joke and an apology for it all at theach sa me time.

A twisted reference to the false belief of many, that SCOTUS rules for equality and fairness rather than for the Constitutional Right and the strong desire of many to not have to paticipate in the system any more than voting for the man (Bern) that promises equality for all.
....

My fault. I should know that you know better. But you caught me before my morning coffee (yes, I'm generally a late riser).

 

[JTHunter]

If "we" are "the system", then WHY do we have the electoral college actually electing the president?

How many of us have heard (had it drummed into us) that the democratic party is the "party of color"? If that were true, why are they supporting a pair of old, white dinosaurs? In fact, esp. this cycle, the republicans had more diversity in terms of both "color" and gender than the dems.

And, with so many from "south of the border" coming up here, aren't the majority of them Catholics? And what does the Pope continually say about the use of abortion? So why do these people keep voting for the people that are the biggest supporters of abortions? Or, is it all about the "give-a-ways" that causes them to swallow their pride and scruples?

 

[Robert]

Here I thought all the people that say Colorado is lost would be interested to see that CO has not given up the fight... Oh well enough drift, I am closing my own thread.