Hooknswoop 19 #1 March 23, 2016 Like I kept saying, the 2 new gun laws in Comorado are unenforceable. Appeals court says Colorado sheriffs can't sue governor over gun laws By John Ingold, The Denver Post 22 Mar 2016, 05:42 PM FILE -- Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith speaks to a crowd. Sheriffs from around the state gathered to speak out against gun control before President Barack Obama was set to give a speech at the Denver Police Academy about a mile away. A group of Colorado sheriffs who contend that two controversial state gun laws are unconstitutional vowed Tuesday to file a new lawsuit after a federal appeals court rejected their first one. In a 33-page ruling on the laws and lawsuits that emerged after mass shootings in Aurora and Connecticut, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the sheriffs and other plaintiffs didn't show they were sufficiently harmed by the new gun restrictions to bring a suit. The ruling means that two laws passed in 2013 — one that expanded background checks on firearms purchases and another that limited the capacity of ammunition magazines — remain in effect. "I'm proud of the team in my office that fulfilled our legal role of defending state laws," Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman said in a statement. This is the second loss for the lawsuit, which was filed in 2013 and names Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper as the sole defendant. But, paradoxically, both supporters and opponents of the new laws cheered Tuesday's ruling as a victory for their sides. The reason for that optimism has to do with the lawsuit's convoluted legal path. After a nine-day trial in 2014, a federal district court judge in Denver ruled against the lawsuit and upheld the contested laws as constitutional. The sheriffs and the other groups involved in the suit appealed and asked the 10th Circuit, which is one rung in authority below the U.S. Supreme Court, to reverse the trial judge's ruling. The ruling Tuesday did toss out the trial judge's analysis, but that was because the 10th Circuit judges concluded the lawsuit never should have made it all the way to trial. The appeals court judges did not decide whether the laws are constitutional. Instead, the 10th Circuit judges ruled that all the plaintiffs — who include sheriffs of 54 of the state's 64 counties, plus numerous nonprofit organizations and businesses — hadn't shown they were harmed enough by the laws to have the authority to sue over them. In legal terms, the 10th Circuit ruled the plaintiffs didn't have "standing." The plaintiffs argued the laws violated the Second Amendment, which protects gun rights, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. In one part of their argument, for instance, some of the plaintiffs said the laws created a fear that they might be prosecuted for doing things like loaning a gun to someone during a target shooting charity event. But the 10th Circuit said that kind of speculative fear isn't enough to bring a lawsuit. "Such 'some day' speculations are insufficient to establish an injury-in-fact for purposes of ... standing," 10th Circuit judge Nancy Moritz wrote on behalf of the three-judge panel. At an afternoon news conference, lawsuit backers cast the ruling as an opportunity to try again. David Kopel, an attorney who works for the Independence Institute and who represented the sheriffs in the lawsuit, said he is happy the 10th Circuit voided the lower court's finding, even if it still resulted in his lawsuit being dismissed. Kopel said the 10th Circuit ruling now provides a "road map" for the sheriffs and other plaintiffs to file a new suit alleging new harms. He declined to say what those new complaints might be or how plaintiffs might solve the standing issue. "That's an intricate matter of law," he said. But Kopel also said no one has yet been prosecuted under the laws. "The laws are unenforceable, and they haven't been enforced," he said. Eileen McCarron of Colorado Ceasefire, an organization that supports the laws, said the 10th Circuit's ruling was a significant blow to the laws' opponents. "They've got to go re-figure out their case," she said. "They're back at square one, and our laws still stand." John Ingold: 303-954-1068, [email protected] or @johningold Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #2 March 23, 2016 "before President Barack Obama was set to give a speech at the Denver Police Academy about a mile away. " How was he doing that from Cuba? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #3 March 23, 2016 normiss"before President Barack Obama was set to give a speech at the Denver Police Academy about a mile away. " How was he doing that from Cuba? Skill and talent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #4 March 23, 2016 The new gun laws are unenforceable. Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #5 March 23, 2016 Quote"before President Barack Obama was set to give a speech at the Denver Police Academy about a mile away. " How was he doing that from Cuba? Because he gave that speech in 2013. I seem to recall you thought the new Colorado gun laws were enforceable...... Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #6 March 23, 2016 The article is crap then. It's dated yesterday. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #7 March 23, 2016 Wow, anything to avoid admitting the laws are unenforceable! The article is fro yesterday, the picture in the article was from 2013. Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #8 March 23, 2016 HooknswoopWow, anything to avoid admitting the laws are unenforceable! The article is fro yesterday, the picture in the article was from 2013. Derek V I fail to see why this is news. All local gun laws are unenforceable. The point has been made over and over again. The NRA likes it that way.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #9 March 23, 2016 Chicago certainly did right with the 100 year sentence for illegal transfer of a weapon to a child who then used it for a murder by charging him for the murder as well. Without any creative local or state laws for that matter. We need more of those types of charges and convictions IMO. The only reason this article is "news" of late, is because of the source. Another right wing nutter site. They're all Yay! Guns! and Boo. Obama. