“Colorado sheriffs planning lawsuit to block new gun laws”
More than half of Colorado sheriffs have agreed to launch a legal challenge to the state’s recently passed gun restrictions.
Thirty-seven of the state’s 62 elected sheriffs are prepared to sue to overturn laws that now prohibit the sale of ammunition magazines holding more than 15 rounds and require background checks for all private gun sales, Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said Tuesday.
Cooke said he expects more sheriffs will sign on to the lawsuit, but other sheriffs said they oppose the effort.
The County Sheriffs of Colorado, which represents the state’s sheriffs, will not take part in the lawsuit.[...]
Cooke said he didn’t know if the lawsuit would be filed in state or federal court, but he said it likely would be filed within the next few weeks.
Delta County Sheriff Fred McKee said the legal action is in its “infancy,” and it is not certain to be filed.
The proposed lawsuit would say the law violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms and the 14th Amendment, which bars states from abridging the “privileges and immunities” of citizens, Cooke said.
The lawsuit would be handled by lawyer Dave Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute, a conservative think-tank, and adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law, Cooke said.
The problem with the laws as passed here is that there is no enforcement mechanism other than a presumption of guilt. Because grandfathered “high capacity” magazines are still legal, all one has to do to avoid running afoul of the law banning new high capacity magazines is claim to have purchased the magazines either before the law takes effect in July, or from another state, such as Wyoming.
At which point police will either arrest that person for having the magazine in his possession, confiscating both the magazines and the firearms — which would force that person to pay for an attorney, go to court, etc., in order to prove innocence — or else the officer would have to take the person’s word for it and let him go. In the latter case, the law proves ineffectual. In the former, the law is likely unconstitutional — not to mention that it sets the state or locality up for a serious lawsuit should the person relieved of his legally purchased and owned firearms become a victim of some crime at the time when the state or locality confiscated his property and prevented him from defending himself and his family.
It’s bad law. It attacks the law abiding. And it restricts a natural right explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution.
But it’s what you should expect from any state legislature that gains a Democrat majority in both houses going forward. Keep that in mind. Use Colorado, or New York, or Maryland as cautionary tales. There are no centrist Democrats. Because when push comes to shove, the vast majority — regardless of what they ran on — will back the national party and promote the long-term leftist agenda.
It’s called taking one for the team, and that’s just what useful idiots oftentimes do.