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.
55 (updated) Colorado Sheriffs File Against The State
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
maestro pistolero
New member
Hmmm. Do you have to show harm to have standing?
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.
Dr Big Bird PhD
New member
If it were the will of the people to control guns, then 73 million background checks wouldn't have been done since the 2008 elections.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I had an opportunity to talk to a chief and then the rank and file.
The chief thought that armed self-defense by citizens was the silliest thing ever. The officers thought it was just fine and the AWB was stupid.
Of course, the chief's boss hated guns.
The chief thought that armed self-defense by citizens was the silliest thing ever. The officers thought it was just fine and the AWB was stupid.
Of course, the chief's boss hated guns.
Dr Big Bird PhD
New member
Out of curiosity, is the Chief appointed or elected?
I feel like politically motivated persons are more likely to feel anti-gun in LE
I feel like politically motivated persons are more likely to feel anti-gun in LE
speedrrracer
New member
Southwest Chuck said:
Finally got around to reading the complaint, and I agree with you. Very interesting choice. Kopel is all kinds of smart, and I think he made a great call here.
If you've had a stroke or whatever, and certain movements are very slow or difficult, reloading becomes a real issue.
Reducing the capacity of magazines thus becomes a clear burden on the disabled, who can least afford to be burdened, negatively impacting their ability to defend themselves in a disproportionate way to the rest of us, who have the potential to reload very quickly.
maestro pistolero
New member
If successful on the ADA issue, I would be concerned that is could result only in a narrow waiver for the infirmed. While that would obviously be a good thing, it could be addressed with a narrow exception.
Southwest Chuck
New member
But then you'd have an equal protection question, no? Turn it around. What if a person that has an auditory sensitivity disability was allowed the legal use of a suppressor (without a tax stamp or allowed use within a State (CA) that bans them) , while at the same time, denying it's use by a deaf person (no need) Maybe a bad example, but you get the point. If they go down that road, shall we say slippery slope?
speedrrracer
New member
maestro pistolero said:
Well, the Court can't create a waiver, right? So they would have to either allow this law or strike it down, wouldn't they?
So if they strike it down, the legislature will have to get all the political capital together to create / pass a new law, featuring the waiver (assuming the ADA issue is the only problem with the bill). That might not be so easy, esp given the recall and this suit...I could see plenty of unsteady seats not wanting to sign back on...
Southwest Chuck said:
Chuck, you are on a roll today. That's very interesting. I didn't even know there was an auditory sensitivity disability!
UPDATE: Attorney General backs down on two aspects of the new Colorado laws
After the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff's attorney (for the Sheriffs) applied for preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of a couple of narrow aspects of the new laws, laws which only took effect on 1 July 2013.
The requested preliminary injunction was to halt the overreach of the magazine language “designed to be readily converted” to hold more than 15 rounds (per House Bill 1224, the magazine ban), and the language on “continuous possession” of firearms/magazines (per House Bill 1229, background checks and paperwork on temporary loans and private sales of firearms)
Sheriff's attorney, Dave Kopel, argued that both were unconstitutionally vague, and that what meaning it did have (according to the Attorney General) violated the Second Amendment.
Well, on July 10th, the attorney general backed down, and issued formal legal guidance to Colorado law enforcement folks that accepted the argument of the Sheriffs on those two narrow issues.
An important, even if only partial, victory.
Now the case will move forward on the other issues, but these two have been resolved in favor of reasonableness and the Second Amendment. Two cheers for that!
Here is more detail: http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/15/successes-in-colorado-sheriffs-second-amendment-case/
After the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff's attorney (for the Sheriffs) applied for preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of a couple of narrow aspects of the new laws, laws which only took effect on 1 July 2013.
The requested preliminary injunction was to halt the overreach of the magazine language “designed to be readily converted” to hold more than 15 rounds (per House Bill 1224, the magazine ban), and the language on “continuous possession” of firearms/magazines (per House Bill 1229, background checks and paperwork on temporary loans and private sales of firearms)
Sheriff's attorney, Dave Kopel, argued that both were unconstitutionally vague, and that what meaning it did have (according to the Attorney General) violated the Second Amendment.
