Judge: Sheriffs Can’t Sue Colorado Over Gun Laws

ap ^ | November 27, 2013

[cutty]

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Colorado sheriffs suing the state over new firearm restrictions don’t have standing to proceed with the case as a group, but the legal battle is far from over.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger in Denver doesn’t stop the lawsuit because 21 other plaintiffs who are suing do have standing. The court will still consider whether universal background checks and a ban on ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds are constitutional, the judge said.

[PubliusMM]

I used to think this notion of ‘standing’ was one of those esoteric legal notions never to be understood by those of us counted among the great intellectually unwashed.

But, no more. I’ve come to the conclusion that it is a sham logical construct providing a back-door exit for courts that don’t want to be held to account for deciding one way or the other on a given issue; much like the sad misuse of the general welfare clause, or the commerce clause, is used to blindly extend FedGov power over the States and the People.

I grok and appreciate the idea of injury or damage contained in the concept of standing. What I don’t get is why courts are so willing to focus tightly, almost laser-like when determining standing; but, when dealing with other notions (the commerce clause) they take an automatic flight of artistic license to gather (by any illogical extrapolation) anything and everything under its umbrella.

Makes no sense to many folks (most folks, IMO).

[aimhigh]

Funny how the Envrio-Nazis always have standing, but everyone else, nope.

[piroque]

"...21 other plaintiffs who are suing do have standing....." = only if the feds think they can win the case .

[cutty]

Wonder why the Judge does not want the 55 of 62 Elected Sheriffs in Colorado to have standing ?

[Cold Heart]

When it comes to a law, ALL who come under that law should have standing!

[smokingfrog]

If you are the one responsible for enforcing a law that may be unconstitutional, how can you not have standing?

[cutty]

Hopefully, the 55 sheriffs will appeal and ask for another Judge.

[Dr. Sivana]

I’ve come to the conclusion that it is a sham logical construct providing a back-door exit for courts that don’t want to be held to account for deciding one way or the other on a given issue;

If standing weren't an issue, we would have 100x as many legal cases as we do now, mostly the ACLU complaining about the hint of religion in public schools where they cannot find a plaintiff.

[S.O.S121.500]

When it comes to a law, ALL who come under that law should have standing!
++++
Look for such under the coming provisional governments....

[Lockbox]

The issue of standing has played a crucial role in Class Action lawsuits, especially those filed by environmental groups. In Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S. Ct. 1361, 31 L. Ed. 2d 636 (1972), the Court denied standing to an environmental group that was challenging a decision by the secretary of the interior. The Court ruled that the Sierra Club had not demonstrated that its members would be substantially adversely affected by the secretary's decision. Later environmental class actions have overcome the standing hurdle by including specific harms that group members would suffer, thus avoiding the Court's rule against generalized concerns.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing

[Logical me]

Want justice, try a court. /s/

[headstamp 2]

“The law is whatever a judge says it is.”

“A lie stuck to is as good as the truth.”

“The job of a lawyer is to be there when money changes hands.”

[x1stcav]

‘Marcia Krieger’

Who is this c**ze?

Never mind.

Pretty sketchy bio.

[SaxxonWoods]

I think these sherrifs (including mine) have said they won’t enforce the new laws anyway as they find them to be unenforceable.

[RobbyS]

Given that they upon assuming office take an oath to uphold the US Constitution. and ought to have to right to disobey an unlawful order.

[itsahoot]

If standing weren't an issue,

there would have been trials to determine just who Barry Soetero was. Fortunately no one in the world has standing, on this issue, not even his opponents in the first election.

[musicman]

Less Than $120 To Go!!
Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR
This Quarter

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[Still Thinking]

I'm kind of in the same place with this as you are. Like you said, I understand in principle the idea that you can't sue over something that doesn't involve you. But I too think they push it too far, especially when it's the government someone wants to sue.

Take the case of a new law, for example, I've heard them say that people must wait till after they've suffered some harm from the law before they have standing. That seems bass-ackwards to me. If a law can be shown to be harmful to presumably intelligent jurists, wouldn't the ideal time to fix it be BEFORE it's had a chance to harm those whom the legislators (and jurists for that matter) are supposed to be serving?

I agree also that they seem to stretch stuff to irrational lengths when doing so would serve the government and presumably harm the people, then they hold the people to absurdly high standards when they're trying to use the courts. Seems as if this turns the whole intent of the American system of government on it's head. My dad used to get exercised when some guy got off in court over BOR violations in his arrest or whatever. I never could seem to convince him that the checks that (are supposed to) protect us from an out-of-control government are worth having to deal with outcomes like that sometimes.

In fact this connects to the whole issue of having a branch of the federal government ruling on the permissibility of actions and legislation of.....the federal government. This is obviously ripe for abuse and must be changed. I must admit that throughout most US history, the conflict hasn't produced the problems you'd have anticipated. Evidently the intelligence and/or moral integrity of those on the bench let them overcome it. But you see more and more rulings that clearly should have gone to the people or the states found for the feds. Perhaps state vs. fed issues should be decided by a panel drawn from supreme courts of other states, so that a state per se has a bit of an advantage, but if a state is obviously out of line in a given case, then the other states can still find for the feds.

[stevie_d_64]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_S._Krieger

~snipit~

---

Krieger was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado by President George W. Bush on September 10, 2001 to a seat vacated Daniel Sparr as Sparr went on senior status. Krieger was confirmed by the Senate on January 25, 2002 on a unopposed Senate vote and received her commission on January 30, 2002. She became Chief Judge on January 1, 2013.

---

So now that she is “Chief Judge” on Obama’s watch...

Is anyone surprised by this???