skinnyb82 Posted May 17, 2013 at 05:53 PM Posted May 17, 2013 at 05:53 PM This just hit the wire, it's REALLY good. I was able to find the complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, not sure who the named plaintiff is though so didn't post it over the the Judicial Second Amendment Case section because a case number hasn't even been assigned to it, therefore it can't be found on PACER. Here's the press release from the NSSF: "NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms industry, has joined with 54 county sheriffs, Magpul Industries, the Colorado Outfitters Association, several firearms retailers, disabled individuals and other parties in a federal lawsuit brought today in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in what is a broad-based challenge to Colorado's recently enacted gun-control laws. "In addition to Constitutional infringements and unenforceable requirements regarding magazine capacity, as the sheriffs have pointed out, we believe it will be impossible for citizens to comply with mandated firearms 'transfers' through federally licensed retailers," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. "Colorado's federally-licensed firearms retailers are being asked to process these transfers as if they were selling from their own inventory and to monitor both seller and buyer through a state-administered check process that can take hours or even days. They will not be able to recoup the actual cost of providing the service, which is capped at $10, but they will be liable for paperwork errors and subject to license revocation. Not surprisingly, we expect few, if any licensed retailers will step forward to provide this service." For this reason and the many others detailed in our joint action with our fellow plaintiffs, these laws need to be struck down," Keane said. The firearms retailers bringing suit are: 2nd Amendment Gunsmith & Shooting Supply, Loveland; Goods for the Woods, Durango; Grand Prix Guns, Littleton; Green Mountain Guns, Lakewood; Jensen Arms, Loveland; Jerry's Outdoor Sports, Grand Junction; Rocky Mountain Shooters Supply, Fort Collins; and Specialty Sports & Supply, Colorado Springs."" And the 55 page complaint with John W. Hickenlooper as the sole defendant. Complaint claims that HBs 1224 and 1229 violate the Americans With Disabilities Act as well as the Second, Fourth, and 14th Amendments, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 05-17-13.pdf
Skorpius Posted May 17, 2013 at 06:06 PM Posted May 17, 2013 at 06:06 PM A win here would bode well for we subjects in Chicago/Cook.
skinnyb82 Posted May 17, 2013 at 06:07 PM Author Posted May 17, 2013 at 06:07 PM Not just in Chicago/Cook. Think about D.C. too (everyone not just David Gregory).
jester121 Posted May 17, 2013 at 06:42 PM Posted May 17, 2013 at 06:42 PM Good stuff in there. Pray for the health of SCOTUS, we need things just as they are for a good long time.
Xwing Posted May 17, 2013 at 07:53 PM Posted May 17, 2013 at 07:53 PM That would be nice. Left winger Hickenlooper could use a good lawsuit or two, after the he did on Colorado citizens' rights.
skinnyb82 Posted May 17, 2013 at 08:13 PM Author Posted May 17, 2013 at 08:13 PM Along with the four recalls already in the pipeline in CO
TTIN Posted May 18, 2013 at 02:20 AM Posted May 18, 2013 at 02:20 AM Along with the four recalls already in the pipeline in CO Ok,I'm confused (not surprisingly).Why is the Gov. the only defendant? The legislature surely had to pass this POS before it got to his desk for signature.Why not every yea vote?
skinnyb82 Posted May 18, 2013 at 02:55 AM Author Posted May 18, 2013 at 02:55 AM Legislative immunity. They can't be held accountable for any vote on a piece of legislation. Its practically absolute and for good reason, I'm sure you can figure out why that is but it cuts both ways and this is a gray area. I'm surprised the AG isn't a party to the suit though. Legislators, in extreme cases I believe, should be stripped of said immunity if such a piece of legislation is so egregiously unconstitutional that a first grader could tell that. This is not one of those cases. I mean if they were to pass a law saying the punishment for having a 30 round mag is death by drawing and quartering then....uh yeah. Even an ex post facto ban like in NY. you can HAVE 30 round mags just not use them to their capacity. That's like saying "you may own a pen and paper but you may not use either between the hours of 9 pm and 8 am." Or something heh I couldn't think of a good one. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2
Sharz96 Posted May 18, 2013 at 03:12 AM Posted May 18, 2013 at 03:12 AM The governor is the head of the executive branch, ultimately responsible for carrying out legislation. But it seems odd to me, too, that the AG was not named as well.
