Colorado sheriffs plan lawsuit challenging state gun control laws

[theGinsue]

posted for your information

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22988195/colorado-sheriffs-planning-lawsuit-block-new-gun-laws (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22988195/colorado-sheriffs-planning-lawsuit-block-new-gun-laws)



More than half of Colorado's elected sheriffs are planning to mount a legal challenge to the state's sweeping new gun restrictions.

The Denver Post reports that 37 of the state's 62 sheriffs will sue to overturn laws passed in March that set limits on ammunition magazines and expand background checks for firearms.

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke told the paper that the proposed lawsuit would argue the laws violate Second Amendment rights. He said the lawsuit would likely be filed within the next few weeks.

The group County Sheriffs of Colorado has opposed a ban on high-capacity magazines, and about a dozen Colorado sheriffs spoke against the new laws during President Obama's visit this week. The laws take effect July 1.

The group's board of directors decided against joining the lawsuit as a plaintiff, according to County Sheriffs' executive director, Chris Olson, the Post reported.

Cooke told the Post he anticipates more sheriffs will join the lawsuit, though some of his colleagues reportedly oppose the legal effort.

San Miguel County Sheriff Bill Masters told the paper he doesn't think the newly-passed laws will be effective but he won't be signing on to the lawsuit.

"I'm not going to sue anybody for anything. I understand the frustration but I wouldn't do that," Masters said.

In a letter to residents last week, Douglas County Sheriff David Weaver warned that the state's new gun laws are going to be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce and won't stop another mass shooting.
Weaver said ammunition magazines shouldn't be limited and said criminals will just steal them or buy them out-of-state. He said he won't disregard the new laws but also won't be "ordering gun magazine roundups."

[Robb]

I saw this on GunWire, and have my fingers crossed big time.

[Hound]

The courts are a great step towards reversing these laws. That does not mean we slow up on the Morse recall or voting out those that voted for the laws in 2014.

[hatidua]

Weaver said ammunition magazines shouldn't be limited and said criminals will just steal them or buy them out-of-state. He said he won't disregard the new laws but also won't be "ordering gun magazine roundups."

Well, in light of existing mags being grandfathered, I'm just all giddy about there not being any 'gun magazine roundups' being ordered.

[mikedubs]

So is this going to be simultaneous to the Independence Institute lawsuit concerning mag limits? I thought that the plaintiffs in the Inst. one are the sheriffs.

[Rabid]

So is this going to be simultaneous to the Independence Institute lawsuit concerning mag limits? I thought that the plaintiffs in the Inst. one are the sheriffs.
I believe these are one in the same.

The lawsuit would be handled by lawyer Dave Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute

[asmo]

I am curious as to what the challenge is actually going to be based on... along with grounds for standing.

[Ronin13]

I am curious as to what the challenge is actually going to be based on... along with grounds for standing.
US v. Miller? That's what I would push for, I mean it's pretty hard to argue with a SCOTUS decision.

[Great-Kazoo]

I am curious as to what the challenge is actually going to be based on... along with grounds for standing.

Vagueness of an unenforceable bill which hiz honor the .gov admitted on Mike Rosen's show he didn't like, was not a good one and signed it just because he had to. Yep that's validation for signing in to law. He had to[facepalm]

Oh yeah it also does nothing to prevent a crime from happening.

[brokenscout]

I bet we see a new batch of Sheriffs that will agree with the "Agenda" pretty soon

[Great-Kazoo]

I bet we see a new batch of Sheriffs that will agree with the "Agenda" pretty soon

Only if you the voter allow that to happen.. it's going on in larimer cty with pat stryker putting money / influence behind an opponent for smith.

[SA Friday]

Well, in light of existing mags being grandfathered, I'm just all giddy about there not being any 'gun magazine roundups' being ordered.
Weaver is a hypocrite and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw his fat ass. His stance of firearms rights is way far from stellar.

[aryntha]

So, I guess all we can do is hope on this one. If there's any way I can throw any support behind this - I don't know if the sheriffs need donations for it, or what. For sure, they'll have my vote going forward if I get the opportunity... I'm hoping Colorado someday goes back to 'normal'. And I'm willing to put in whatever legwork I can for that.

[centrarchidae]

So, I guess all we can do is hope on this one. If there's any way I can throw any support behind this - I don't know if the sheriffs need donations for it, or what. For sure, they'll have my vote going forward if I get the opportunity... I'm hoping Colorado someday goes back to 'normal'. And I'm willing to put in whatever legwork I can for that.

The Independence Institute is taking donations (http://www.i2i.org/saphomepage.php)to support Kopel's and the Sheriffs' suit. I'm about 99% sure that donations to the II are tax-deductible.

[XDMan]

http://www.9news.com/news/local/article/336554/222/Colorado-sheriffs-suing-over-gun-control-measures

From 9news:
DENVER (AP) - A group of Colorado sheriffs unhappy with recent gun control laws are planning to file a lawsuit to block them.
The sheriffs have called a Friday morning news conference to detail their federal challenge. The lawmen said they would challenge two new laws, one limiting the size of ammunition magazines and another law to expand gun background checks.
The laws were passed earlier this year in response to mass shootings in Aurora and at a school in Connecticut. Not all sheriffs opposed the bills, but some were frequent visitors to the state Capitol in an effort to prevent the gun controls.
The right-leaning Independence Institute says 54 sheriffs are joining the lawsuit, along with other gun-rights activists who oppose the laws.
(Copyright 2013 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

[SA Friday]

[MOD] Please add a link to the news site's article in the post.

[LippCJ7]

It has hit the mass media, all the big hitters in Denver 9news.com, kdvr.com and thedenverchannel.com, its no secret now, there will be a press conference tomorrow morning,

Copied from Gunbroker just moments ago,

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 16, 2013

Contact: Mary MacFarlane, 303-279-6536 x102, mary@i2i.org

Press Conference to Announce Civil Rights Suit by 54 Sheriffs against Anti-gun laws

Photo, Video, and Interview opportunities with plaintiffs, including Sheriffs, Disabled gun owners, Women gun owners
Legal challenge to Colorado's new anti-gun laws begins in earnest tomorrow morning in Federal Court
Copies of the legal Complaint will be available
Contact Mary MacFarlane, 303-279-6536 x102, mary@i2i.org

Friday morning, May 17, at 10 a.m., Colorado Sheriffs and other plaintiffs will hold a press conference detailing the filing earlier that day of their federal civil rights lawsuit against House Bill 1224 (magazine ban) and 1229 (sales and temporary transfers of firearms).

The press conference will be held at the Independence Institute, 727 East 16th Ave., Denver.

Sheriffs are coming from as far away as the Western Slope to participate in the press conference. Also at the press conference will be disabled citizens in wheelchairs, and representatives of Women for Concealed Carry.

After approximately 15 minutes of prepared statements by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, as well as Sheriffs' attorney David Kopel, will take questions from the media. There will be photo and video opportunities. Plaintiffs will be available for interviews.

A press release with additional information will be sent out early Friday morning.

The Independence Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit public policy research organization based in Denver, Colo.

###

727 E. 16th Ave. Denver, CO 80203 www.independenceinstitute.org

[SA Friday]

I found the link. I added it. It's a problem with copyright. No link, it can cause issues and has on other sites in the past.

[XDMan]

I found the link. I added it. It's a problem with copyright. No link, it can cause issues and has on other sites in the past.
Thanks!

[10mm-man]

Prayers to our Sheriff's, may they prevail for the sake of us all!!

[ChunkyMonkey]

Sheriff Terry Maketa (https://www.facebook.com/maketaforsheriff?ref=stream&hc_location=stream)FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

THE DAY WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR HAS ARRIVED!! TOMORROW HISTORY WILL BE MADE AS THE SHERIFFS OF COLORADO WILL BE TAKING A STAND TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND THE FREEDOMS OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS GREAT STATE. PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING PRESS RELEASE WHICH WAS SENT OUT TODAY BY THE INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE. I HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY, WHICH I CONSIDER AN HONOR, TO SPEAK AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE TOMORROW AND WILL POST MY COMMENTS HERE.

May 16, 2013

Contact: Mary MacFarlane, 303-279-6536 x102, mary@i2i.org<mailto:mary@i2i.org>

Press Conference to Announce Civil Rights Suit by 54 Sheriffs against Anti-gun laws

° Photo, Video, and Interview opportunities with plaintiffs, including Sheriffs, Disabled gun owners, Women gun owners
° Legal challenge to Colorado's new anti-gun laws begins in earnest tomorrow morning in Federal Court
° Copies of the legal Complaint will be available
° Contact Mary MacFarlane, 303-279-6536 x102, mary@i2i.org<mailto:mary@i2i.org>
Friday morning, May 17, at 10 a.m., Colorado Sheriffs and other plaintiffs will hold a press conference detailing the filing earlier that day of their federal civil rights lawsuit against House Bill 1224 (magazine ban) and 1229 (sales and temporary transfers of firearms).
The press conference will be held at the Independence Institute, 727 East 16th Ave., Denver.
Sheriffs are coming from as far away as the Western Slope to participate in the press conference. Also at the press conference will be disabled citizens in wheelchairs, and representatives of Women for Concealed Carry.
After approximately 15 minutes of prepared statements by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, as well as Sheriffs' attorney David Kopel, will take questions from the media. There will be photo and video opportunities. Plaintiffs will be available for interviews.
A press release with additional information will be sent out early Friday morning.
The Independence Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit public policy research organization based in Denver, Co.

[CroiDhubh]

Thank god. At least here in CO the law is on our side

[Irving]

Why can't these cops be out catching real criminals instead of harassing lawyers and judges?

[Hound]

This is great news and with Kopel onboard actually has a chance. He is world class.

[Squeeze]

Prayers to our Sheriff's, may they prevail for the sake of us all!!

^^^This. God Speed Gentlemen!

[nikolatesla19]

Real Amecians!

[Sparky]

This is great news



Edit: They need donations folks.
https://simplecheckout.authorize.net/payment/CatalogPayment.aspx

[sniper7]

Great news

[bryjcom]

Go here to donate. They need our help. Click on the "Donate" button.

http://www.i2i.org/saphomepage.php

[MAP]

Prayers to our Sheriff's, may they prevail for the sake of us all!!

Important to pray for positive results. They also need financial assistance. Any donation to the Independence Institute to support this law suit is tax deductible. I'm committed to making monthly donations until we win. Please consider doing the same.

Mike

[rockhound]

i will donate,

the ten that did not sign on should be ashamed of themselves and need to be voted out.

[sniper7]

i will donate,

the ten that did not sign on should be ashamed of themselves and need to be voted out.

Where did you see a list? It would be good to bound the ones who didn't sign on to join in.

[OneGuy67]

Why can't these cops be out catching real criminals instead of harassing lawyers and judges?

Smartass!

[TFOGGER]

Why can't these cops be out catching real criminals instead of harassing lawyers and judges?

Ummm...aren't lawyers and judges the real criminals? Most legislators are lawyers...

