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.
How is the 10th Circuit Court in regards to 2A?Quote:
Originally Posted by trot
Via Maketa's facebook thingy that my wife made me sign up for:
https://www.facebook.com/maketaforsh...51413536586106
Sheriff Terry Maketa
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.
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;)Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
A constitutional perspective on high-capacity magazines
By Dan Rubinstein Guest Columnist
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.
Hickenlooper continues to show his disdain for rural Coloradans
By Rep. Ray Scott Guest Columnist
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hummer