Colorado Sheriffs Unite w/ Libertarian Think Tank, Plan to File Suit Against Gun Laws

[Justin]

The Independence Institute is a libertarian-leaning think tank that's done a lot of good work in this state for quite awhile. Dave Kopel, a lawyer who's done a lot of work in defense of gun rights (including arguing before the Supreme Court) is going to be the main guy on this.

The plaintiffs are going to be the Colorado Sheriffs who have announced that they are going to refuse to enforce this law.

For those who are in Colorado (or those who are out-of-state, but don't want Michael Bloomberg to have all the fun when it comes to out-of-state influence-peddling), the Independence Institute is soliciting for donations to help fund this lawsuit.

More info (and a link to where to donate) here:
http://www.joncaldara.com/2013/03/21/donate-independence-institute-second-amendment/

Or by sending a check here:

Independence Institute
727 E. 16th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203

In the memo line, simply put SAP lawsuit, so we apply your gift to the our efforts to fight these over-reaching gun laws.

 

[ol' scratch]

The Libertarian movement has gotten quite a shot in the arm recently and they seem to be growing faster than I can recall in the past. These are younger college aged people too. I know libertarians who voted for Obama and Democrats because they believed his views were more in line with libertarianism. Those same people are fighting mad.

 

[NickEllis]

Excellent. Dave Koppel is pretty top notch. Any chance or reason not to bring Cato into this?

 

[NickEllis]

Donation link broken though, Justin.

If we can get this working, I've got several folks who would donate immediately.

 

[Rio Laxas]

A direct link won't work.

Go here: http://www.i2i.org/ Click on "About" (top of the page second from left) and go down to donate.

I donated online a couple of days ago, but I did not see a place to specify SAP lawsuit for the donation.

 

[bk42261]

Someone (anyone)? thought Obama was for freedom? Really??

 

[theriflespeaks1863]

SOME Libertarians voted for Obama, but not ALL. In fact, I would say that the greater portion voted either for Gary Johnson (who is very pro-2A, like most Libertarians are) or for Mitt Romney. The voting stats bear this out in the end- but the point is, as a Libertarian I don't like either of them, and I have very little trust in either political party- statism and totalitarianism come just as easily either way.

But it's good to see the movement getting increasing attention- having Rand Paul and his father in our pocket also help a lot. Wouldn't be surprised if Rand Paul is on the ticket and wins in 2016. After his fillibuster on the whole drone thing, and knowing he is avidly pro-2A, I think we have to throw our weight in for him. This stuff in Colorado, especially this alliance, is just more proof that we are gaining traction.

I hope I'm right.

-Chris

 

[joeschmoe]

The plaintiffs lack standing. Dismissed.

 

[Old Fuff]

The plaintiffs lack standing. Dismissed.

The plaintiffs are going to be Colorado Sheriffs, and Dave Kopel is an experienced and knowledgeable attorney who is certified to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court if it comes to that. He wouldn't go forward if he wasn't sure he could establish standing.

 

[JERRY]

the sheriffs are elected (politicians) by the people and represent them regarding enforcement of laws.

the other politicians are elcted by the people and represent them by enacting laws.

this will be interesting to see how the elected judges rule, or are they appointed?

 

[GJgo]

Does anyone have a list of which sheriffs are on board? Curious about mine in Mesa Co.

 

[SigSour]

And like his Dad, Rand Paul is a Doctor. A surgeon. We really need a good Doc right now to stop all the bleeding. He looks good right now, but there are miles and miles to go before we sleep.

Or something like that!

I voted for Rand Paul's dad, and I'm not some kid in his dorm room eating Cheetos (where did that stereotype of Ron Paul come from anyway?) it was hard to take to see Romney nominated instead of Paul, the good Dr. Paul could've really done some good as President of this country.. but that's off topic (beat you to it!)

I'm in with a donation whenever the link is fixed. Currently when clicking the link, the page reads "the item you selected is no longer available".

 

[joeschmoe]

The plaintiffs are going to be Colorado Sheriffs, and Dave Kopel is an experienced and knowledgeable attorney who is certified to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court if it comes to that. He wouldn't go forward if he wasn't sure he could establish standing.

How have they been harmed? If it is hypothetical or a desire to overturn a legislative act they will fail. There must be an actual or imminent injury by the plaintiff.

Standing is founded "in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society. " Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.'

