• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Federal Takeover of Colorado Sheriffs and Police

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
So now one single Federal judge somehow has the authority to intervene in state business and simply throw out a lawsuit brought by 64 state Sheriffs against the state of Colorado !!! Outrageous. At least the ruling doesn’t prevent the case from moving forward because there are 21 other plaintiffs.


Judge: Colorado sheriffs can’t sue over gun control laws

Greg Campbell
Daily Caller
November 30, 2013

Colorado’s elected sheriffs don’t have the standing to sue the state of Colorado to overturn controversial new gun control laws, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday.

Most of the state’s 64 sheriffs spearheaded a lawsuit to overturn laws that went into effect July 1 limiting the size of ammunition magazines and requiring universal background checks, saying they violate the Second Amendment and that they are unenforceable.

But U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger in Denver said the sheriffs couldn’t sue the state as a group because they are elected officials.

“If individual sheriffs wish to protect individual rights or interests they may do so. However, the sheriffs have confused their individual rights and interests with those of the county sheriff’s office,” Krieger said, according to the Associated Press.

Full article here:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/29/judge-colorado-sheriffs-cant-sue-over-gun-control-laws/
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
The judge ruled that the sheriffs, in their professional capacity, do not have standing to sue; they can do so as citizens but not as sheriffs...the suit continues anyways.

Judge ruled correct on this one....
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...Judge ruled correct on this one....

Based on what little was surmised so far, I have to agree.

How would we feel if sheriff's sued the state for a preemption law that gave only the state legislature the power to regulate firearms and ammunition possession?

Because we have that law in many states, and it is a good thing.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Based on what little was surmised so far, I have to agree.

How would we feel if sheriff's sued the state for a preemption law that gave only the state legislature the power to regulate firearms and ammunition possession?

Because we have that law in many states, and it is a good thing.

I tend to agree.

The executive is an independent power. If they think the legislature overstepped its bounds, let the sheriffs refuse to enforce. Why on earth are they asking the judicial, a third branch, for a ruling? Moreover, why are they asking the fedgov for a ruling? To hell with both. The sheriffs oughta just stand up and say, "No."
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...The executive is an independent power. If they think the legislature overstepped its bounds, let the sheriffs refuse to enforce. Why on earth are they asking the judicial, a third branch, for a ruling?...

I had written much along those same lines in my draft and then didn't include it in the final post. I don't know why not anymore. But I was thinking the same. Questioning the Legislature is not the job of the enforcers. They can refuse to enforce, up to their legal requirements to do so. They can point out if laws conflict, but I agree that it seems odd to sue to a federal court for this.

I applaud these sheriffs for recognizing the absurdity of these laws, but I think they need a better talk with their respective attorneys.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
I tend to agree.

The executive is an independent power. If they think the legislature overstepped its bounds, let the sheriffs refuse to enforce. Why on earth are they asking the judicial, a third branch, for a ruling? Moreover, why are they asking the fedgov for a ruling? To hell with both. The sheriffs oughta just stand up and say, "No."

I think it's because that would set up a bad precedence. The three branches need to balance each other and check each other. Put it this way, if the Executive decides not to enforce a law ( pretending it isn't there), what happens if they enforce laws that aren't there or interprets them in a way not meant by the Legislature. Either side would call on the Judicial to step in and make a call.

This may seem a good idea for us because we are gun guys and it would help us. Well what if the Executive was a bunch of antis and made up their own methods of dealing with guns (happens in other states). We would cry foul.
 

jegoodin

Newbie
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
337
Location
Stafford, Virginia, USA
"Federal Takeover of Colorado Sheriffs and Police"

I love this forum, but I am really amazed by the inflammatory titles used for some of the threads.

A judge rules that some of the plaintiffs, which happened to be LEOs, had no standing in their official capacities. How is that a take over of the sheriffs and police?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I think it's because that would set up a bad precedence. The three branches need to balance each other and check each other. Put it this way, if the Executive decides not to enforce a law ( pretending it isn't there), what happens if they enforce laws that aren't there or interprets them in a way not meant by the Legislature. Either side would call on the Judicial to step in and make a call.