[Ronin13]

Donated! 52 out of 62 Sheriff's? Yeah, I think the majority of CO stands against these BS laws. [Beer]

[zulu01]

Is the press conference available online anywhere? I can't find it as of yet.

EDIT: Found it. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/video/livevideo

[Snowman78]

watch live here:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/video/livevideo

[TFOGGER]

Nice! 2nd, 14th Amendments AND the ADA. Well played!

[brutal]

Wow, cutoff for traffic cams

[Boadie30]

It cut off to Speer and 6th ave... Bastards

[zulu01]

WTF happened? That traffic cam is really important.

[Rooskibar03]

This story is missing on the front pages of Denver Post, 9 News, KDVR.

Only place I see it on The Denver Channel.(Holy crap the comments on Denver channel are nothing but progressives pissing and moaning. And I thought the commenters on Denver post were bad)

[Cylinder Head]

Magpul is throwing their support in now. Awesome

[Ronin13]

This story is missing on the front pages of Denver Post, 9 News, KDVR.

Only place I see it on The Denver Channel.(Holy crap the comments on Denver channel are nothing but progressives pissing and moaning. And I thought the commenters on Denver post were bad)
Those comments make me want to drown a litter of kittens... How can people support 9/10 amendments, but just thumb their nose at the one that is 2nd on the list? It baffles me how deep some people's heads are up their own asses.

[Bailey Guns]

I'm hopeful some of our more "progressive" members of the forum will continue this fight by convincing their liberal/progressive friends to join the cause.

[muddywings]

Magpul is throwing their support in now. Awesome

https://www.facebook.com/magpul?hc_location=stream

[SuperiorDG]

https://www.facebook.com/magpul?hc_location=stream

For those non-facebook people:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
MAGPUL INDUSTRIES ANNOUNCES LAWSUIT TO INVALIDATE COLORADO GUN CONTROL MEASURES


Denver, Colorado – May 17th, 2013 - Magpul Industries, an Erie, Colorado, based manufacturer of firearms accessories, announced today that it has joined 53 Colorado County Sheriffs and other plaintiffs in filing a lawsuit this morning to invalidate gun control measures recently passed by the Colorado legislature and enacted by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court and establishes that Colorado House Bill 1224 (magazine restrictions) and House Bill 1229 (universal background checks) violate the constitutional rights of lawful gun owners located in Colorado.

Duane Liptak, Director of Product Management and Marketing for Magpul Industries, said that these gun control laws do nothing other than restrict the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves and Magpul is committed to invalidating these infringements:

“Colorado’s recently passed gun control laws are a direct assault on the constitutional rights of the responsible people who live in and visit this great state. These laws will do nothing to enhance public safety and only place unreasonable limitations on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves. While Magpul is currently in the process of moving its operations out of Colorado, we will not turn our back on our native state. Extreme gun control interests have forced the passage of these unconstitutional laws in Colorado, and as a company, we are resolved to restore those rights to the people.”

Magpul’s outside legal counsel, Jon Anderson, of Holland & Hart LLP, said that the Colorado gun control bills are unconstitutional and so poorly drafted that the new laws would be enforced in an inconsistent manner:

“Colorado’s gun control laws are in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution. In addition, these bills were so poorly drafted that no one agrees on the scope of the government regulation. If teams of lawyers cannot agree on what these bills prohibit, how can we expect citizens to abide by these laws and how can we rely on law enforcement to implement these laws in a consistent manner?”

Magpul will continue to support productive efforts to FREE COLORADO from government regulations that imperil the rights of law abiding firearm owners.

[Rabid]

Just donated to them. If any one else wants to here is the page http://www.i2i.org/

[muddywings]

For those non-facebook people:


Thanks-work got in the way of more important things, like proper forum posting etiquette!! My bad!

[lowbeyond]

they made an ADA claim too. heh

[Skip]

Those comments make me want to drown a litter of kittens... How can people support 9/10 amendments, but just thumb their nose at the one that is 2nd on the list? It baffles me how deep some people's heads are up their own asses.

Jump in there and level it out!

There are three posters who I'm sure are the same person...

[Rabid]

Those comments make me want to drown a litter of kittens... How can people support 9/10 amendments, but just thumb their nose at the one that is 2nd on the list? It baffles me how deep some people's heads are up their own asses.
They have no idea what they are talking about, ignorance is bliss for the sheepel. If this lawsuit is won it will have nation wide implications likely lifting all of the capacity bans across the country. The anti-gunners will just have to hide in a closet sucking their thumb until they realize we made our bed by starting a country with the 2nd amendment so now we have to sleep in it.

[Rucker61]

they made an ADA claim too. heh

Well done, that one.

[Dingo]

American Diabetic Association? lol. But seriously, what's the ADA?

[Boadie30]

Americans with Disabilities Act

[buckshotbarlow]

Where's the porn music in the background...Barry Manilow would work also...ANything fighting this bs legislation is just right.

[hollohas]

JOHN B. COOKE, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado;
TERRY MAKETA, Sheriff of El Paso County, Colorado;
JUSTIN SMITH, Sheriff of Larimer County, Colorado;
DAVID A. WEAVER, Sheriff of Douglas County, Colorado;
BRUCE W. HARTMAN, Sheriff of Gilpin County, Colorado;
KEN PUTNAM, Sheriff of Cheyenne County, Colorado;
DENNIS SPRUELL, Sheriff of Montezuma County, Colorado;
TIM JANTZ, Sheriff of Moffat County, Colorado;
JERRY MARTIN, Sheriff of Dolores County, Colorado;
MIKE ENSMINGER, Sheriff of Teller County, Colorado;
SHAYNE HEAP, Sheriff of Elbert County, Colorado;
CHAD DAY, Sheriff of Yuma County, Colorado;
FRED D. MCKEE, Sheriff of Delta County, Colorado;
LOU VALLARIO, Sheriff of Garfield County, Colorado;
FRED HOSSELKUS, Sheriff of Mineral County, Colorado;
BRETT L. POWELL, Sheriff of Logan County, Colorado;
JAMES FAULL, Sheriff of Prowers County, Colorado;
LARRY KUNTZ, Sheriff of Washington County, Colorado;
BRIAN E. NORTON, Sheriff of Rio Grande County, Colorado;
DUKE SCHIRARD, Sheriff of La Plata County, Colorado;
JIM BEICKER, Sheriff of Fremont County, Colorado;
RONALD BRUCE, Sheriff of Hinsdale County, Colorado;
CHRIS S. JOHNSON, Sheriff of Otero County, Colorado;
FRED JOBE, Sheriff of Custer County, Colorado;
DONALD KRUEGER, Sheriff of Clear Creek County, Colorado;
JAMES CRONE, Sheriff of Morgan County, Colorado;
SI WOODRUFF, Sheriff of Rio Blanco County, Colorado;
TOM RIDNOUR, Sheriff of Kit Carson County, Colorado;
TOM NESTOR, Sheriff of Lincoln County, Colorado;
STAN HILKEY, Sheriff of Mesa County, Colorado;
FORREST FRAZEE, Sheriff of Kiowa County, Colorado;
RICK DUNLAP, Sheriff of Montrose County, Colorado;
TED B. MINK, Sheriff of Jefferson County, Colorado;
DAVE STONG, Sheriff of Alamosa County, Colorado;
FRED WEGENER, Sheriff of Park County, Colorado;
BRUCE NEWMAN, Sheriff of Huerfano County, Colorado;
RANDY PECK, Sheriff of Sedgwick County, Colorado;
DOMINIC MATTIVI, JR., Sheriff of Ouray County, Colorado;
JOHN MINOR, Sheriff of Summit County, Colorado;
SCOTT FISCHER, Sheriff of Jackson County, Colorado;
PETER GONZALEZ, Sheriff of Archuleta County, Colorado;
RICK BESECKER, Sheriff of Gunnison County, Colorado;
CHARLES “ROB” URBACH , Sheriff of Phillips County, Colorado;
ROD FENSKE, Sheriff of Lake County, Colorado;
GRAYSON ROBINSON, Sheriff of Arapahoe County, Colorado;
DAVID D. CAMPBELL, Sheriff of Baca County, Colorado;
MIKE NORRIS, Sheriff of Saguache County, Colorado;
AMOS MEDINA, Sheriff of Costilla County, Colorado;
MILES CLARK, Sheriff of Crowley County, Colorado;
DAVID ENCINIAS, Sheriff of Bent County, Colorado;
SUE KURTZ, Sheriff of San Juan County, Colorado;
JAMES (JIM) CASIAS, Sheriff of Las Animas County, Colorado;
GARRETT WIGGINS, Sheriff of Routt County, Colorado;
DOUGLAS N. DARR , Sheriff of Adams County, Colorado;

[hollohas]

Other's on the lawsuit

COLORADO OUTFITTERS ASSOCIATION;
COLORADO FARM BUREAU;
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION;
MAGPUL INDUSTRIES;
USA LIBERTY ARMS;
OUTDOOR BUDDIES, INC.;
WOMEN FOR CONCEALED CARRY;
COLORADO STATE SHOOTING ASSOCIATION;
HAMILTON FAMILY ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a FAMILY SHOOTING CENTER
AT CHERRY CREEK STATE PARK;
DAVID STRUMILLO;
DAVID BAYNE;
DYLAN HARRELL;
ROCKY MOUNTAIN SHOOTERS SUPPLY;
2ND AMENDMENT GUNSMITH & SHOOTER SUPPLY, LLC;
BURRUD ARMS INC. D/B/A JENSEN ARMS;
GREEN MOUNTAIN GUNS;
JERRY’S OUTDOOR SPORTS;
GRAND PRIX GUNS;
SPECIALTY SPORTS & SUPPLY;
GOODS FOR THE WOODS

[spongejosh]

Holy crap. I can't believe GRAYSON ROBINSON, Sheriff of Arapahoe County, Colorado is on that list. [Coffee]

[DavieD55]

Holy crap. I can't believe GRAYSON ROBINSON, Sheriff of Arapahoe County, Colorado is on that list. [Coffee]

Neither is Joe blow Pelle.

[Bailey Guns]

Neither is Joe blow Pelle.

Grayson Robinson IS on the list. That is a surprise.

[DavieD55]

Grayson Robinson IS on the list. That is a surprise.

I misread.

[CroiDhubh]

I wanted Jay in on this, but he isn't in health enough to show up for everything.

At least the Law here is on our side!

[brutal]

I guess I can't talk TOO much trash about Weaver, at least he's in this.

[LippCJ7]

OK I compiled the list and here is what I have as to those Sheriff's who are not in on this

Boulder Sheriff Joe Pelle
Broomfield Police Chief * Tom DeLand
Chaffee Sheriff W. Peter Palmer
Conejos Sheriff Robert Gurule
Denver Manager of Safety Alex J. Martinez
Eagle Sheriff Joseph D. Hoy
Grand Sheriff Rodney Johnson
Pitkin Sheriff Joe DiSalvo
Pueblo Sheriff Kirk M. Taylor
San Miguel Sheriff Bill Masters

Now the cities and counties of Broomfield and Denver do not have a "Sheriff" they have a person appointed to act in the role as Sheriff and I listed those people with an asterisk, and so in reality what we have is 54 Sheriff's of the 62 elected Sheriff's of Colorado, I am pretty surprised at a couple names on this list and a few have been pretty open about their concerns with these new laws. Sheriff Hoy in Eagle County for instance has a letter very similar to what the CSOC.org published, also Bill Masters in San Miguel county has been in office since 1980, so they must have opted out of term limits.

