PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: invflatspin on May 17, 2018, 07:56:45 AM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/17/boulder-passes-sweeping-anti-gun-bill-pro-2a-nonprofit-vows-to-sue-individual-councilmembers.html
They know for certain it will not pass muster at the SCOTUS, but don't care. It'll take 3-6 years before it gets in front of the feds, maybe longer. Makes me want to drive to Boulder and violate every part of the ordinance on the steps of the police dept. Just get a checklist of the law, and go down the list breaking each one in turn.
-
The Fox News article left out some important bits. This will never make it to the Supreme Court because it doesn't have to. Colorado has a "pre-emption" law that states:
A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.
Boulder knew this going into it and didn't care. This was likely more symbolic than anything. Here's the law:
https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-29/miscellaneous/article-11.7/section-29-11.7-103/
-
The problem with the city counsel is that their actions taken in the duty are protected from litigation. They know they are facing lawsuits, but won't be held personally liable, and no financial cost because the city will pay legal expenses. No repercussions except when the law is overturned, they'll just write another one. What a way to run a govt.
-
The problem with the city counsel is that their actions taken in the duty are protected from litigation. They know they are facing lawsuits, but won't be held personally liable, and no financial cost because the city will pay legal expenses. No repercussions except when the law is overturned, they'll just write another one. What a way to run a govt.
Generally speaking, you're correct that they can't be held personally liable for actions they undertook during their official duties when voting on ordinances. They can still be named defendants in a lawsuit, however.
It's not a good idea to try and hold an elected official personally liable anyway. That's why we have elections. If you start allowing individuals to sue an elected official then nobody would run and the courts would be even more packed than they already are with lawsuits. If you think it's bad right now that people are suing Trump over executive orders, just imagine what it would be like if you could sue elected officials personally.
-
Boulder sucks in more ways than one, and I know because I used to live not to far from there. The Supreme Court may not have to hear this, but they have shirked their responsibility from hearing many, many unconstitutional gun laws. Look at all the states, and cities that have passed extremely restrictive gun laws. CA, NY, MA, CT, RI, VT, MD, NJ, HI, and others. All unconstitutional and have been for decades, yet the SC won't hear the cases.
Even "conservative" judges like the power government has over the law abiding citizens.
-
Generally speaking, you're correct that they can't be held personally liable for actions they undertook during their official duties when voting on ordinances. They can still be named defendants in a lawsuit, however.
It will take about 10 minutes and a hearing in camera with a motion to dismiss, and the grounds are well known. I'm pretty sure even a novice like me could get it done, if not a county lawyer will have it tossed quikly. There's no judge in Boulder CO county that will entertain a personal lawsuit against a sitting counsel man unless they did something pretty outrageous.
-
Boulder sucks in more ways than one, and I know because I used to live not to far from there. The Supreme Court may not have to hear this, but they have shirked their responsibility from hearing many, many unconstitutional gun laws. Look at all the states, and cities that have passed extremely restrictive gun laws. CA, NY, MA, CT, RI, VT, MD, NJ, HI, and others. All unconstitutional and have been for decades, yet the SC won't hear the cases.
Even "conservative" judges like the power government has over the law abiding citizens.
This is even more troublesome when a LEO goes to court for a warrant. Conservative judges are notorious for rubber stamping warrant requests from pretty much anyone, for anything. It makes me sad that they know they are breaking the text and the spirit of the 4th A, but they do it anyway, again - no consequence unless one of those cases where the LEOs break down the wrong door, shoot the wrong people, and destroy lives. Then - it's 'oops, the cops screwed up'. Not the judge. Yeah, sure......
-
There's no judge in Boulder CO county that will entertain a personal lawsuit against a sitting counsel man unless they did something pretty outrageous.
You mean like mass deprivation of civil rights?
-
Government workers, and politicians are largely insulated from accountability, and that is a huge problem because it allows them to act with arrogance, and impunity. Used to be you could Tar, and Feather them, and send them out on a rail. Now they have militarized police protection, and until the Militia is called up (not National Guard, the real Militia) we continue to have little recourse on illegal laws, and our removal of Natural Rights.
Mind you, I would never recommend violence, but only follow the strictly legal, yet neutered means of recourse.
-
Government workers, and politicians are largely insulated from accountability, and that is a huge problem because it allows them to act with arrogance, and impunity. Used to be you could Tar, and Feather them, and send them out on a rail. Now they have militarized police protection, and until the Militia is called up (not National Guard, the real Militia) we continue to have little recourse on illegal laws, and our removal of Natural Rights.
Mind you, I would never recommend violence, but only follow the strictly legal, yet neutered means of recourse.
Neutering them sounds like a good idea. Though I doubt their predilections are genetic, it can't hurt to try that approach.
-
We are a Republic, not a bunch of little democracies. Cities draw their authority from the state level. They do not get it by virtue of having a city government or from the people of their city. This is the same garbage that started the transgender bathroom thing in NC...a city overstepping their authority.
Civics fail.
-
Should correct this. In MOST states, cities draw their power from the state level. There are about 10 states where either the state constitution or the explicit declaration of the state legislature delegate power to the cities. Colorado is not one of them.