This may seem a good idea for us because we are gun guys and it would help us. Well what if the Executive was a bunch of antis and made up their own methods of dealing with guns (happens in other states). We would cry foul.

Readers,

I just looked it up. Colorado has 64 counties, the same number as the sheriffs who joined the suit. When a number of sheriffs equivalent to every county sheriff in the state objects to a law, something is up.

So, according to Primus, when the legislature sets up a constitutional crisis, its the sheriff's job to avoid the crisis, ignore the huge overstep, and go along with it. Phooey. How can the legislature force a sheriff to violate his constitutional oath by enforcing an unconstitutional law?

It occurs to me, the sheriffs could do something along the lines of Marbury v Madison--the case where the new president withheld the commission of a marshall to whom the outgoing president did not get the commission delivered. The Colorado sheriffs could wait until they got fired or recalled for refusal to enforce, and then take the matter of their firing to court. But, why put it in the hands of the courts? Judged by what?, ten or eleven judges across the entire appeals process? When they got 64 sheriffs judging the matter for themselves?

Also, Primus plays a game with his "what if they enforce laws..." Rubbish. In the present situation we have sheriffs who are calling foul over being required to violate their oaths of office with regard to constitutionality; a far cry from violating it themselves by enforcing non-existent laws or twisting laws to suit their own enforcement tastes.

It scares me that Primus wears a badge. I wonder if he applies such sloppy thinking to his everyday activities as a cop.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Put it this way, if the Executive decides not to enforce a law ( pretending it isn't there), what happens if they enforce laws that aren't there...

You have a remarkably odd view of the law and its place.

Not enforcing bad laws which do exist avoids the creation of victims, and so people aren't harmed or made upset.

Enforcing laws which don't exist creates victims, who will be harmed and made upset.

See how that works? It's the difference between aggressively hurting people, and not doing so.

Leave it to the law enfarcement officer, having placed the law on an altar above basic morality, to equate the two circumstances.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Is a elected county sheriff, in CO, a representative of the state executive branch?

It seems to me that the county sheriff can go along or not, but I am not knowing the status of a elected county sheriff in CO.

Does the state have the authority to tell a elected county sheriff what to do if he is not violating state law?

Not enforcing state law may be a justification for taking over that SO by the state executive branch.

I would hope that the elected county sheriff is the top lawman in that county.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
You have a remarkably odd view of the law and its place.

Not enforcing bad laws which do exist avoids the creation of victims, and so people aren't harmed or made upset.

Enforcing laws which don't exist creates victims, who will be harmed and made upset.

See how that works? It's the difference between aggressively hurting people, and not doing so.

Leave it to the law enfarcement officer, having placed the law on an altar above basic morality, to equate the two circumstances.

:rolleyes:

I guess I do have an odd look at it. I see that if there's a law on the books it gets followed at least closely and at least enforced closely. Any complete disregard either way is wrong. If its so egregious it makes "victims" itll get turned over by the courts. Its not the executive branch to look at the book and say "i like this law.. this law.... this one is not moral because i dont agree.... ok well enforce this one... " Mull that over in your little head before u make any more cracks. Thanks.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I think it's because that would set up a bad precedence. The three branches need to balance each other and check each other. Put it this way, if the Executive decides not to enforce a law ( pretending it isn't there), what happens if they enforce laws that aren't there or interprets them in a way not meant by the Legislature. Either side would call on the Judicial to step in and make a call.

This may seem a good idea for us because we are gun guys and it would help us. Well what if the Executive was a bunch of antis and made up their own methods of dealing with guns (happens in other states). We would cry foul.

If the sheriff did not arrest someone because he did not like the law, a court would never see the case.

Hardly set bad "precedence"...its the basis for the separation of the 3 branches of Gov't ~ it was specifically designed this way.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
If the sheriff did not arrest someone because he did not like the law, a court would never see the case.