MINOOKAJOE Posted May 18, 2013 at 11:32 AM Posted May 18, 2013 at 11:32 AM http://news.yahoo.co...-014650482.html Well it looks like the battle will rage on in Colorado 54 out of 64 Sheriffs have sign on to file the lawsuit filed at the U.S district court house in Denver.Sheriffs state the new law that would go into effect on July 1st would infringe on the citiziens constitutional rights to defend themselves,and bear arms. 10 sheriffs did not file. My hats off to the Colorado sheriffs that have filed the lawsuit.
lockman Posted May 18, 2013 at 12:42 PM Posted May 18, 2013 at 12:42 PM I would post this topic in the judicial thread, also already posted. http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=37797
patriot1776 Posted May 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM Posted May 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM There are lots of good laws and resolutions flying around just not getting us over the hump yet in Illinois . This is where i live now , so what every other state does , is not part of my situation in Illinois.
colt-45 Posted May 18, 2013 at 03:22 PM Posted May 18, 2013 at 03:22 PM GOOD JOB HOPE THEY TAKE THEM DOWN IN LAW, GO CO.
skinnyb82 Posted May 18, 2013 at 04:19 PM Author Posted May 18, 2013 at 04:19 PM Think if legislators could be sued....one party would be suing the other for legislation they don't like and vice versa. The caseload would bring the judicial branch to its knees. Criminal immunity is so our elected officials aren't targets of partisan witch hunts where the majority rounds up the minority and has them all tried for bogus crimes. It goes both ways. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2
TTIN Posted May 18, 2013 at 07:20 PM Posted May 18, 2013 at 07:20 PM Legislative immunity. They can't be held accountable for any vote on a piece of legislation. Its practically absolute and for good reason, I'm sure you can figure out why that is but it cuts both ways and this is a gray area. I'm surprised the AG isn't a party to the suit though. Legislators, in extreme cases I believe, should be stripped of said immunity if such a piece of legislation is so egregiously unconstitutional that a first grader could tell that. This is not one of those cases. I mean if they were to pass a law saying the punishment for having a 30 round mag is death by drawing and quartering then....uh yeah. Even an ex post facto ban like in NY. you can HAVE 30 round mags just not use them to their capacity. That's like saying "you may own a pen and paper but you may not use either between the hours of 9 pm and 8 am." Or something heh I couldn't think of a good one. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2Yeah but the governor didn't come up with this bill; he just signed it. (And heck no I ain't taking up for him; just trying to understand)
Sharz96 Posted May 19, 2013 at 03:05 AM Posted May 19, 2013 at 03:05 AM The governor's signing it has nothing whatever to do with this. If he had vetoed it, and the over-rode his veto, he could/should still be a defendant because the governor is the head of the executive branch that carries out the laws. If you want to enjoin carrying out the law, you sue to the people who carry it out. And the buck stops at the governor. It does surprise, me, however, that they didn't name the AG as well, because that is the branch of the executive that will carry out this particular law.
SLIM410 Posted May 19, 2013 at 03:43 AM Posted May 19, 2013 at 03:43 AM http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/4/nra-supports-lawsuit-against-gun-control-in-colorado.aspx
RockerXX Posted May 19, 2013 at 05:35 AM Posted May 19, 2013 at 05:35 AM There are lots of good laws and resolutions flying around just not getting us over the hump yet in Illinois . This is where i live now , so what every other state does , is not part of my situation in Illinois. Because District of Columbia v. Heller doesn't play into anything in Illinois... Every lawsuit brought at the Federal level plays into and is important in the long run for all of us even in IL... If they win in CO district courts and it's appealed to the SCOTUS it's a huge win for all just like Heller... I would love nothing less then the folks in CO to win against these restrictions, and if it goes to the SCOTUS or creates a split that causes the SCOTUS to take up the issue that works as well, we are all in this together as a country...