I put this on Excel, if your interested in it PM Me your email, all 64 counties and Sheriffs.

[centrarchidae]

Bill Masters is pretty much the only big-L Libertarian elected official in the US. Where the f*** is he?

I'm a little surprised that Darr and Robinson showed up to the party, but I'm not going to chase them away.

[Ah Pook]

I applaud these Sheriffs for standing up for "our" rights. It's too bad "our" representatives have their heads shoved up the sphincter or their political agenda.

Too bad my local Sheriff isn't one of them. Bill Master not being on the list surprised me.

I cannot fathom the pain people are going through at losing a family member in some of the recent atrocities. I just do not understand how passing these restriction will change what happened, provide any comfort for their lose or stop it from happening again.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I know some of the sheriffs who protested the illicit "laws" had said before they were uncomfortable with the idea of suing the state. I can understand that position myself as the lawsuit is unlikely to do anything but cost taxpayers money even if they win (because the Dems don't really care what the courts say) and losing the lawsuit presents the very real danger of emboldening and strengthening the gun control zealots.

[Squeeze]

For those of us who were there at the Capital on March 4th, are aware the Golden Police Chief is NOT on the list of those in support of our cause. Far as I'm concerned ANY law enforcement official who is in support of these bills are not a friend of mine. They get issued "high capacity" magazines to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones, but those same magazines shouldn't be available to me for my protection or my family's protection? Yeah...they can choke on a tailpipe to a diesel truck. Hypocrites.

[Boadie30]

Bill Masters is pretty much the only big-L Libertarian elected official in the US. Where the f*** is he?

I'm a little surprised that Darr and Robinson showed up to the party, but I'm not going to chase them away.

Willing to bet Darr is on there due to his next opponet is a big 2a supporter... Forgot his name.. but I will know it by the time I vote!

[lowbeyond]

The the Golden Police Chief fukking lied in his testimony. He is a piece of shit

[Hound]

For those of us who were there at the Capital on March 4th, are aware the Golden Police Chief is NOT on the list of those in support of our cause. Far as I'm concerned ANY law enforcement official who is in support of these bills are not a friend of mine. They get issued "high capacity" magazines to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones, but those same magazines shouldn't be available to me for my protection or my family's protection? Yeah...they can choke on a tailpipe to a diesel truck. Hypocrites.

The Sheriffs supported us (and still do) the chiefs did/do not. Pretty simple.

[Robert217]

I can't believe Chaffee Sheriff W. Peter Palmer is not supporting it. They maintain the nicest public range I've ever seen.

[Great-Kazoo]

For those of us who were there at the Capital on March 4th, are aware the Golden Police Chief is NOT on the list of those in support of our cause. Far as I'm concerned ANY law enforcement official who is in support of these bills are not a friend of mine. They get issued "high capacity" magazines to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones, but those same magazines shouldn't be available to me for my protection or my family's protection? Yeah...they can choke on a tailpipe to a diesel truck. Hypocrites.

There are some sheriffs who opted out of the lawsuit, not because they are in favor of the new laws but are supporting the Sheriffs Org. Not everyone needs to be on it to be effective. However the more the merrier.

[SA Friday]

I guess I can't talk TOO much trash about Weaver, at least he's in this.
Ya, you can. He's a hypocrite and a liar. He needs to go.



See the list of gun stores that sued? Grand Prix Guns is on there. My boss rocks.

[Irving]

You abandoned Sam Walton?

[SA Friday]

You abandoned Sam Walton?
yep. couple months back. full time and better money.

[brutal]

Ya, you can. He's a hypocrite and a liar. He needs to go.

You're right, I should not cut him any slack. Weaver never made a peep that I saw. No statements, nothing. We all know he's a POS for not signing off on NFA.

He's term limited. I believe he's out in 2014.


See the list of gun stores that sued? Grand Prix Guns is on there. My boss rocks.

I did see that.

[OneGuy67]

I can't believe Chaffee Sheriff W. Peter Palmer is not supporting it. They maintain the nicest public range I've ever seen.
He is a retired Lakewood cop. Big city politics may play into his beliefs.

[OneGuy67]

yep. couple months back. full time and better money.
Did you close last Thursday?

[SA Friday]

Did you close last Thursday?
No. I'm early crew. I left about 1730 last Thursday.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

For those of us who were there at the Capital on March 4th, are aware the Golden Police Chief is NOT on the list of those in support of our cause. Far as I'm concerned ANY law enforcement official who is in support of these bills are not a friend of mine. They get issued "high capacity" magazines to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones, but those same magazines shouldn't be available to me for my protection or my family's protection? Yeah...they can choke on a tailpipe to a diesel truck. Hypocrites.


The the Golden Police Chief fukking lied in his testimony. He is a piece of shit

Yes x 2.

Word from another officer on the department is that he is wrangling for Mink's job (JeffCo Sheriff) at some point too. Hopefully, this doesn't happen. Supposedly he has a law degree as well.
Feel free to politely call and write him, though!
bkilpatrick@cityofgolden.net
http://www.cityofgolden.net/government/departments-divisions/police/

Maybe ask how he reconciles his beliefs with these firearms safety classes.
http://www.cityofgolden.net/media/2013YouthAcademy.pdf




Edit: Indeed, I don't have to tell anyone who would be hanging out at this forum why what he said was so incorrect and why if you take 10 seconds to even think about it it is easy to dissect. It really is a shame he has any influence anywhere.

[UnoTaco]

I sent an email to the Arapahoe County Sheriff expressing my thanks.

Also, SA Friday, I stopped by Grand Prix and bought a bike a couple of weeks ago. I went upstairs and checked out what you guys had and your shop has the friendliest and most helpful people I've ever dealt with at a gun shop. I'll definitely be making my next purchase there. I'm eyeing the Springfield XD-S that one of the guys showed me.

[OneGuy67]

No. I'm early crew. I left about 1730 last Thursday.

I was in at closing time and just wanted to check to see if you were one of the two guys there.

[osok-308]

Man, I hope they can get this overturned.

[brutal]

I was in at closing time and just wanted to check to see if you were one of the two guys there.

SA is easy to spot.

He's the pretty one.

http://www.ar-15.co/attachment.php?attachmentid=28229&d=1369093241

[SA Friday]

SA is easy to spot.

He's the pretty one.

http://www.ar-15.co/attachment.php?attachmentid=28229&d=1369093241
Ah ya. Had to dig up one of my old modeling pics, didn't ya. You're such a stalker.

[brutal]

Ah ya. Had to dig up one of my old modeling pics, didn't ya. You're such a stalker.

We were required to upload a "business appropriate" photo for an annual company tech conference event. Yep, that's the one I used.

[roberth]

Twitter - Senate Democrats align Sheriffs with criminals.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Sheriffs4Criminals&src=hash


CO Senate Democrats ‏@COSenDem (https://twitter.com/COSenDem) 17 May (https://twitter.com/COSenDem/status/335485266661883904) 2day CO sheriffs stood in opposition of CO's new gun laws, but not w/law-abiding citizens, but with criminals. #coleg (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23coleg&src=hash) #Sheriffs4Criminals (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Sheriffs4Criminals&src=hash)



Who did the democrat voters put in office?[Mad]

[Hound]

Twitter - Senate Democrats align Sheriffs with criminals.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Sheriffs4Criminals&src=hash



Who did the democrat voters put in office?[Mad]

They know they will be paying the price. This is just kicking and screaming in the modern age.

[Dave]

I think the vagueness of the laws and showing how they are unenforceable as written is the only way they can go right now. Unfortunately, other states have had magazine bans in place for a while and never been found to be unconstitutional.

[roberth]

Thank you Foxtrot.

[SuperiorDG]

I wonder if Hick would do this. It also says that the Gov. of NY can remove a Sheriff if he wants.

Albany

The sheriffs thought they were being summoned to the Capitol to discuss ideas for changes to New York's gun control law, the SAFE Act. Instead, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=local&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Andrew+Cuomo%22) told them to keep quiet.
Opposition to the new law has simmered in upstate areas since Cuomo signed the law in January. Many county sheriffs oppose it, particularly its expanded definition of banned assault weapons, and have spoken out around the state. In January, the New York State Sheriffs' Association wrote Cuomo with an analysis, and later suggested tweaks.
Cuomo invited its leaders to the Capitol last month, people briefed on the meeting said. The group included Sheriffs' Association Executive Director Peter Kehoe (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=local&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Peter+Kehoe%22) and Chemung County Sheriff Christopher Moss (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=local&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Christopher+Moss%22).
"We didn't get a response (to the analysis) from him, but we could tell after the budget was passed that none of those recommendations were taken into consideration," Moss said. "When we got there, we never got to the contents of the letter."
Instead, Cuomo pushed the sheriffs to stop publicly speaking out against the act, Moss said.
"The governor was of the opinion that the sheriffs around the state should not be interjecting their personal opinions in reference to the law," Moss said, adding that Cuomo said sheriffs can't do that and enforce the law.
One person briefed on the meeting said Cuomo threatened to remove sheriffs from office, a little-used power afforded the state's chief executive under the state constitution. Moss would not confirm this. He did say the meeting was heated at times, but overall he described it as "cordial."
Kehoe did not return calls, and Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=local&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Rich+Azzopardi%22) declined to comment. An administration official, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss a private meeting, "strongly" denied Cuomo had threatened to remove any sheriff.
Last week, the Sheriffs' Association as well as several elected sheriffs filed an amicus curiae brief supporting a federal challenge to the SAFE Act.
"We're not really protesting the law; we're protesting the methodology in which the law was forced upon the people without input of the people," said Livingston County Sheriff John York (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=local&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22John+York%22), a Republican who chairs the group's executive committee.
Erie County Sheriff Tim Howard (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=local&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Tim+Howard%22) has said he "won't enforce" the act.
Cuomo has said the law will "save lives."
The law broadened the definition of banned assault weapons, increased penalties for illegal gun possession, reduced public access to gun permit information and required mental health professionals to report concerns about a gun-owning patient who posed a risk of harming himself or others. It bans any magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, and bars people from loading magazines with more than seven cartridges.
The bill was unveiled on Jan. 14 and passed through a "message of necessity" that waived a three-day waiting period. The Senate, led by a Republican-dominated coalition, passed the bill by a 43-18 vote hours after the text became public. The Democrat-dominated Assembly passed it the next day, and Cuomo signed it.
In the amicus brief, the sheriffs wrote: "Law enforcement's work is made more difficult attempting to enforce unclear laws that harm, rather than promote, public safety. The laws appear willfully blind to legitimate safety interests, and instead are tailored to impact, and negatively impact, law-abiding firearm owners."
Asked last week about the court brief, Cuomo said, "They're free to litigate — God bless America."
He did not directly say if he thought sheriffs should speak out against laws they enforce, but said, "They're politicians. They run for office, too."
On Monday, Cuomo said Rensselaer County Clerk Frank Merola (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=local&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Frank+Merola%22) was "not upholding the law" when he said last week he would refuse to release permit-holder information. The law allows permit holders to make their information exempt from state Freedom of Information Law disclosure if they apply and meet set criteria.
Merola, a Republican, said that sifting through the applications would take resources his office cannot spare. Instead, he will not release any pistol permit data.
"That's not for a county clerk to do on a blanket basis," Cuomo said. "You can't decide what the law is or change the law — their job is to enforce the law administratively."


Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Sheriffs-Cuomo-asked-for-silence-4532930.php#ixzz2TxQwAFpy

[Hound]

Why in the hell should gun ownership be made public? Words just fail me at this time!

[mikedubs]

Why in the hell should gun ownership be made public? Words just fail me at this time!

Because NYS is another planet, filled with fearful and childish people.

[asmo]

For those unfamiliar, you can stack as many causes of recovery as you want. In this case, if some were denied it wouldn't matter. So losing the military challenge wouldn't have caused a loss - risk free - winning it however, would set precedence effectively killing magazine restrictions in the 10th circuit (and if appealed thereafter, nationwide).

That's why I'm mildly disappointed. Yes, we can get it overturned, but it's not a fix to the inevitable problem that will come about again.

I don't understand why Kopel didn't bring it up.. I would at least like it there so it could be raised on appeal if all other things fail.

[Ronin13]

I don't understand why Kopel didn't bring it up.. I would at least like it there so it could be raised on appeal if all other things fail.
Didn't the SCOTUS decision in the 1934 Miller case set precedence that the 2nd protected arms in current employ by military/militia? I think that it goes without saying, and one can fairly assume, that applies to ammunition feeding devices as well. Then again, most gun related regulations passed since have violated this precedence in one way or another (IE: M4A1, technically, according to the 1934 SCOTUS decision, is legal and protected by the 2nd).

[asmo]

Didn't the SCOTUS decision in the 1934 Miller case set precedence that the 2nd protected arms in current employ by military/militia? I think that it goes without saying, and one can fairly assume, that applies to ammunition feeding devices as well. Then again, most gun related regulations passed since have violated this precedence in one way or another (IE: M4A1, technically, according to the 1934 SCOTUS decision, is legal and protected by the 2nd).

Don't read too to much into Miller. It was somewhat effectively neutered by Heller. "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons"

Basically saying that the NFA didn't violate the 2nd amendment since the arms regulated under the NFA aren't protected by the 2A...

My note above still stands though -- when making a complaint throw everything in there.

[bear71]

CO Sheriffs Lawsuit Video
Long but educational, please check it out:
http://youtu.be/49F1uWp7kMo

[funkfool]

Anyone else here at the Freedom Financial Expo center for the "Colorado Assault on the 2nd Amendment" rally?

[Portsider86]

Is there site that follows the progress of the suit? All I've heard is that it was filed and more sheriffs have signed on since. When might we see some action?

[Dlesh123]

Anyone else here at the Freedom Financial Expo center for the "Colorado Assault on the 2nd Amendment" rally?
My wife and I were there. Good crowd.

[brutal]

Is there site that follows the progress of the suit? All I've heard is that it was filed and more sheriffs have signed on since. When might we see some action?

I expect here http://www.i2i.org/

[3beansalad]

Anyone else here at the Freedom Financial Expo center for the "Colorado Assault on the 2nd Amendment" rally?

I was there, of course I don't know who's who around the forum. Maybe I'm on team with some of the forum members...

[hurley842002]

Maybe I don't get some kind of nuance or sarcasm in this question. It just appears to me if your head is that far up, you will not understand the answer. THEY ARE GOING AFTER THE CRIMINALS YOU ______________!

It's called sarcasm sir. Learn it, love it, live it (on this forum).

[Irving]

Maybe I don't get some kind of nuance or sarcasm in this question. It just appears to me if your head is that far up, you will not understand the answer. THEY ARE GOING AFTER THE CRIMINALS YOU ______________!

You lost me at the end there. Could you please be more specific? Sometimes I'm slow so go ahead and spell it right out.

[Great-Kazoo]

You lost me at the end there. Could you please be more specific? Sometimes I'm slow so go ahead and spell it right out.

H o w. S l. O w

[asmo]

I can count to potato!

[TEAMRICO]

I think the word is MOTHERTRUCKER!
Maybe ICEHOLE....could be MotherLover........or Sum nuv a Batch.......

[brand4]

Then I stand corrected and apologize.

[Irving]

Thumbs up.

[WETWRKS]

Any word of trying to get an injunction to stop the enforcement before the law takes effect?

[asmo]

Any word of trying to get an injunction to stop the enforcement before the law takes effect?

Wouldn't that be nice..

[Sparky]

Any word of trying to get an injunction to stop the enforcement before the law takes effect?


I was just thinking about this. Anybody know anything?

[MarkCO]

Judge signed it June 10th, but it really does not stop the effective date. Just defines (using the AGs position paper) the legal aspects until such time as the case is tried in court.

http://www.i2i.org/files/file/Sheriffs-Preliminary-Injunction-Motion.pdf

[SA Friday]

No word of an injunction. court won't happen before the 1 July date. It's going to go into effect before the courts can weigh in and be around for a while. I suspect it will be faster to get the law removed through voting the right people into office before the lawsuit bears fruit. If I her anything from the shop (we are listed in the lawsuit), I'll update everyone.

[ImNtUrBuddyGuy]

Governor/State legal team is desperately trying to get as much of it moved to the State Supreme Court as possible. 7 liberals to 2 conservatives. What could go wrong there? The motion for injunction by the way was proposed by the Governor/State legal team. It is in injunction to use the AG's letter so they can try to worm their way around calling it vauge and have it stay in force - and possibly move it all to the State Supreme.

So nothing positive in the case so far.

How is the 10th Circuit Court in regards to 2A?

[muddywings]

Via Maketa's facebook thingy that my wife made me sign up for:

https://www.facebook.com/maketaforsheriff/posts/10151413536586106

Sheriff Terry Maketa (https://www.facebook.com/maketaforsheriff?ref=stream)
I want to thank so many of you for your kind words and incredible support these last three weeks. I'm so humbled and honored to serve this community. As you can imagine, I have been very busy.

I wanted to take a moment and give a brief update on the Sheriff's lawsuit. A status conference with the Judge was held on June 17th, which I was not able to attend, but was briefed on the outcome. As expected, nothing of substance occurred but I found it interesting that the attorneys for the state requested more time to gain a better understanding of the function of magazines as it relates to the removable baseplate provision in the magazine ban law. One would think they could have used the previous several weeks to educated themselves on this law as it relates to high capacity magazines and removable baseplate. Another thought that crossed my mind, is if they don't understand it, and they represent the Governor, how are citizens supposed to understand and comply with these vague, thoughtless laws. By the way, that is a key point we are using to challenge these laws and let me state these new laws actually have very little law enforcement support. I was advised by a Sheriff in attendance, this appeared to be a stall tactic by counsel of the Attorney Generals Office (AG).

The next surprise came a few days later, when I was advised the AG's Office was attempting to have the Sheriffs removed from the lawsuit claiming we have no legal standing. I guess in their mind the oath to support the Constitution of Colorado, and the Constitution of the United States only applies when it serves criminals. Our lawyer filed a 20+ page brief justifying and defending our legal standing on this lawsuit and the Ag's Office backed off that request but we expect to see it again. My feeling is that I have an obligation to defend the rights and freedoms of my constituents as well as bring forward the voice of those I represent. Im sure to the "other side" the term representative government has a completely different meaning and by all indications it appears the attorneys with the AG's Office forgot that concept. They clearly do not recognize they serve the people of Colorado. There is also no doubt this approach was their attempt at a divide and conquer tactic.

The next hearing is set for July 10th and I am scheduled to testify. The hearing is focused on gaining an injunction to delay the implementation of these new laws until the court has had the opportunity to hear the case. We requested the date be moved up prior to July 1st and that request was not accepted. We would prefer to have the injunction implemented prior to July 1st, so law abiding citizens are not subjected to unjust harmful criminal actions, but we could not convince the Court to accept our request. I will do my best to keep you posted in a timely manner as we move forward with the legal proceedings.

I would like to explain some more examples of how bad these laws are and how they impact law abiding citizens in a very negative way. The Black Forrest Fire was another reminder of examples I used to define just how poorly thought out these laws are. Like the Waldo Canyon Fire numerous people lost their home, memories and every possession they acquired over a lifetime. Actually 511 homes were lost. Included in that list of losses are firearms of all types. Sadly, the people victimized by the fire will be victimized again by our own Colorado Government. These people that lost so much and through no fault of their own lost personal firearms in this fire. They also lost the high capacity magazines that went to those firearms. Sadly enough, it is doubtful they will be able to replace those magazines prior to July 1st and I'm sure finding a temporary home is a higher priority than scouring the state for the magazines they lost to fire. Not to mention the supply and demand issues that has been created by our reckless agenda driven legislative majority leadership. These fire survivors may have even had insurance specifically for their collection, but its likely most of them will not reach settlement with their insurance company in time to legally replace those magazines which they legally possessed prior to the fire. That is truly an injustice and speaks to the criminalization of law abiding citizens or depriving them of access to their lawful property. Its unthinkable some of these people paid for insurance to protect their investments and because July 1st is upon us they will not be able to lawfully replace that property they had insured. The fire was such a tragedy and compounding the loss many felt, these survivors will be victimized again only this time by the elected officials that supported and passed these ineffective illegal laws.

Another realistic scenario that will negatively impact law abiding citizens that lost their homes are those that were able to remove their valuables and their firearms and are now storing them at the residence of a friend. I know for a fact there are people in this exact situation. What they do not realize is that after July 1st, they will need to get a background check on their friend after 72 hours and every 30 days thereafter, or their friend may be required to get a background check on the victim of the fire before he return the weapons to the original owner, since there is not firearm registration determining ownership as of July 1st. Furthermore, if a high capacity magazine exists with those weapons being stored by the friend, then the friend storing the magazine would technically being in violation of the magazine ban if he returns it to the rightful owner, the fire victim, because of the continuous possession clause in the law. The law prevents any transfer of a magazine holding more than 15 rounds, not only does this affect high capacity magazine but even those magazines that that are less than 15 rounds but have a removable baseplate and can be converted to a higher capacity. This is a gross injustice to the victims of the fire.

Since magazines do not have a serial number or other unique identifier then ownership can not be clearly proven, which by the way is why the Sheriffs have said this law is unenforceable and even the Governor that sighed the law recognizes that fact. I believe this is why so many people think these laws are intended to set the foundation for gun registration which I promise I will adamantly oppose.