Hardly set bad "precedence"...its the basis for the separation of the 3 branches of Gov't ~ it was specifically designed this way.

If the person wasn't arrested then who's the victim? No one. If someone is arrested and then deem they are a victim then the court sees the case and may rule the law bogus.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
If the sheriff did not arrest someone because he did not like the law, a court would never see the case.

Hardly set bad "precedence"...its the basis for the separation of the 3 branches of Gov't ~ it was specifically designed this way.

And somewhere in there, "officer discretion" is revealed a myth or a contradiction.
 

SteveInCO

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
297
Location
El Paso County, Colorado
It seems to me that what he is trying to say is there might be a situation where a sheriff might believe a law is bad, and therefore decide to enforce it--once--in the hopes of getting it overturned, even though he doesn't have to.

I could see such happening, if, say, someone announces a plan to engage in civil disobedience and clearly hopes to be arrested.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
I'll try to put it this way as a better illustration.

Say a chief in my state decides he doesn't like the restraining order law portion that states we must take firearms from guys who have an RO against them. some guys see that as infringing. So say the chief agrees and none of his guys enforce that portion of the law. Well that's fine. Until one of those guys with an to shoots his wife with said guns that should have been taken. The the chief deciding to not enforce a law on principle has him in a lot of hot water.

And unlike our scholar who implies that's "officer discretion" that's not. It would be total disregard for law. For better or worse. Again I wouldn't want the PD having that much power.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

bomber

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
499
Location
, ,
I guess I do have an odd look at it. I see that if there's a law on the books it gets followed at least closely and at least enforced closely. Any complete disregard either way is wrong. If its so egregious it makes "victims" itll get turned over by the courts. Its not the executive branch to look at the book and say "i like this law.. this law.... this one is not moral because i dont agree.... ok well enforce this one... " Mull that over in your little head before u make any more cracks. Thanks.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

The war on drugs is a perfect example of how incredibly wrong you are here. Smoking marijuana is essentially harmless, at least as harmless as drinking alcohol. Outlawing it was based on business, not public safety. It's an immoral law that has created hundreds of thousands of victims in it's enforcement. The courts continue to uphold it.

So, you're wrong. And kind of a d*** too.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
The war on drugs is a perfect example of how incredibly wrong you are here. Smoking marijuana is essentially harmless, at least as harmless as drinking alcohol. Outlawing it was based on business, not public safety. It's an immoral law that has created hundreds of thousands of victims in it's enforcement. The courts continue to uphold it.

So, you're wrong. And kind of a d*** too.

lol, yup.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
lol, yup.

First.... good refutation. "Marijuana should be legal so your wrong". Go to the marijuana thread its been discussed to death over there and put much better then yourself.

Second if you think what I said was me being a dick then your in for a surprise if you read the other threads and some actual d**** responses guys post. Good news is if you do you might get so upset (based on your current lack of ability to deal with an opposing view) that you'll be able to claim depression or some other illness and get a medical marijuana card. It'll then be legal for you. Your welcome.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Second if you think what I said was me being a dick then your in for a surprise if you read the other threads and some actual d**** responses guys post. Good news is if you do you might get so upset (based on your current lack of ability to deal with an opposing view) that you'll be able to claim depression or some other illness and get a medical marijuana card. It'll then be legal for you. Your welcome.

It's not a single post that elicits remarks like that.

This bit I quoted is actually a good example. Someone calls you out for your callous willingness to ignore those harmed by prohibition when you say things like (about a bad law) "if its so egregious it makes 'victims' itll get turned over by the courts", so you resort to implying that we're drug users. Not only is that an ad hominem attack, it's a dick move. :rolleyes:

To add to it, you enforce immoral and aggressive prohibitions. Worse, you defend these prohibitions (actually, you're an apologist for them), and you do so primarily using "FYTW" logic.
 
Last edited:
Top