Well, on July 10th, the attorney general backed down, and issued formal legal guidance to Colorado law enforcement folks that accepted the argument of the Sheriffs on those two narrow issues.
An important, even if only partial, victory.
Now the case will move forward on the other issues, but these two have been resolved in favor of reasonableness and the Second Amendment. Two cheers for that!
Here is more detail: http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/15/successes-in-colorado-sheriffs-second-amendment-case/
Wreck-n-Crew
New member
Colorado sheriff Lawsuit , Judge ruled against group lawsuit!
I have been aware of the new Colorado gun laws and several suits but I was not aware of the sheriffs lawsuit until I read an article on the judges ruling.
From what I gather several sheriffs across Colorado got together to file a law suit against the state of Colorado and its new laws calling them unconstitutional.
Apparently the judge ruled against them as a group but said they could file individually.
The reasoning here:
In what way was the Sheriffs law suit based on the interests of the County Sheriffs office from which they served? Just to add, filing a lawsuit on personal time with a group of people is completely legal such as a gun group.
So to sum this up, a citizen group can, or individuals, or sheriffs as individuals but not as a group. So long as the group is not made up of all sheriffs they are allowed to file because they would be:
I understand that there are several twist on similar laws from state to state. So what is in Colorado law that prevents Sheriffs from joining in a law suit made up of all sheriffs? Providing the suit is personal in nature and not job related it would seem they would have the same rights as any citizen group would it not? Guess that depends on what is in Colorado law.
The complaint in the suit against the state filed by Sheriffs :
I need a different perspective here I guess because from where I am standing this whole ruling seems silly.
I have been aware of the new Colorado gun laws and several suits but I was not aware of the sheriffs lawsuit until I read an article on the judges ruling.
From what I gather several sheriffs across Colorado got together to file a law suit against the state of Colorado and its new laws calling them unconstitutional.
Reference:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lorado-sheriffs-cant-sue-over-state-gun-laws/ and here: http://www.coloradoan.com/viewart/2...dge-Sheriffs-can-t-sue-Colorado-over-gun-laws
Apparently the judge ruled against them as a group but said they could file individually.
The reasoning here:
In what way was the Sheriffs law suit based on the interests of the County Sheriffs office from which they served? Just to add, filing a lawsuit on personal time with a group of people is completely legal such as a gun group.
So to sum this up, a citizen group can, or individuals, or sheriffs as individuals but not as a group. So long as the group is not made up of all sheriffs they are allowed to file because they would be:
Where does the service end and rights begin? Guess that is bugging me about this whole ruling.
I understand that there are several twist on similar laws from state to state. So what is in Colorado law that prevents Sheriffs from joining in a law suit made up of all sheriffs? Providing the suit is personal in nature and not job related it would seem they would have the same rights as any citizen group would it not? Guess that depends on what is in Colorado law.
The complaint in the suit against the state filed by Sheriffs :
No where in their argument did the Sheriffs state that the reasoning for the suit was job related or that it affected their ability to do their job and uphold the law.
I need a different perspective here I guess because from where I am standing this whole ruling seems silly.
It is a bit of a guess but the problem might be because this is probably the same group of sheriffs that banded together to say that they would not enforce the new gun laws, in part because they felt they are unenforceable.
One of the sheriffs is an old friend of mine. I will be going home for Christmas and will ask him about it. Maybe I can get a clearer picture of the whole thing. If I talk to him sooner I will let you know what he has to say.
One of the sheriffs is an old friend of mine. I will be going home for Christmas and will ask him about it. Maybe I can get a clearer picture of the whole thing. If I talk to him sooner I will let you know what he has to say.
New Thread merged with the original thread.
In the case, Parker v. California (case #22 in the list), the CA court of appeals recently ruled for the plaintiffs, in its entirety. This is now a citable case, inasmuch as Sheriff Clay Parker sued the State in his official capacity. The CA courts held that he had standing, in his professional capacity, in enforcement of vague laws.
The Judge here, says the Sheriffs have suffered no harm, in their official capacity, other than not knowing how to enforce a vague law (the Judge accepts the CO AG's "Technical Guidance," even though this can be changed at a whim). This decision is appeallable.
