PDA

View Full Version : Judge: Sheriffs can't sue Colorado over gun laws



Zundfolge
11-27-2013, 18:45
Source (http://gazette.com/judge-sheriffs-cant-sue-colorado-over-gun-laws/article/1510116)


DENVER — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Colorado sheriffs suing the state over new firearm restrictions don't have standing to proceed with the case as a group, but the legal battle is far from over.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger in Denver doesn't stop the lawsuit because 21 other plaintiffs who are suing do have standing. The court will still consider whether a law that bans ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds is constitutional, the judge said.

The remaining plaintiffs include individuals and various gun groups.

The law that took effect July 1 was among a package of gun control legislation passed in response to mass shootings last year at a suburban Denver movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school.

Sheriffs in most of Colorado's 64 counties filed a lawsuit in May.

Krieger also ruled in favor of part of the technical guidance that the state offered to implement the law when it comes to what it means for a magazine to be "readily convertible." The guidance outlined that magazines that have removable baseplates won't be considered part of ban and won't be seen as being adaptable to hold more rounds than what the law allows.

The Second Amendment question is still being considered, as well as the claim that the new lawsuits discriminate against people with disabilities.

Sheriffs can choose to join the suit in an individual capacity, and they'll have 14 days to make that decision.

"We are pleased that the court recognized that many of the plaintiffs had no standing to bring this case and that our interpretation of the law is proper," said Carolyn Tyler, a spokeswoman with the Colorado attorney general's office, which is representing the state in the lawsuit.

"We hope to have the important constitutional question that remains resolved quickly and properly," Tyler said.

sellersm
11-27-2013, 18:55
"We hope to have the important constitutional question that remains resolved quickly and properly," Tyler said.

And this is the important part. My prediction? The ban will be seen as indeed being constitutional...

merl
11-27-2013, 18:59
So ruling is that they have no standing to sue as LE but can sue as private citizens?

lowbeyond
11-27-2013, 19:17
anyone have a link to that decision? id love to see that reasoning that they lack standing

smells like bullshit

UrbanWolf
11-27-2013, 19:40
Sheriff Justin Smith just post the bad on facebook too.

http://i1353.photobucket.com/albums/q668/RadScorpius/JustinSmith_zpsf238448a.png

DOC
11-27-2013, 21:15
Holy hell these people should be on our side not fighting us thinking that we are as stupid as they are using double think to see 2+2=5.

Bailey Guns
11-27-2013, 21:44
Not the end of the world. I'm sure many of the sheriff's will file in their individual capacity as Colorado citizens. There's a long, long way to go in this lawsuit.

BPTactical
11-27-2013, 21:49
Gee, another activist judge.....call me surprised.

DOC
11-27-2013, 22:18
Or a stupid ass judge. But I think we are both right.

20X11
11-27-2013, 22:22
Recall Election for a Judge?...someone get the petition started.

Madeinhb
11-27-2013, 22:25
Considering other states have mag bans, I think judge will say its constitutional.

20X11
11-27-2013, 22:28
Just realized...FEDERAL Judge...someone google how to remove Federal Judge

spqrzilla
11-27-2013, 23:07
You can't remove a Federal Article III judge except by impeachment.

Rabid
11-28-2013, 02:11
Considering other states have mag bans, I think judge will say its constitutional.
It does not work like that. Anyone that thought this was going to be a quick cut and paste lawsuit is fooling them self. This is going to take years more then likely and if it goes to SCOTUS plan on much more then that, if ever. The lawsuit is hope to never have to deal with this again but the only way to get rid of these laws quickly is to get the people that oppose these laws into office even if it hurts some of your other views.

mjzman
11-28-2013, 18:41
Could a sheriff take the view that if he has no standing, then there is no mandate that he must enforce these laws? I'm sure a judge would say he still must enforce, but logically it would seem no such requirement exists.

BPTactical
11-28-2013, 22:28
Could a sheriff take the view that if he has no standing, then there is no mandate that he must enforce these laws? I'm sure a judge would say he still must enforce, but logically it would seem no such requirement exists.

Very interesting and valid question.

Bailey Guns
11-29-2013, 08:28
Could a sheriff take the view that if he has no standing, then there is no mandate that he must enforce these laws? I'm sure a judge would say he still must enforce, but logically it would seem no such requirement exists.

Just because a sheriff doesn't have standing in a civil matter doesn't relieve him/her of their duty to enforce the law. Now, how vigorously they enforce (or direct their deputies to enforce) a law is another thing. LEOs use discretion in enforcement all the time.

Jeffrey Lebowski
11-29-2013, 19:22
It does not work like that. Anyone that thought this was going to be a quick cut and paste lawsuit is fooling them self.

No, but it does work on the first level that an activist judge can just go based on her own personal feelings rather than any reality of law.

milwaukeeshaker
11-30-2013, 10:45
+1

Not sorry, not bored


"sprinkles or glazed" "bear claws or cream filled"





sorry, Im bored.

merl
11-30-2013, 12:21
No, but it does work on the first level that an activist judge can just go based on her own personal feelings rather than any reality of law.

It is very possible that LE do not have the right to question a laws validity in court. They can question it by not enforcing it as that is their domain.

Zundfolge
11-30-2013, 12:58
It is very possible that LE do not have the right to question a laws validity in court. They can question it by not enforcing it as that is their domain.
Actually I think the issue is that because they are exempt from the law as law enforcement officers, that means they don't have any cause to sue because the law doesn't effect them (that's what "standing" is). So as "officers of the law" no standing, but as citizens; standing.

I think a counter argument could be that they're directly effected because they have to enforce this bad law, but that's not how the judge saw it.

Jeffrey Lebowski
11-30-2013, 17:22
Actually I think the issue is that because they are exempt from the law as law enforcement officers, that means they don't have any cause to sue because the law doesn't effect them (that's what "standing" is). So as "officers of the law" no standing, but as citizens; standing.

I think a counter argument could be that they're directly effected because they have to enforce this bad law, but that's not how the judge saw it.

*Affect

but I think you are correct. The standing should be, and I thought THEIR part of the case hinged upon, that they have no way to even know how to enforce this. The burden of proof that someone's magazine isn't a grandfathered magazine is nearly impossible.

Rabid
11-30-2013, 19:28
No, but it does work on the first level that an activist judge can just go based on her own personal feelings rather than any reality of law.
Very true. The judge in the sheriffs case is a republican but has horrible reviews from attorneys so who knows what is going to happen.