skinnyb82 Posted May 19, 2013 at 08:06 AM Author Posted May 19, 2013 at 08:06 AM Your situation in Illinois? Not "our" but "your"? Do you live in Chicago or Crook County? That's a municipal issue anyway. Colorado is state wide. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2
kevinmcc Posted May 20, 2013 at 05:32 AM Posted May 20, 2013 at 05:32 AM Be great if the laws get over turned and Colorado still loses businesses. That should be a blow to the progressives there, and hopefully a lesson learned.
cshipley92 Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:12 AM Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:12 AM Be great if the laws get over turned and Colorado still loses businesses. That should be a blow to the progressives there, and hopefully a lesson learned. To learn a lesson one must be willing to learn and change one's mind on an issue. They are not.
TyGuy Posted May 20, 2013 at 03:44 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 03:44 PM I think it's time to throw the BS flag on Magpul for not moving out of Colorado. They said they were going to make an announcement and then Boston happened so they said they would delay the announcement. Then they said they would make an announcement right after the NRA convention, and nothing happened. Methinks they were bluffing. I could be wrong though.
TyGuy Posted May 20, 2013 at 03:46 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 03:46 PM Although this statement is supposedly from Magpul: Just to clarify, we are still moving, regardless of the outcome of this legal action. That train has left the station, and we are well into the selection and negotiation process as well as arranging many elements to be prepared to launch and already moving some production out of state.This lawsuit, however, could have national implications. If this suit can get a mag ban struck down as unconstitutional, the nation may see a ripple effect across other states who choose not to trust their Citizens with their natural rights. That makes this fight worth fighting even more than just the implications for CO, which would have been enough to get us involved.Stay tuned for more information on how to help this effort, for CO and for all states that currently have unconstitutional magazine restrictions.
richp Posted May 20, 2013 at 04:13 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 04:13 PM Hi, According to this http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_22835850/magpul-says-move-out-state-underway-and-others the process is under way. Moving a manufacturing business like this is not a simple matter. But it seems clear they are following through on their earlier intentions. FWIW. Rich Phillips
TyGuy Posted May 20, 2013 at 04:27 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 04:27 PM Then why haven't they announced where they started moving to two months ago? Something doesn't sit well with me about it.
carbinex556 Posted May 20, 2013 at 05:25 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 05:25 PM I bet they move to Utah or WY. If they want to keep thier current employees, they wont move too far. Utah would probably be the better choice for finding more suppliers and industrial buildings to choose from. They were also the most red state in the 2012 election, with O only getting 25% of the vote.
richp Posted May 20, 2013 at 05:37 PM Posted May 20, 2013 at 05:37 PM Hi, The following is from their Facebook page on 5/7. *** "We’d like to thank the tens of thousands of visitors to our booth at the NRA show as well as the numerous posters here on our FB page for your support and for the generous invitations to relocate to your home states. While at the NRA show, we had the opportunity to speak with representatives from various gun-friendly states, including the Governor of Texas and his staff. We have some additional visits and meetings that will be taking place in the near future with the short list of remaining potential locations. Numerous preparations for executing the move while minimizing disruptions to production are already underway. As mentioned previously, we have already started moving some of our production out of CO. There are many factors at work in our decisions, including business climate, tax structure, legislative environment, regulatory burdens, culture, workforce, etc., and any decision that did not consider all these areas carefully would not only be ill-advised, but irresponsible to our employees, our customers, and the brand. We are eager to make more specific announcements as soon as we can responsibly do so without sabotaging our ongoing efforts and negotiations, and we appreciate your support and understanding until then." *** The paragraph Tyguy cited is from their Facebook page just this past Friday. FWIW. Rich Phillips
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.