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm

 

[Old Fuff]

How have they been harmed? If it is hypothetical or a desire to overturn a legislative act they will fail. There must be an actual or imminent injury by the plaintiff.

I am sure that David Kopel, Esq. is aware of that, but I also sure there is case law somewhere to support his position. In the event there isn't he'll approach from another direction.

 

[Koreth]

the sheriffs are elected (politicians) by the people and represent them regarding enforcement of laws.

the other politicians are elcted by the people and represent them by enacting laws.

this will be interesting to see how the elected judges rule, or are they appointed?

Article XII, Section 8 of the Colroado constitution reads:

Oath of Civil Officers.

Every civil officer, except members of the general assembly and such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of the office upon which he shall be about to enter.

So, keeping that in mind, they are bound by the highest law in the state not just to enforce the laws enacted by the legistature, but also to the the State and US constitutions. When legislative law conflicts with constitutional law, the latter is supposed to trump the former. I'd argue that by enforcing the magazine law, the state's sherrifs would be violating their oath, and that by fighting against it, they are honoring that oath.

 

[HorseSoldier]

How have they been harmed? If it is hypothetical or a desire to overturn a legislative act they will fail. There must be an actual or imminent injury by the plaintiff.

Being obligated to enforce an illegal law? "I was a good German" doesn't shield one from civil or criminal liability when following orders one knows to be unlawful.

 

[danez71]

I know libertarians who voted for Obama and Democrats because they believed his views were more in line with libertarianism. Those same people are fighting mad.

Thats because true libertarians want their liberites and freedom. Not being forced by .gov.

Everyone needs to remember.
This country was founded by libertarians. Then, .gov was formed.

 

[joeschmoe]

Being obligated to enforce an illegal law? "I was a good German" doesn't shield one from civil or criminal liability when following orders one knows to be unlawful.

So it's theoretical. Not actual harm = no standing. Dismissed.

We will have to wait until the law is enforced and there are real plaintiffs who have been harmed by these laws. Not theoretical.

 

[Justin]

Given that Dave Kopel is one of the best legal minds working on 2nd Amendment issues (right up there with the likes of Alan Gura), and that he's testified in front of The Supreme Court, I'd say he probably knows what he's doing, certainly far more so than any of us here in the web-based peanut gallery.

If you don't want to support the Independence Institute, then all you need to do is refrain from donating.

 

[swalton1943]

harm is to force enforcement of unconstitutional laws by leo without compensation.

 

[threefeathers]

It's good to hear my birth state has some folke who are using common sense.

 

[joeschmoe]

Given that Dave Kopel is one of the best legal minds working on 2nd Amendment issues (right up there with the likes of Alan Gura), and that he's testified in front of The Supreme Court, I'd say he probably knows what he's doing, certainly far more so than any of us here in the web-based peanut gallery.

If you don't want to support the Independence Institute, then all you need to do is refrain from donating.

I thought this was a discussion on the issue. I didn't realize I was interrupting a cheerleading section.

I'm a lifetime member of the SAF.

 

[mrvco]

The Libertarian movement has gotten quite a shot in the arm recently and they seem to be growing faster than I can recall in the past. These are younger college aged people too. I know libertarians who voted for Obama and Democrats because they believed his views were more in line with libertarianism. Those same people are fighting mad.

Speaking from the right / conservative perspective, we are sick of being told (by both law and regulation) how to live our lives, not to mention telling everyone else in the world how to live their lives when our own house is in shambles. In their own respective ways, the Republicans are just as bad about it as the Democrats.

 

[Kiln]

I like Libertarians but voting for them often equates to dropping your ballot in a paper shredder.

 

[Justin]

I thought this was a discussion on the issue. I didn't realize I was interrupting a cheerleading section.

I'm a lifetime member of the SAF.

It seems a bit premature to try to shoot down the grounds of their case when the Independence Institute has yet to actually release those details, especially when it's clear that you didn't actually click on or read the link in my original post.

Furthermore, I was unaware that pointing out that criticism is unfounded amounts to "cheerleading." However, given the track record of The Independence Institute in general, and Dave Kopel in particular, I think it's safe to say that they're unlikely to mount a lawsuit as weak as you claim they will.

Regardless, until such time as those details come out, and actual constructive criticism can be leveled, perhaps it would be best to refrain from trying to shoot holes in their activities, especially at a time when Colorado needs all of the help it can muster.