CO sheriffs sue over gun laws

[Dave Workman]

54 Colorado sheriff's have gone to federal court over the state's new gun laws.

DENVER, Colo -- On Friday, May 17, fifty-four Colorado Sheriffs are filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against two bills passed by the Colorado legislature in March. The suit is being filed in Federal District Court in Denver.

The Sheriffs will hold a press conference regarding the lawsuit at 10 a.m. at the Independence Institute, 727 East 16th Ave., Denver 80203.

Joining the 54 Sheriffs in the civil rights lawsuit are disabled individuals, Outdoor Buddies (a charitable organization for disabled individuals), licensed firearms dealers, Magpul, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the Colorado State Shooting Association, the Colorado Outfitters Association, Colorado Youth Outdoors, and Women for Concealed Carry....

The civil rights Complaint:

http://www.i2i.org/files/file/54-sheriffs-complaint.pdf


I did an Examiner column on it Friday morning here:

http://www.examiner.com/article/colo-sheriffs-sue-to-overturn-new-state-gun-magazine-limit-laws

And here's this from the Associated Press:

Sheriffs plan lawsuit to challenge gun control measures

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Colorado-sheriffs-suing-over-gun-control-measures-4523387.php

 

[JERRY]

spell it out for me....whats their standing in filing the law suit.

 

[MErl]

first link doesn't seem to work. second one summarizes eventually.

Argument is that the readily converted language effectively outlaws firearms (via outlawing an essential component) that are in common use. Heller argument as expected.

 

[calaverasslim]

What time was that news conference supposed to be?

 

[Prometheus]

It was this morning.

I love this line by Sheriff Maketa at the press conference this AM:

"We each took an oath, the line in the sand has been drawn, and we will stand united!"

http://13cgunreviews.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-historic-day-54-sheriffs-join-suit.html

Winning.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Yay! The sheriff of my county has included himself in the suit.

 

[Clinton]

Co also looking to recall a few people too!

Clinton
www.facebook.com/illinoisrighttocarry

 

[MErl]

http://www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/
http://www.coloradoattorneygeneral....technical_guidance_large_cap_magazine_ban.pdf

and the CO Attorney General is trying to nip this in the bud with a narrow interpretation. For now at least... Can expand the interpretation later once the clamor dies down.

 

[MAKster]

So a group of conservative sheriff's are asking a federal court judge to block a state law. So all that big talk about state law being the only legitimate authority and not having to obey federal laws in ignored when they want help from the Feds to stop a state law they don't like. The disconnect between rhetoric and reality should make heads explode.

 

[theshephard]

@MAKster, the conservative position favors laws being made at as local a level as possible, but it doesn't defend bad law.

The essence of their challenge is that the law as written is unenforceable and ambiguous. First, the lawsuit claims that due process is being violated (14A) because the ambiguous language prevents citizens from knowing what specific possession will put them outside the law. Second, the lawsuit claims that 2A is being violated because the law seems to ban firearms/accessories in common use for legal purposes. Third, and finally, you could say this is also broadly a 14A issue because it invokes the protections of the Constitution at the state level (specifically 2A and other clauses of 14A).

I'd encourage you to watch the interview with Dave Kopel that's posted on pagunblog.com to get a better understanding of the specific legal issues. When it comes to the law, specific details are the essence.

You refer to "Big talk about state law being the only legitimate authority", and this also betrays a lack of familiarity with the conservative philosophy. This philosophy does not view state law as the only authority, but does say the federal government is one of limited powers as described by the Constitution and the federal government's ability to make law must be constrained to those explicitly granted powers. In all other matters, the states retain power. This follows from the belief that it is the states that grant the federal government its limited powers in the first place.

From this viewpoint, the state is arguably the right place for gun control laws to be passed (as opposed to the federal level), but any such laws would still need to comply with the 14th and 2nd amendments. This lawsuit does not challenge the state's authority to make laws but specifically challenges the language of a state law they believe violates constitutional rights protected under 14A and 2A. The federal authority that they are invoking is a legitimate exercise of power explicitly granted to the courts. As such, this challenge is entirely consistent with conservative philosophy.

 

[IlikeSA]

I would encourage everyone to read the i2i file, it is brilliantly written, though long. I am glad to see the Arapahoe County Sheriff in on the suit as well.

 

[Scimmia]

So a group of conservative sheriff's are asking a federal court judge to block a state law. So all that big talk about state law being the only legitimate authority and not having to obey federal laws in ignored when they want help from the Feds to stop a state law they don't like. The disconnect between rhetoric and reality should make heads explode.

This has nothing at all to do with federal law, they're asking under the protections of the US Constitution. If you don't understand the difference, you need to do some reading.