COLORADO SHERIFFS SUE OVER GUN LAWS!!!

[Dave Workman]

Colo. sheriffs sue to overturn new state gun, magazine limit laws

This morning in Denver, 54 Colorado sheriffs and other plaintiffs including disabled gun owners, will file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Centennial State’s new laws affecting sales and temporary transfer of firearms, and placing limits on magazine capacity.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Diamondback]

And people say everyone in blue's the Bad Guys...

I wish them the best... and wish there was somewhere to donate to help cover their costs... unless the Illannoy case gets to the Supremes first it's going to be a long hard fight with no end to Comrade Commissar Lickenpooper & Co's appeals.

 

[BigStick]

I hope this makes it to the SCOTUS. I think they have a good chance. And maybe that will set a precidence to slap around NY and CT also.

 

[rodell]

I would expect NY's challenge to get to SCOTUS first. There's no way the Eastern circuits will overturn it before then.

 

[oknow]

And people say everyone in blue's the Bad Guys...

I wish them the best... and wish there was somewhere to donate to help cover their costs... unless the Illannoy case gets to the Supremes first it's going to be a long hard fight with no end to Comrade Commissar Lickenpooper & Co's appeals.

sheriff's wear green
still best of luck to them, I sure am glad they are oath keepers and not oath breakers.

 

[Diamondback]

Technically, yes, but they're still considered part of the "thin blue line"... my point was that cops as a group are just like any other, with their share of both good eggs and bad apples, and bashers and fans alike need to remember that as with the society they're a subset of, there are good guys, bad guys and in-between guys all rolled up in the "Wearing Tin" community.

Actually, that's a secondary point, the PRIMARY being that when members of LE stand up on our side, we need to be VOCAL in supporting them, showing our appreciation and backing their plays.

 

[KTM530XCW]

Good guys striking back. Excellent!

 

[Black Dog]

sheriff's wear green
still best of luck to them, I sure am glad they are oath keepers and not oath breakers.

In Oregon it depends on which County you are in. Clackamas, Tillamook wear Light BROWN.

 

[oknow]

Maybe now you can see it it was Supposed to be a funny

 

[Sgt Nambu]

Good work by the Sheriffs! They have had a PR problem since Nottingham! It's nice to have them being vocal about our constitutional rights since they are "victims of gun violence" the libs whine and rant about.

 

[Kevatc]

Curious that when it says the sheriff's are suing who is footing the bill? I would have to assume that cash strapped counties would've had some sleepless nights trying to figure out if this is a winnable and economically sound fight despite the moral clarity that it is a good fight.

 

[Kable]

Curious that when it says the sheriff's are suing who is footing the bill? I would have to assume that cash strapped counties would've had some sleepless nights trying to figure out if this is a winnable and economically sound fight despite the moral clarity that it is a good fight.

The sheriff's themselves are suing so I assume they are splitting the cost between them plus Magpul has signed onto the suit as well

 

[NoSmoking]

I watched the video of the sheriff's and their lawyer, and while I think its great they are making a stand against those laws.. I feel like the only reason they are against it, is because it's "too broad" or simply because of the terminology used is confusing.

In an example of magazines, they said because it mentions a "removable base plate" it makes the law too broad.. which to me seems as if they would be FOR a magazine restriction had it just been worded different. I'd rather them say something like "there shouldn't be ANY restrictions on magazines, etc etc"

I don't know, maybe I'm just reading into it too much?

 

[Dave Workman]

I

In an example of magazines, they said because it mentions a "removable base plate" it makes the law too broad.. which to me seems as if they would be FOR a magazine restriction had it just been worded different. I'd rather them say something like "there shouldn't be ANY restrictions on magazines, etc etc"

I don't know, maybe I'm just reading into it too much?

Yeah, you are.
If you are going to make a complaint in court, it has to make sense to the court.
Blanket statements about "there shouldn't be any restrictions" don't wash too well with judges...particularly if they were appointed by the current Oval Office occupant.

The sheriffs are doing this right. You can bet attorney David Kopel knows exactly what he's doing.