We need to continue to be vocal on this issue and make sure we hold those accountable for eroding our rights and freedoms. Elections have consequences and we need to make sure those we elect are held accountable. Do not forget that Governor Hickenlooper boasted that he wasn't worried about his re-election as a result of his support of these gun grabbing laws because he said the 2nd amendment people are a small group of people that will have no bearing on his re-election. I think he is grossly under-estimating the will of the people and their disgust at the erosion of their Rights. This isn't just about the 2nd Amendment, its about the continuous tampering and attacks of all our rights and freedoms.

Remember, Hickenlooper has aligned and showed his loyalty to the the leaders that allowed the IRS to abuse their authority to interfere and tamper with people belonging to conservative groups. On a side note, there really will never be any true accountability of those people that did abuse their authority. Our Governor has aligned himself and is owned by an administration that abandoned American citizens in Benghazi, used the Department of Justice to spy and violate the privacy rights of law abiding Americans through phone and email records. They can not be trusted and he clearly proved he should not be. Biden and Bloomberg own him and he has betrayed us Coloradans for political favors.

We should all demand the Governor grant pardons to our citizens negatively impacted by disasters and trying to replace the property they lost. Demand he show compassion and common sense. He can call his mentors in New York and D.C. for advice on how to side step the laws he created. After all, he came to the defense of a convicted murderer dismissing the legal decision of a lawful jury, so he should find it easier to come to the defense of those victimized by this recent disaster in our community and any other community that suffers a similar loss.

If you know of people impacted the Black Forrest Fire in ways similar to what I described above and they are willing to speak to me please have them contact me. Their situations and circumstances are powerful examples and can aid in protecting our rights and theirs.

I will not give up or let up on this fight. It is far too important and we owe it to the next generation to allow them to experience the same rights and freedoms we have enjoyed.

[sniper7]

I need to send the sheriffs another thank you for their hard work.

[Great-Kazoo]

I need to send the sheriffs another thank you for their hard work.

Don't forget to thank him for writing a legible properly spaced and punctuated letter. However i think he spelled dickhead governor wrong;)

[Hummer]

A constitutional perspective on high-capacity magazines


By Dan Rubinstein Guest Columnist (http://www.gjsentinel.com/S=59c68070c82fa8b1d863c4ac0d9af0baa3bf24b8/staff/detail/98/)

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel
Sunday, June 30, 2013


The ban on high-capacity gun magazines, adopted by the Colorado Legislature this year and signed into law by the governor, faces some serious constitutional challenges.

Only time will tell if the nine minds whose opinion matters most — the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court — will agree with me, but from my seat it seems pretty clear the ban on high-capacity magazines is not “actually necessary” to the problem in need of solving and should be struck down.

It takes some background on the court and the Constitution to explain how I arrived at that conclusion.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court found that the individual right to bear arms existed through the Second Amendment, but the court declined to adopt a standard to apply to determine when legislation that restricts that amendment violates the Constitution.

There are different levels of scrutiny the court uses to test a law’s constitutionality. The highest level is known as strict scrutiny. Under this standard, the government entity must demonstrate that the law or policy in question is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. It must also show that it’s narrowly tailored to achieve the intended goal.

The majority in the Heller decision expressly rejected the lowest level of scrutiny. But the justices failed to decide whether the rights under the Second Amendment could be limited only when satisfying strict scrutiny or a lesser standard.

As enticing as it is to gun owners, I will concede that adopting strict scrutiny would create a litigation nightmare involving re-addressing every version of weapons restrictions (switchblades, blackjacks, sawed-off shotguns, possession in airports, courthouses and, well ... you get the point). That said, it may well be the right thing to do.

We limit constitutional rights to free speech in a variety of ways. Time, place and manner restrictions are acceptable under lesser scrutiny standards if they are content-neutral, are designed to serve a substantial governmental interest and do not unreasonably limit other means of communication. For example, we do things such as requiring permits to march down Main Street in protest.

However, if the government is going to regulate the content of the speech, it is subject to strict scrutiny. This is a very difficult burden for the government to overcome and restrictions usually fail. In the affirmative action case out of Texas last week, the court said that “the reviewing court must “ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.” That’s right, it said no workable alternatives can exist that produce the same result.
Turning now to Colorado’s recent gun legislation, the court will have to decide if the ban on magazines that exceed 15 rounds fails the applicable test.

Given that the Supreme Court has not decided whether to apply strict scrutiny, this case may pave the way for such a decision that affects both our state and future federal legislation. In the interim, it will be up to the seven justices on the Colorado Supreme Court to give their best guess as to the direction we are headed on the Second Amendment.

A few cases are telling in that regard. First, if the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately adopts the strict scrutiny test, we are almost certain to place 30-round magazines happily back in the hands of our citizens, based on other cases.

In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the California Legislature sought to ban violent video games. The ban was struck down when the court stated that California failed to do what they were required because “[t]he State must specifically identify an ‘actual problem’ in need of solving, and the curtailment of free speech must be actually necessary to the solution.” The court rejected California’s assertion that it should be able to “make a predictive judgment that such a link exists.”

This strikes me as remarkably similar to Colorado’s ban on magazines larger than 15 rounds. There has been no identified connection between the ban on the magazines and a decrease in violence or deaths. The Legislature seemed to be making a predictive judgment that this would solve the problem.

Even if the Supreme Court ultimately adopts the lesser scrutiny standard, intermediate scrutiny, for the Second Amendment, the law “must serve an important governmental objective, and the means employed must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.”

I listened to much of legislative debate on the bill to ban high-capacity magazines, and it was clear that the testimony was devoid of any relationship between the legislation enacted and the objective sought to be achieved.

That makes it highly unlikely, to my mind, that the law will be upheld.


Dan Rubinstein is chief deputy disrict attorney for the 21st Judicial District, encompassing Mesa County.

[Hummer]

Hickenlooper continues to show 
his disdain for rural Coloradans By Rep. Ray Scott Guest Columnist (http://www.gjsentinel.com/S=59c68070c82fa8b1d863c4ac0d9af0baa3bf24b8/staff/detail/98/)

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel
Sunday, June 23, 2013



It is no secret that I have not harbored a tremendous amount of faith in Gov. John Hickenlooper over the years. But I had chosen to believe that he had come a long way from his infamous remarks in 2010 about rural Coloradans displaying “backward thinking,” that he really did understand, to some extent at least, the culture, heritage and economy of Colorado beyond the Denver city limits.


Sadly, this past legislative session has shown that this particular leopard hasn’t changed his spots. The governor has proved, over and over again, his callous disregard for the concerns of rural Coloradans.


The anti-gun bills, which the governor pushed through the Legislature and signed without a moment’s hesitation, were only part of a directed assault on our rural lifestyle, traditions and rights. And for what? Not a single one would have done anything to prevent either of the tragedies Democrats used as an excuse to push a long-restrained gun-control agenda.
Evidently we have a governor who cares more about the thoughts and opinions of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg than he does about the citizens of his own state.


He didn’t stop there, of course.


Hickenlooper had an opportunity to protect rural Coloradans from the devastating economic effects of arbitrary and politically motivated mandates being placed on electrical generation. Instead, he again displayed the contempt he has for “backward thinking” rural Americans and signed into law Senate Bill 252, which imposes an unrealistic, unworkable and unnecessary mandate on rural electric associations to get 20 percent of their electricity from so-called “renewable” sources by 2020.


The governor knows it is not feasible for our rural electric cooperatives to meet this unfunded mandate in such a short period of time. He knows that 21st century coal generation is clean and supports the economic backbone of thousands of rural western Coloradans. He knows that coal, natural gas and nuclear power can generate electricity cleanly, more reliably and much more inexpensively than solar and wind power. And yet, with the stroke of a pen, he disregarded all of this and made a conscious decision to throw rural Colorado under the bus for politically calculated reasons.


Hickenlooper has done some good work in generally supporting responsible oil and gas development. He was a geologist, after all, and for him to oppose hydraulic fracturing would be like a cardiologist opposing bypass surgery or low-cholesterol diets. But what is becoming clear is that, in order to placate the extremists whose votes he depends on, he will willingly sell out rural Colorado by supporting ridiculous, expensive and devastating measures like SB252.


His indifference to the hinterlands of Colorado is also shown with his increasing unwillingness to stand up and protect the rural parts of the state from overbearing federal intervention. Western Colorado’s economy has been struggling ever since it received the vicious triple punch of the previous governor’s overly restrictive oil and gas regulations being inflicted precisely when natural gas prices fell and the Great Recession took hold in Colorado.


The Western Slope has not recovered from the devastating job losses, and when an opportunity arose to bring some of those jobs and some economic hope back to this hard-hit region, the governor chose to side with U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet and the well-financed environmental lobby against the people of western Colorado by opposing the development of natural gas resources in the Thompson Divide.


Additionally, he has been deafeningly silent on the Roan Plateau issue, despite what could be devastating financial repercussions in the event that oil and gas leases in that area are withdrawn due to BLM over-reaction to a court decision.
Hickenlooper has displayed a clear record of contempt for the people of his state who live and work outside the major urban centers. And, if the best he can do is to throw a bone in the form of an expensive school-finance reform bill, that just shows he still does not get it. Rural Coloradans don’t want leveling, in the form of government largesse. They want opportunity.


Most of all, they want a governor who will listen to them, not dismiss them as “backward” and place the wishes of Michael Bloomberg before theirs.


State Rep. Ray Scott is a Republican from Grand Junction.

[asmo]

A constitutional perspective on high-capacity magazines
Dan Rubinstein is chief deputy disrict attorney for the 21st Judicial District, encompassing Mesa County.

This guy fails to understand that all the courts have upheld magazine limits - and have specifically stated that intermediate, let alone strict, scrutiny doesnt even apply.

[Bitter Clinger]

I don't see this going anywhere guys. Liberal judge most likely. However if these laws stand I see NO REASON why a law can't be introduced and passed to pay $10 to vote.

[USAFGopherMike]

Would it be illegal to load up Chickenpooper's and all his minion's mailboxes with GTFO of CO requests/demands?

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

This guy fails to understand that all the courts have upheld magazine limits - and have specifically stated that intermediate, let alone strict, scrutiny doesnt even apply.
Yep, that's my biggest fear as well. My only hope with this is just how poorly it was written having nothing to do with the limits and everything to do with the transfers, the dating, the grandfathering, the "readily convertible," the "continuous possession," the enforcement problems, etc, etc, etc.

[Uberjager]

Any updates on this?

[zulu01]

Received an email from RMGO today stating they are filing a lawsuit against the 2 gun laws. Are they not involved with the Sheriff's lawsuit? Did Dudley not get invited to the big dance so he's starting his own? Seems counterproductive on RMGO's part.

[davsel]

Seems counterproductive on RMGO's part.

That is RMGO's MO

[lowbeyond]

yea.. um why wouldn't they just give $ to the current suit..

[Rabid]

Did it look something like this:

Dear zulu1,


We did not support the recall and thought it was a foolish idea until average people did all the work and it looked like John Morse was a goner. At that moment we produced a T.V. commercial mainly just to get our name out there. After it was all said and done we claimed the victory as our own and sent out pictures of tombstones with our logo at the bottom.


Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money


We are going to start a lawsuit even though one has already been made. No this is not our own idea but we will make you think it is.


Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money


We will win you your freedoms back or at least Dave Kopel and the Colorado Sheriff's will and we will take credit for it.


Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money


We are more flippy floppy then Hickenlooper is on his worst of days but we want to say we are no compromise pro gun advocates.


Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money


We will list the laws because you stupid people do not already know what they are and if you did you have the brain span of a gold fish.


Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money


It very hard to get legislators in office that do not know when to shut up about fired chicken but we have done it and done well at it.


Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money


After all of this i have not given you any real meat to chew on about our plan for the law suit. This is because it is amateur hour at the Apollo all day long at the RMGO HQ.


Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money


Remember i am the almighty leader of the pro-gun agenda in Colorado and do my best to make us look relevant


For my bank account, oops, for your freedom,

Shit Stain Brown


Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money

Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money

Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money

Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money

Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money

[davsel]

[ROFL3]

Perfect!

[brutal]

I LOL' - a lot.

[zulu01]

Nice recap! You nailed it. I really need to unsubscribe from the RMGO emails. This is the first one I have actually opened in awhile and it didn't disappoint in its stupidity.


Did it look something like this:

Dear zulu1,


We did not support the recall and thought it was a foolish idea until average people did all the work and it looked like John Morse was a goner. At that moment we produced a T.V. commercial mainly just to get our name out there. After it was all said and done we claimed the victory as our own and sent out pictures of tombstones with our logo at the bottom.


Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money


We are going to start a lawsuit even though one has already been made. No this is not our own idea but we will make you think it is.


Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money


We will win you your freedoms back or at least Dave Kopel and the Colorado Sheriff's will and we will take credit for it.


Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money


We are more flippy floppy then Hickenlooper is on his worst of days but we want to say we are no compromise pro gun advocates.


Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money


We will list the laws because you stupid people do not already know what they are and if you did you have the brain span of a gold fish.


Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money


It very hard to get legislators in office that do not know when to shut up about fired chicken but we have done it and done well at it.


Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money


After all of this i have not given you any real meat to chew on about our plan for the law suit. This is because it is amateur hour at the Apollo all day long at the RMGO HQ.


Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money


Remember i am the almighty leader of the pro-gun agenda in Colorado and do my best to make us look relevant


For my bank account, oops, for your freedom,

Shit Stain Brown


Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money

Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money

Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money

Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money

Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money Give me money

[sellersm]

Rabid, that's hilarious but sadly it's also fairly accurate!

[spqrzilla]

That was a dead-on parody of RMGO.

[BPTactical]

I giggle.

[Gman]

I think I giggle-snorted reading that.

[Bailey Guns]

I'm still giggling. Nice work, rabid.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

I got banned for that.

Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.

[Bailey Guns]

^^ For giggling?

[brutal]

For ripping Dudley a new one AFAIK.

[Rabid]

I got banned for that.

Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
You were working on a pointed argument when the rest of us were circling when we smelled blood in the water. No one blames you for getting banned while going in for the kill (well i guess someone must have). This however is satire. Thanks for the kind words guys, glad i got a giggle-snort out of it because i know i did when i was writing it.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

You were working on a pointed argument when the rest of us were circling when we smelled blood in the water. No one blames you for getting banned while going in for the kill (well i guess someone must have). This however is satire. Thanks for the kind words guys, glad i got a giggle-snort out of it because i know i did when i was writing it.

I thought your post was awesome. I

Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.

[HoneyBadger]

Update on the lawsuit:



The Historic Colorado Sheriff's Gun Law Suit is Moving Ahead with Steam!


The trial date is finally arriving and our team of attorneys is excited and so are we Sheriffs and fellow plaintiffs. The trial, scheduled to last approximately 10 days, will begin March 31st. We are very excited that the governor's attempt to delay the trial until "late fall" failed. I wonder why he wanted to push the trial back to possibly after the general election? Regardless, our team of attorneys is doing an amazing job and working long hours. I want everyone to know the Colorado Sheriffs are still very engaged in this law suit to overturn 13-1224, the magazine ban/continuous possession law and 13-1229, the unreasonable over reaching background check laws, which have now shown to be totally and completely ineffective and still lack legal clarity. I am scheduled to testify early in the trial and as I said from day one, I will not waiver or back down. I said I would support the Constitutional Rights of my electors and my actions demonstrate that commitment. We have come a long way and we will see this to the end, as I have promised. Our team believes we will experience historic success with some recent developments, but I cannot go into those details. Additionally, as we have said all along, we are already preparing to take this to the Tenth Circuit of Appeals and beyond if necessary.


Even the California Courts, which are known to be very liberal, are seeing the light. There was a very good development in California recently. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a powerful opinion in favor of the right to carry. California law requires that a carry license applicant have “good cause.” Some California local governments interpreted “good cause” in a fair manner—so that exercising the constitutional right of self-defense was considered “good cause.” But in San Diego, and most of the other large cities, “good cause” was interpreted to mean “there must be a specific, identifiable threat.”


The Ninth Circuit ruled that law-abiding Americans have a right to carry, so San Diego can’t create a rule which makes a handgun carry permit impossible for 99% of Americans. There is a lot of good language in the Ninth Circuit case which will help in our case. If you want to read more about the case, our attorney, David Kopel wrote an awesome opinion for the Washington Post:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-strikes-californias-restrictive-rule-against-licensed-carry-of-handguns/


It was a little over a year ago, the Colorado Legislature rammed gun control agendas through the law making process and shut out citizens' input and ignored their rights. The media stood by the Legislature, and has to this very day. Through the hard work of citizens three of those tyrants are no longer in elected positions and their leader is now working for a "Bloombergish" organization that exists to methodically take away your rights. We can not afford to become apathetic and must stay focused on the future. Again we owe it to future generations, and the eyes of the nation are on Colorado. If we fail, other states will fall victim to these same tactics.


I want to extend a sincere and heartfelt thank you to all of you for your unwavering support over the last year. We have worked hard and traveled the state to educate citizens and raise funding for this effort. Your support has kept those of us on the front line confident, strong and motivated.


IN CLOSING:
Following this trial, we need to focus on electing those that will remember who elected them. Many of the Sheriffs engaged in this law suit will be leaving office under term limits in January. Make sure you elect those that will continue our effort and stand strong for you and your rights. Furthermore, make sure you support those Sheriffs seeking other positions like Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County for Colorado State Senate, Sheriff Dave Weaver for Douglas County Commissioner and those they support to be their successors. Stand by those Sheriffs that are up for re-election like my good friend Sheriff Mike Ensminger in Teller County, Sheriff Jim Beicker in Fremont County and the many others around the State. In El Paso County, support the person I have endorsed as my successor, who is also my predecessor, Sheriff John Anderson.

[Bailey Guns]

Trial starts (or started) today. Scheduled for 2 weeks.

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20140331/NEWS11/303310056/Colorado-sheriffs-gun-lawsuit-goes-trial

[Zundfolge]

Well I can kiss my fingernails goodbye for the next few weeks.

[Blowby]

Looks like we're screwed. Female = emotional decision.
Link (http://www.colorado.edu/law/content/marcia-krieger-79)


After graduating from Arapahoe High School in Littleton, Krieger headed to Oregon, where she pursued a degree in international relations at Lewis and Clark College and graduated in just three years. She then attended the Ludwig Maximillian Planck Institute at the University of Munich, where she studied German law for a year as a graduate fellow. At the end of her graduate studies, Krieger returned to Colorado and enrolled at Colorado Law, earning her JD in 1979.

Off to the showers boy's.

[Great-Kazoo]

Looks like we're screwed. Female = emotional decision.
Link (http://www.colorado.edu/law/content/marcia-krieger-79)



Off to the showers boy's.

Not sure if it will be an emotional as much a political one.

[Blowby]

Anything from the D political side is always turned into an emotional debate, turned over to media as an emotional calling to save the .....(insert the victim: children, minorities, women, gays, whales) and then voted on without the reflection of the people.

[cofi]

So if they won these dumb laws get repealed?

[merl]

So if they won these dumb laws get repealed?

For varying degrees of win, yes.

[KAPA]

Ha, with that Judge, we will be lucky if she doesn't somehow ban all firearms by the time this trial is over. Hell, half us are about to be packed up on trains and sent somewhere for the greater good.

Unless this trial gets held outside of the 470 (broken) beltway, you can forget about this going our way.

[funkymonkey1111]

Rich Wyatt quoted in NPR article about trial:

http://www.npr.org/2014/03/31/295823883/amid-pushback-colorado-gun-control-measure-goes-on-trial?utm_content=buffer6a6b9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Irving]

I heard that this morning. X-ray vision? Shut the hell up Rich.

[kidicarus13]

In the blink of an eye, he dropped out a clip from his gun and seamlessly pulled another from his belt and loaded it. It's clear he's practiced this.
"I did it in slow motion so you could see it," Wyatt says. "If I did it at full speed, you'd have to have X-ray vision eyes to be able to tell."

Hey Rich, turn in your Alma Marshal's badge already.

[Justin]

Fwiw, the judge was appointed by Dubya, so that could be a good sign.

[The Rat]

Does anyone have any intel on this judge's track record?

[SvenJorgensen]

Looks like we're screwed. Female = emotional decision.

That bio does seem to be fluffy, but it is from also from a CU-Boulder webpage. I'm surprised there wasn't an advertisement for cloth diapers and organic granola in there somewhere.

Despite that biography, I'm not so sure she's going to rule emotionally... I dug a little and it seems that she has a reputation for pissing people off (http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=293#comments)by ruling Republican. Link. (http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=293#comments)
She recently stalled on a case regarding the the recreational marijuana industry claiming that advertising regulations violate their first amendment rights. Link (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2014/02/marijuana_advertising_lawsuit_injunction_rejected. php)
She also "owns and is proficient in the use of firearms." (I'm not sure how much that matters, but it's something.) Link. (http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/05/22/gun-owner-among-judges-hearing-colorado-gun-lawsuit/)
She was nominated by Bush (like every other District judge during his term), which could be a good thing. Per usual, the vote senate vote passed unanimously. Link (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00004)

I'm sure there is more, and certainly better, information out there, but it does seem that the situation could be worse. She slowed this case last year because she objected to a "group" of people (Colorado Sheriffs) filing a lawsuit, but it may be possible that this was calculated and in the best interest of the case. If she thought there was validity to this lawsuit she would want all of its ducks in a row before proceeding.

[Great-Kazoo]

Colin Powell was selected by Bush, look how that turned out.

[SvenJorgensen]

Does anyone have any intel on this judge's track record?

I second this. I found financial statements, but not a consolidated list of cases/rulings.

Her calender lists all of the Plaintiffs in this case. It's quite long... Link to PDF: https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Documents/Judges/Calendars/2014-03-31/msk.pdf

If you have access to PACER, you should be able to filter cases by who presided. Link (http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/CourtOperations/PACER.aspx)

[SvenJorgensen]

Colin Powell was selected by Bush, look how that turned out.