Whether or not this is appealed, is up to the Sheriffs and their attorney (David Kopel). If it is, by the Courts own timeline, it must be done within 14 days, or the lawsuit proceeds without them. If appealed, all action at the District Court stops, until the CA10 renders its opinion (technically, the Sheriffs have the same 90 days to appeal the decision as any other case would. Practicality deems 14 days).
The docket has been updated and the decision (doc #96) has been recapped.
In the case, Parker v. California (case #22 in the list), the CA court of appeals recently ruled for the plaintiffs, in its entirety. This is now a citable case, inasmuch as Sheriff Clay Parker sued the State in his official capacity. The CA courts held that he had standing, in his professional capacity, in enforcement of vague laws.
The Judge here, says the Sheriffs have suffered no harm, in their official capacity, other than not knowing how to enforce a vague law (the Judge accepts the CO AG's "Technical Guidance," even though this can be changed at a whim). This decision is appeallable.
Whether or not this is appealed, is up to the Sheriffs and their attorney (David Kopel). If it is, by the Courts own timeline, it must be done within 14 days, or the lawsuit proceeds without them. If appealed, all action at the District Court stops, until the CA10 renders its opinion (technically, the Sheriffs have the same 90 days to appeal the decision as any other case would. Practicality deems 14 days).
The docket has been updated and the decision (doc #96) has been recapped.
Wreck-n-Crew
New member
Thanks Al , Search terms did not give me a hit. 
That was the reasoning behind my questioning then. Not now, or yet should I say until I read a little more on the contents of the suit.
Even if the wording of the suit was surrounding LE, the vagueness of it as written, as well as it's affect on ability to implement it fairly, the judges decision to not change the law does nothing more to help LE do it's job with confidence. In a since it kicked the can down the road. I say that with the understanding it may not necessarily be the judges duty to change it because of the circumstances of the suit. But that is the problem with the legislature. It is just an arm of government with a function to do what an arm does. Frustrating.
From what I read in the report on one of the two previous citing's they plan to file individually.
It was in my first thought that was the case. Then I read a little more and still have yet to see where their complaint was about the laws effects on LE rather the unjust impact on the Citizens of Colorado.
That was the reasoning behind my questioning then. Not now, or yet should I say until I read a little more on the contents of the suit.
Great! Thanks. I would really like to know what the intentions of their suit is.
Even if the wording of the suit was surrounding LE, the vagueness of it as written, as well as it's affect on ability to implement it fairly, the judges decision to not change the law does nothing more to help LE do it's job with confidence. In a since it kicked the can down the road. I say that with the understanding it may not necessarily be the judges duty to change it because of the circumstances of the suit. But that is the problem with the legislature. It is just an arm of government with a function to do what an arm does. Frustrating.
Search terms within vBulletin are iffy, at best.
I know it's probably asking a lot, but all these cases are in the stickied Current 2A Cases thread, at the top of the index. Tucked into posts 2 through 6 are all the cases being tracked (20 cases per post), their entry points into the legal system (for those that have PACER accounts), their docket entries and any thread that is on topic for that case. These are all links and are highly useful for anyone concerned about the status of a specific case.
I know it's probably asking a lot, but all these cases are in the stickied Current 2A Cases thread, at the top of the index. Tucked into posts 2 through 6 are all the cases being tracked (20 cases per post), their entry points into the legal system (for those that have PACER accounts), their docket entries and any thread that is on topic for that case. These are all links and are highly useful for anyone concerned about the status of a specific case.
leadcounsel
Moderator
It's become a sad state of affairs in America....
Government screw ups and oppression require citizens to file lawsuits, often spending millions of tax payer dollars on one or both sides of the lawsuit...
I'd like the losers of these suits to be fired and jailed and have personal responsibility for the debts incurred. That would slow down these government encroachments and screw-ups.
Government screw ups and oppression require citizens to file lawsuits, often spending millions of tax payer dollars on one or both sides of the lawsuit...
I'd like the losers of these suits to be fired and jailed and have personal responsibility for the debts incurred. That would slow down these government encroachments and screw-ups.