Posted on 12/01/2013 7:27:00 AM PST by Kaslin
Sheriffs who oppose the slew of Democrat sponsored gun control laws in New New York (Colorado) apparently do not have sufficient standing to take part in the lawsuit against the state. Right before Thanksgiving, a US District Court Judge ruled that the Colorado Sheriffs who joined a lawsuit against the Bloomberg inspired legislation, will not be able take part in their official capacity as elected law enforcement representatives. (The lawsuit, however, will continue; and the Sheriffs will be permitted to join the effort as individuals.)
According to CBS news, US District Court Judge Marcia Krieger said that “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.”
Judge Krieger, however, seems confused about the role of elected law enforcement personnel. The Sheriff is a position unlike any other in the United States. They are intrinsically more in touch with local sentiment, and in a position of greater power than any other representative, police force, or governmental authority. The sheriffs were not suing over fear that the laws would infringe on their “individual” rights. They were suing because of their fear that the law would infringe on the individual rights of the citizens they swore to protect and defend. In fact, they seem the perfect lobby for citizen rights: Not only are they charged with implementing law, but they are held accountable by the individuals they serve.
Contrary to the beliefs of big-government advocates, the role of law enforcement is to protect individuals from having their personal liberty infringed upon by other entities… In this case, that entity is the State Legislature. It would seem that they are the perfect plaintiffs in a case against an unjust law.
However, according to the US District Judge, elected law enforcement officers have no standing, and will only be able to take part in the lawsuit as private citizens. Strange to think that the men and women who will be charged with enforcing these gun laws have no standing to object to them in their official office. Of course the ruling gave a much needed boost of confidence to defenders of the Draconian gun laws:
“We are pleased that the court recognized that many of the plaintiffs had no standing to bring this case and that our interpretation of the law is proper,” said Carolyn Tyler, a spokeswoman with the Colorado attorney general’s office, which is representing the state in the lawsuit.
The good news, however, is that the lawsuit will proceed. Hopefully the sheriffs will sign their names to the lawsuit as private citizens, and put more than just their professional reputation on the line in defense of their citizens. The Judge’s fundamental misunderstanding of the official role of Sheriff, however, does not necessarily bode well for the challenge. Her flippant disregard for the legal “standing” of elected Law Enforcement officials should give pause to those who hope she will adequately interpret the words “Shall Not be Infringed” in the second Amendment.
Using her logic, the state has no standing, either. However, the sheriffs can choose NOT to enforce the law. After all, the precedent has been set by the president.
Just another screwball, leftwing “judge” who has a problem with the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights belongs to the American people. It’s our job to tell these commie activists on these so called “courts” what the Bill of Rights mean. It’s not their job to tell us. The “judges” are the government. Americans were given the Bill of Rights to protect the people from an oppressive and abusive government.
The regime scumbags are just begging for a fight. They would have no problem shooting patriots.
Just look at these scums that shot and killed the WWll veteran in Colorado(?) a few month ago
Well said!
Another oath breaking tyrannical leftist judge with a God complex.
Legislators can be recalled.
Judges can be impeached.
Asking a federal judge to uphold the Constitution is pretty much a waste of time these days. Sheriffs need to uphold the Constitution and ignore those laws that are patently unconstitutional.
BUMP!
I have no intention of obeying these stupid laws. If a friend wants to borrow a firearm for a few days for hunting or target practice, fine. If a friend wants me to hold his or her weapons while he/she deploys etc, I will. {Expletive} getting a background check. If I decide I want a few more mags - standard capacity mags - then I’ll make a run out of state and pick up whatever I want.
Marcia S. Krieger, appointed by GW Bush, confirmed by the Senate unopposed.
Other folks can receive offers they can’t refuse...
So while federal judges engage in outrageous political acts on a seemingly daily basis, I don't believe this decision should be lumped in with those. Remember that the law can be very nuanced.
Pray tell me then how does the federal government have standing to sue individuals; but citizens can’t sue the government? Where’s the logic there?
“...while federal judges engage in outrageous political acts on a seemingly daily basis...the law can be very nuanced.”
___
That’s exactly my point. “Standing” wasn’t a factor in forming my opinion. Judges with an agenda was. And, the 2nd amendment shouldn’t be “nuanced” as it has been repeatedly by the courts. “Shall not be infringed” is pretty unambiguous.
Sorry for the tardy reply. Longstanding law dictates that citizens can only sue the government pursuant to an explicit statute authorizing the lawsuit. Keep in mind that this case, the issue is not whether the Sheriffs can sue, but in what capacity - from what I read, they can sue as individuals, but not as elected officials (i.e., their office).
They and there militarized police squads.
They and their militarized police squads.
More feeding into http://www.mediaite.com/tv/expert-testifies-to-congress-that-obamas-ignoring-laws-could-lead-to-overthrow-of-government/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.