He was pretty effective at getting the WMD message across. Politics.

[Ronin13]

Sorry for his loss, but Tom Sullivan is a fool if he thinks that a law will stop bad things from happening. Isn't meth illegal? How does that still ruin people's lives? It's illegal for crying out loud! If he really wanted to prevent something bad from happening he would work to overturn Century theaters' CCW policy.

[Irving]

Is Sullivan the father of one of the people killed at the theater? If so, I heard him talking about a 100 round magazine and how his son never had a chance. He didn't seem to mention what kind of bullet actually took his son's life, as I'm under the impression that the big mag jammed after only three rounds fired.

[merl]

Is Sullivan the father of one of the people killed at the theater? If so, I heard him talking about a 100 round magazine and how his son never had a chance. He didn't seem to mention what kind of bullet actually took his son's life, as I'm under the impression that the big mag jammed after only three rounds fired.

Thats my understanding as well. He would have been better off with hunting legal 5 rounders

[Irving]

I can certainly understand Mr Sullivan's emotions over this issue as he lost his son, but that does not give him a pass to go around spreading lies and not providing facts.

[Justin]

I've yet to find a decent breakdown of the events during the Aurora theater shooting.

[Robb]

keeping my fingers crossed. If someone could keep this thread updated for those of us who can't stream this from work, that would be fantastic.

[UrbanWolf]

I've yet to find a decent breakdown of the events during the Aurora theater shooting.

+1 Why would they tell the truth?

[SvenJorgensen]

Is Sullivan the father of one of the people killed at the theater? If so, I heard him talking about a 100 round magazine and how his son never had a chance. He didn't seem to mention what kind of bullet actually took his son's life, as I'm under the impression that the big mag jammed after only three rounds fired.

Sullivan's emotional crusade is misguided. In reality it does nothing to prevent "bad guys" from killing more innocent people. What it does do is give the Left and emotional, anti-gun platform to run with. It gives politicians and the news something to jabber about... Votes get collected and rating go up, but nothing is actually done to fix the "bad guy" problem. Instead, law abiding citizens are either oppressed or made criminals by arbitrary legislation while the "bad guys" continue to skirt the law.

Why were Morse and Giron recalled again? Oh, because their politics did not accurately represent the needs of their constituents. It's horrible what happened to Sullivan's son, but this issue has become more of a political tool than a sensible discussion on what is best for the community. What's worse is that the money and effort being exhausted to overturn this legislation quite frankly could be put to better use, but we have no other choice.

[TFOGGER]

+1 Why would they tell the truth?

Shitsack's Betamag jammed a few rounds in. Most of those shot were with a shotgun, but that doesn't fit with the agenda.

[Rucker61]

Shitsack's Betamag jammed a few rounds in. Most of those shot were with a shotgun, but that doesn't fit with the agenda.

I've read varying accounts of between 30-40 rounds, and that three empty Glock mags were found on the theatre floor. In any case, more .40 rounds were fired than 5.56mm rounds were.

[Ronin13]

I've read varying accounts of between 30-40 rounds, and that three empty Glock mags were found on the theatre floor. In any case, more .40 rounds were fired than 5.56mm rounds were.
It really shouldn't matter though. Whether it's 5 rounds or 50, besides how many people are shot, what difference would that make? The moment the first round is fired everyone will flee or panic, or freeze, or what have you... I haven't heard many stories of shootings going on and then when the shooter reloads he gets tackled. Evil men are intent on evil deeds, regardless of the tools given. It's not like 5 10-round magazines are less destructive than 1 50-round magazine. It's again, blaming an object for a PERSON and their actions.

[Irving]

It'd be nice to know how many times Mr. Sullivan's son was hit. If it was only one time, then he really has no ground to stand on. He said that his son had no chance and one second he was alive and the next he was gone. Unfortunately, no one has much of a chance when they take a round from a rifle, regardless of the number of rounds in the magazine. I hope Mr. Sullivan can at some point find some peace in his life, and not continue to take his misguided grief out on others.

[Gman]

The theater had a no guns policy. In other words, it was a free kill zone for those that don't follow laws (a.k.a. criminals). The end.

[brutal]

The theater had a no guns policy. In other words, it was a free kill zone for those that don't follow laws (a.k.a. criminals). The end.

Get out of here with your logic and reason. It has no place in this emotional debate.

[.455_Hunter]

The theater had a no guns policy. In other words, it was a free kill zone for those that don't follow laws (a.k.a. criminals). The end.

Unfortunately, most people don't realize that they can ignore those stupid little no gun signs WITHOUT being a criminal...

[KAPA]

Unfortunately, most people don't realize that they can ignore those stupid little no gun signs WITHOUT being a criminal...

Isn't this covered in any CHP class? I know in mine they covered it. Now if the business sees you with it they can ask you to leave and you must comply or risk being arrested for trespassing.

[KAPA]

So, any updates on the trial? I know they wont allow recording devices but someone had to be in attendance that can type?

[.455_Hunter]

Now if the business sees you with it they can ask you to leave and you must comply or risk being arrested for trespassing.

Yup- Concealed is concealed. No different than ignoring the "No outside food" rule and bringing in your own box of Milk Duds in your wife's purse.

[funkymonkey1111]

Yup- Concealed is concealed. No different than ignoring the "No outside food" rule and bringing in your own box of Milk Duds in your wife's purse.

they should change the sign: "no outside means of personal protection allowed"

[Zundfolge]

they should change the sign: "no outside means of personal protection allowed"

The truth is all "no ccw" signs/policies are politically motivated (and I firmly believe anyone that tells you otherwise is outright lying).

The signs really mean "No Conservatives Allowed".

[Robb]

The truth is all "no ccw" signs/policies are politically motivated (and I firmly believe anyone that tells you otherwise is outright lying).
The signs really mean "No Conservatives Allowed".

I never thought of it this way. However from this point forward when I see a No CCW sign that's exactly how I'll read it.

[Robb]

Any news on the proceedings? I haven't heard anything, can someone tell me how things are progressing?

[Irving]

The truth is all "no ccw" signs/policies are politically motivated (and I firmly believe anyone that tells you otherwise is outright lying).

The signs really mean "No Conservatives Allowed".

Disagree. Sit through a few meetings about liability of an accident and your frame of reference will shift, especially when it comes to a business.

[asmo]

Disagree. Sit through a few meetings about liability of an accident and your frame of reference will switch, especially when it comes to a business.

This.. with a close family member that does HR and liability policy for living, their whole thing is how to remove liability in any way they can. If there was ever a shooting, they can point to their dumb little sign and say "See.. We did what we thought was reasonable.."

[rbeau30]

Those menacing signs with pictures of knives and guns all over them, I get so scared seeing those at entrances to places that I will not even go in the establishment.

[HoneyBadger]

This.. with a close family member that does HR and liability policy for living, their whole thing is how to remove liability in any way they can. If there was ever a shooting, they can point to their dumb little sign and say "See.. We did what we thought was reasonable.."

This is a question for you and Irving (If either of you know):
Would a sign like this help or hurt your liability as a business owner?
43145

[Zundfolge]

Disagree. Sit through a few meetings about liability of an accident and your frame of reference will shift, especially when it comes to a business.

I don't buy that. There has never been a single business that has been sued because they didn't ban CCW on their premises.

Sure, "liability" is the bullshit excuse given (and I'm willing to concede that some business owners may be duped by these claims), but all these signs are solely political statements against gun owners, pure and simple.

[davsel]

+1

[spqrzilla]

I don't buy that. There has never been a single business that has been sued because they didn't ban CCW on their premises.

Sure, "liability" is the bullshit excuse given (and I'm willing to concede that some business owners may be duped by these claims), but all these signs are solely political statements against gun owners, pure and simple.

Regardless of whether you "buy it" or not. Its the reality. And it matters little whether or not someone has been sued for failing to ban CCW on their premises (because there are large numbers of analogous lawsuits ) but what someone's insurance company requires.

[davsel]

How does someone file/win a lawsuit against a business who follows state law (CCW)?
Not buying it.

[KAPA]

Regardless of whether you "buy it" or not. Its the reality. And it matters little whether or not someone has been sued for failing to ban CCW on their premises (because there are large numbers of analogous lawsuits ) but what someone's insurance company requires.


The sign means nothing. Unless there is a metal detector or physical search of some sorts the, sign means nothing to a citizen obeying the laws and carrying a firearm concealed.

[davsel]

Regardless of whether you "buy it" or not. Its the reality. And it matters little whether or not someone has been sued for failing to ban CCW on their premises (because there are large numbers of analogous lawsuits ) but what someone's insurance company requires.

I'm still looking for a Colorado liability statement, but here's one from Wisconsin:

http://wolfriverccw.com/?page_id=195

Businesses that do NOT post can’t be held liable for incidents that happen with permit holders. Click here to read it for yourself or read below.

Civil Liability
Wisconsin’s concealed carry law does not exempt individual license holders from civil liability for their actions. You could be sued and found liable for property damage, injury, or deaths caused by your actions.
The only liability protection provided by Wisconsin statute is for the following actors: (footnote 29)
• A person who does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from his or her decision.
• An employer who does not prohibit one or more employees from carrying a concealed weapon is immune from any liability arising from that decision.
• A person providing a firearms training course in good faith is immune from liability from any act or omission related to the course if the course is one of the courses listed in statute.
Wis. Stat. § 895.62 also affects liability in certain situations, and is shown in Appendix F.
However, even with these statutory provisions, there may be circumstances where the actors described may be exposed to liability. A discussion of such situations is beyond the scope of this course.
29 Wis. Stat. § 175.60(21)(b)-(d).

There are two reasons why no business or person should post such signs at their restaurant, bar or workplace, including such places as a hospital:

1. When someone sees the “no guns” or “no weapons” sign, there is a reasonable expectation of safety (if you make the absurd assumption that anyone obeys this sign, including crazed killers or those criminals intent on homicide, robbery, etc.) A person bringing his or her family to a restaurant with such a sign could argue that they assumed they would be safe. If a crime then occurs that leaves that person or a member of his family injured or killed, clearly there is no state statute protecting the business from being sued. But if the business does NOT post this sign, there is a state statute protecting the business from a lawsuit.

2. When a person carrying concealed sees such a sign and then returns to his car to leave his handgun behind because of that sign, if this person (or someone else who might be protected by this person) is then injured or killed, clearly he or she has the right to sue, arguing that the sign forced him or her to return his handgun to the car to comply with the sign and the law, thereby leaving him unprotected and vulnerable to attack. State statute would support his lawsuit as shown above.

The Tavern League of Wisconsin has advised its members of this same liability to posting bars and restaurants with “no guns” signs. Click here for the link.

[Irving]

This is a question for you and Irving (If either of you know):
Would a sign like this help or hurt your liability as a business owner?
43145

It would likely hurt you, but I'll have to Address from home when I can dig around and look for proper terms. In the mean time, it doesn't matter if anyone has been sued or not before, and that would in no way be a defense.

