Colorado sheriffs plan lawsuit challenging state gun control laws

[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 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 and Chemung County Sheriff Christopher Moss.
"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 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, a Republican who chairs the group's executive committee.
Erie County Sheriff Tim Howard 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 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/arti...#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?