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #10 March 23, 2016 I can see this going to the supreme court eventually. This is the most telling portion of the article right here. QuoteInstead, the 10th Circuit judges ruled that all the plaintiffs — who include sheriffs of 54 of the state's 64 counties, plus numerous nonprofit organizations and businesses — hadn't shown they were harmed enough by the laws to have the authority to sue over them. In legal terms, the 10th Circuit ruled the plaintiffs didn't have "standing." When passing a restriction on a constitutionally protected right, you are supposed to do it in the least restrictive way possible. It's not up to the plaintiff to show harm, it's up to the state to show that the restriction is the least intrusive way possible and that there will be significant gains by passing the restriction (strict scrutiny, which obviously wasn't used in this case). If the law is unenforceable (which means that there will be no gains from passing it) and it's a restriction on a constitutionally protected right, the court absolutely got it wrong. Of course, this is the second amendment we are talking about. It's an obsolete second class right, kind of like freedom of speech."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #11 March 23, 2016 It is news because some people thought these laws were enforceable. They have been proven wrong. Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,122 #12 March 23, 2016 Hooknswoop It is news because some people thought these laws were enforceable. They have been proven wrong. Derek V People will always have silly thoughts. Like when those founding fathers figured that allowing everybody to walk around with guns would make for a peaceful society Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #13 March 24, 2016 SkyDekker ***It is news because some people thought these laws were enforceable. They have been proven wrong. Derek V People will always have silly thoughts. Like when those founding fathers figured that allowing everybody to walk around with guns would make for a peaceful society A) They made no such claim. B) Among the most peaceful places I have lived have been those where people were routinely and heavily armed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,913 #14 March 24, 2016 QuoteAmong the most peaceful places I have lived have been those where people were routinely and heavily armed. Can you name two or three of these peaceful enclaves?Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,122 #15 March 24, 2016 Northern Georgia? Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #16 March 24, 2016 wmw999 Northern Georgia? Wendy P. Malheur National Wildlife RefugeI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #17 March 24, 2016 winsor ******It is news because some people thought these laws were enforceable. They have been proven wrong. Derek V People will always have silly thoughts. Like when those founding fathers figured that allowing everybody to walk around with guns would make for a peaceful society A) They made no such claim. B) Among the most peaceful places I have lived have been those where people were routinely and heavily armed. I guess you haven't lived in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria, then.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #18 March 24, 2016 gowlerkQuoteAmong the most peaceful places I have lived have been those where people were routinely and heavily armed. Can you name two or three of these peaceful enclaves? Sure can. I assure you that none inculded such feral populations as are found in Compton, Harlem, the 'interesting' neighborhoods of Chicago, Afghanistan or Iraq. And yes, there were spots of violence, such as when a foreigner made the mistake of robbing a bank in Zürich - after the citizenry apprehended the culprit, it was difficult to tell exactly what killed him, since all the multiple hits were fatal (no misses). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,913 #19 March 24, 2016 Switzerland is a place with a high rate of gun ownership. But not a high carry rate. I'm calling bullshit on your bank robber anecdote.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #20 March 24, 2016 gowlerkSwitzerland is a place with a high rate of gun ownership. But not a high carry rate. I'm calling bullshit on your bank robber anecdote. It wasn't a grab and dash, and some locals had time to be ready when he tried to get away. The perp was dispatched by service 7.5mm rifles, not concealed carry sidearms. Since it was in 1992, it may be inaccessible via the interwebz. At the very least, it got a lot of attention in the Kanton at the time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #21 March 25, 2016 So can anyone explain to me why these 2 new guns laws were a good idea? Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #22 March 25, 2016 I was waiting for you to post them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #23 March 26, 2016 Waiting for me to post them?!?!?! Colorado citizens' freedoms were limited for what? Feel good anti gun laws that don't actually improve safety? This is why I do not support more anti gun laws. They do not accomplish anything. Funny I do not see the anti gun supporters I this thread supporting the Colorado gun laws. I said the laws were not enforceable. Colorado Sheriffs say they are unenforceable. Where are the people that were saying they could be enforced now? Detek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #24 March 26, 2016 Well, if you give us nothing to consider.....I'm not sure what the point of the thread is. Somebody wants to sue but was denied the lawsuit based on legal grounds. That's as far as we go with this apparently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #25 March 26, 2016 The point of this thread is that some people said these laws would be enforceable. They are not. The point is that anti gun people simply want to restrict gun rights and don't care if the laws work or. Or. Derek V Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