[68Charger]

It would likely hurt you, but I'll have to Address from home when I can dig around and look for proper terms. In the mean time, it doesn't matter if anyone has been sued or not before, and that would in no way be a defense.

It's called precedent... if it hasn't been successful in the past, there would have to be something significantly different for it to be successful in the future.

I don't know of any attempts off the top of my head, but I'm no lawyer, either.

[Irving]

He said no one has been sued, didn't mention of they were successful or not. If a lawsuit is lost and a court decision made based on that, that's one thing. If it just hasn't happened before, that's different.

[Zundfolge]

Regardless of whether you "buy it" or not. Its the reality. And it matters little whether or not someone has been sued for failing to ban CCW on their premises (because there are large numbers of analogous lawsuits ) but what someone's insurance company requires.
Name for me one insurance company that requires "No CCW" signs/policies in order to insure a business against liability?

I remember when Kansas passed their CCW law soon after I moved here and I kept abreast of the goings on there via the KS CCW forum. In Kansas a business can post No CCW and if they use the proper state approved sign, it carries legal weight. Several landlords at strip malls started going around to their tenants claiming that "the insurance company says you have to post no CCW" and every case was a lie told by an anti-gun libtard landlord.

Again, there's people that will tell you that they must post for liability reasons but those reasons are a lie to justify political bigotry.
[George Zimmer]I guarantee it.[/George Zimmer]

[Irving]

I don't know of any companies that require signs posted, but that is not the sector of insurance in which I work. Even if the underwriter offers a discount on rates for signage, or if a loss control person suggests signs, people will still say "required by insurance."

I am just as eager as you, Zund, to believe that the world is full of freedom hating assholes. However, after you sit through a few liability round tables, you'll see that the discussion usually completely transcends politics or political leanings, as simple opinion and perceptions of people have literally no room within the conversation. It's all about classes of involved parties, specific locations of events, reasonable expectations of property owners, which risks/threats were known, which risks/threats should have been known about, legal requirements, etc.

[Eric P]

Lets get this back on track. Any word on the proceedings?

[Irving]

Lets get this back on track. Any word on the proceedings?

Agreed.

[Justin]

It looks like the court sessions will wrap up by Wednesday.

Evidently the proceedings are open to the public, but video/audio recording isn't allowed.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Whats the scoop? There are very few exposure to this

[davsel]

There is another poorly written article in the Colorado Springs Gazette today:
http://gazette.com/firearms-sellers-testify-about-background-check-burdens-call-new-laws-unconstitutional/article/1517709

[UrbanWolf]

Whats the scoop? There are very few exposure to this

If it is going the way we wanted, I think there will be a lot more media exposure already.

[Bailey Guns]

If it iz going the way we wanted, I think yhere will be a lot more media exposure already.

I'd think just the opposite. I don't know of too many media outlets who'd like to see the sheriff's prevail on this issue.

[UrbanWolf]

I'd think just the opposite. I don't know of too many media outlets who'd like to see the sheriff's prevail on this issue.

The fact that not much bashing of sheriffs have happened in the past couple weeks tell me that everything went "according to expectation".

[hurley842002]

I'd think just the opposite. I don't know of too many media outlets who'd like to see the sheriff's prevail on this issue.


The fact that not much bashing of sheriffs have happened in the past couple weeks tell me that everything went "according to expectation".

Could go either way I suppose, but I'm with Bailey, especially with mid terms coming up, wouldn't want too much positive exposure for the Republicans.

[kidicarus13]

Are we allowed to make bets on this forum? If so I know where my $ is. And it's not the side I want to prevail.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Are we allowed to make bets on this forum? If so I know where my $ is. And it's not the side I want to prevail.

Unfortunately... this!

[KAPA]

The fact that not much bashing of sheriffs have happened in the past couple weeks tell me that everything went "according to expectation".


There was a story the other day about DougCo Sheriff being wrong about crime and weed or something like that. Saw the headline but didn't bother to give it a click.

[The Rat]

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/04/08/66878.htm

[asmo]

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/04/08/66878.htm

I would hate to go against Koppel when facts about guns are on the line.

[Zundfolge]

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/04/08/66878.htm

Give 'em hell Dave!

(points to link in signature for those that don't know Dave Kopel).

[Ronin13]

That's pretty telling when the plaintiffs close after the first week... some of you might need to be more optimistic. *Fingers crossed*

[Zundfolge]

That's pretty telling when the plaintiffs close after the first week... some of you might need to be more optimistic. *Fingers crossed*

I want to be optimistic but it's against my nature (whole frog and scorpion thing) ... here's keeping my fingers crossed though and praying I'm a cynical bastard for no reason [Luck]

[KAPA]

If there is one thing I know about the politics of guns, it is that the trial is pointless and the decision was already made long before the trial even started. This judge knew what the decision would be before the trial even started. The actual trial is just a formality to make it look like everything was fair.

[Aloha_Shooter]

It's disgusting that "research" like that done by Webster (or climate "scientists" like Michael Mann) gets any support at all rather than getting them laughed out of academia. Their inferential reasoning ought to get a high schooler a repeat class but these bozos get federal funding and named chairs. They disgrace all scientific professions.

[kidicarus13]

If there is one thing I know about the politics of guns, it is that the trial is pointless and the decision was already made long before the trial even started. This judge knew what the decision would be before the trial even started. The actual trial is just a formality to make it look like everything was fair.



You mean it's not a fair process?! [Sarcasm2]

[Logan]

Is it fair to say the ruling will be appealed no matter what? Could it end up going to the Supreme Court? Would they take the case and if so what implications might that have for the rest of the country?

[asmo]

Is it fair to say the ruling will be appealed no matter what? Could it end up going to the Supreme Court? Would they take the case and if so what implications might that have for the rest of the country?

it will be appealed no matter what.. I won't got to SCOTUS - but may go to Colorado Supreme Court.

[kidicarus13]

Wrapping up today? I guess it doesn't really matter, we probably won't hear anything for months.

[funkymonkey1111]

it will be appealed no matter what.. I won't got to SCOTUS - but may go to Colorado Supreme Court.

how exactly is a federal lawsuit going to be appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court?

[sniper7]

Hopefully today goes well.

[Robb]

Did anyone attend? If so, do you have a 'feel' of how this went?
I'd sure like to hear a report from someone who was there.

[ZERO THEORY]

http://www.thegodboxproject.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Fingers-crossed1.jpg

[cofi]

So no one knows what happened?

[blacklabel]

We may not know the out come for up to 6 months.

[cofi]

We may not know the out come for up to 6 months.
Why is that?

[ChunkyMonkey]

Why is that?

That's what the the frame the judge has to rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sniper7]

Any news?

[buffalobo]

Only thing I have heard is hurry up and wait.

Think I will check out Independence Institute web page, see if any commentary from Dave Kopel.

[UrbanWolf]

Are they going to drag the decision till after the election in November?

[HoneyBadger]

Are they going to drag the decision till after the election in November?

Not sure if that would be beneficial for us or not...

[UrbanWolf]

Not sure if that would be beneficial for us or not...

Repbulican victory, laws overturned. Dem victory, laws stay and register your guns sucka!!!

[merl]

Repbulican victory, laws overturned. Dem victory, laws stay and register your guns sucka!!!

And when the Repubs get the legislature but lose the Governor?

[UrbanWolf]

And when the Repubs get the legislature but lose the Governor?

Then the laws stay, no more new ones for little bit.

[Zundfolge]

Think I will check out Independence Institute web page, see if any commentary from Dave Kopel.
I don't think he's going to say anything publicly until after the ruling ... not sure if he's legally required to say nothing, but I think if nothing else I'd think that its considered bad form for him to speak out before then.

Lord I'd love to sit down with him and a couple glasses of Scotch and have an off-the-record discussion though :p

[Clint45]

Repbulican victory, laws overturned. Dem victory, laws stay and register your guns sucka!!!

3-1 odds if we get a Republican governor the laws will not be overturned, even if he promises to do so during his campaign.

[hurley842002]

3-1 odds if we get a Republican governor the laws will not be overturned, even if he promises to do so during his campaign.

I think Brophy would have, but so much for that...

[Bailey Guns]

3-1 odds if we get a Republican governor the laws will not be overturned, even if he promises to do so during his campaign.

Perhaps if only the gov's office goes republican. But if we get the senate and house too, I'll take those odds.

[Waywardson174]

Perhaps if only the gov's office goes republican. But if we get the senate and house too, I'll take those odds.

Im in too. With the trifecta, they could get it done.

Now calculate the odds of Rs actually pulling the hat trick....

[Zundfolge]

Now calculate the odds of Rs actually pulling the hat trick....
They're higher now then they've been in a decade.

[Bailey Guns]

I'd say at least 50/50 in CO. I think the dems are gonna take a beating in the house and senate in DC this Nov. Even people like David Axelrod are practically conceding the senate. Too early to get my hopes up, though, especially here in the state.

[TFOGGER]

What we're counting on is the Rs not stepping on their genitalia repeatedly, or offering up candidates that manage to make themselves utterly unelectable. If a RiNO like Christie ends up being the frontman for the RNC, he'll probably be elected, but is that really a victory for liberty/conservative values? Given the divisions within the Republican party between the RiNOs, the Tea Party, and the Neo Con quasi religious whack jobs, the voice of traditional conservatives will struggle to be heard.

[HoneyBadger]

What we're counting on is the Rs not stepping on their genitalia repeatedly, or offering up candidates that manage to make themselves utterly unelectable. If a RiNO like Christie ends up being the frontman for the RNC, he'll probably be elected, but is that really a victory for liberty/conservative values? Given the divisions within the Republican party between the RiNOs, the Tea Party, and the Neo Con quasi religious whack jobs, the voice of traditional conservatives will struggle to be heard.
Christie would lose to ANYBODY in a landslide. It doesn't matter if it's Hillary or Al Gore. Christie would maybe only get 30% of the republican vote.

[Aloha_Shooter]

People forget Reagan won by making the GOP the party of the "Big Tent". We have got to get over the "divisions" between "RINOs", Tea Party, social conservatives, etc. or we are doomed to yet another 4 years of Socialist anti-American "Change" drivel. How is THAT a victory for liberty or conservative values? George W. Bush had his problems, not the least of which was his liberal-like spending habit, but would we really have been any better off with a President Gore at the helm on September 12, 2001? or President Kerry any time?

Win the damned offices and then hold the GOP winner accountable. I'd rather have the newspapers and ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN filled with stories about how people complaint "President XXXXX isn't conservative enough" than having the Dragon Lady in charge and having the Pinkos complain she's not "progressive" enough. For that matter, we need to take back the language -- they are regressive Stalinists and Maoists, not progressives.

[HoneyBadger]

Back on topic: anyone have any updates?

[def90]

Back on topic: anyone have any updates?

Don't think anyone will know until the judge comes out with their decision.. I would also venture to guess that the judge will not make their announcement until the very last day that they have to..

[cofi]

I would also venture to guess that the judge will not make their announcement until the very last day that they have to..

which is when?