55 Colorado Sheriff's file suit against new state gun laws

I did a search and came up with nothing, if this has already been posted then please remove.

DENVER -- Colorado sheriffs upset with gun restrictions adopted in the aftermath of last year's mass shootings filed a federal lawsuit Friday, challenging the regulations as unconstitutional.

The lawsuit involves sheriffs from 54 of Colorado's 64 counties, most representing rural, gun-friendly areas of the state.

The sheriffs say the new state laws violate Second Amendment protections that guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. Opponents are criticizing the lawsuit as political maneuvering.

The filing targets Colorado laws that limit the size of ammunition magazines and expand background checks. The regulations passed the Legislature this spring and are set to take effect July 1.

It isn't yet clear whether the sheriffs' challenge will delay or jeopardize the laws. The filing, however, guarantees the renewal of a fierce debate over gun control.

I have been aware of this impending suit for some time now as Sheriff Cooke is greatly involved in the Oath Keepers organization. I am glad to see the lawsuit has been filed and I hope that the attorney's for the sheriff's will seek an injunction to bar these laws from taking effect on July 1 until the court hears the case.

I am very glad to see a group of sheriff's taking a stand for our second amendment rights and since from a constitutional view the sheriff is the highest constitutional law enforcement officer in the land their position should hold some water but that remains to be seen.

Here is a youtube link to the Sheriff's attorney speaking on this matter. I received these links in an email from the Oathkeepers organization with my monthly newsletter and am also very glad that the Oathkeepers are involved in this as well.



Link to list of Sheriff's and press conference

I put this under Social Issues and Civil Unrest because it seems that since we are now seeing sheriff's going against state legislation we are seeing a further division in this nation.

reply to post by Nucleardiver


Are the

Opponents are criticizing the lawsuit as political maneuvering.

politicians?

I look like an idiot most times, so it's ok if I do this time too!

reply to post by loveguy


Of course! In fact one of the biggest opponents to this suit is the governor of Colorado. I know that when the gun control legislation was being proposed Sheriff Cooke requested a forum in front of the governor and the governor wouldn't even see Cooke. The Colorado Oath Keepers also tried to speak in front of both the governor and the state legislators and they were not allowed to be heard either.

I think I saw this somewhere on here at one point but is nice to see there is now a lawsuit (didn't know that part). Even if someone didn't agree with this lawsuit It's uplifting to see since it reminds us that our officers care just as much about our rights as we do. There is too much tail sniffing that goes on in this world so love to see some opposition. When I was in Northern California about a month ago I went into a car shop as rig needed some attention. There was a posted notice by the Sherrie that stated that they would not uphold any new gun laws. I was going to take a picture but thought they would find it weird of me. Then you get Texas saying college kids can carry guns on campus. This issue just needs to be left alone. It's starting a revolution slowly but surely.

Originally posted by Dianec
It's starting a revolution slowly but surely.

Yes it is, and at least some of the law enforcement are on the side of our second amendment and the rights of the people and the constitution the swore an oath to uphold.

reply to post by Nucleardiver


For those who are not holding up to their oath I wonder if this then means they be relieved of their duties.

Maybe that's what this lawsuit is all about. Holding them accountable for not upholding their oaths. Have to do more reading on this to be clear

Originally posted by Dianec
reply to post by Nucleardiver

 

For those who are not holding up to their oath I wonder if this then means they be relieved of their duties.

It would be nice if the law was enforced and they were actually charged under 5 USC 7311 but that would never happen.


Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311. 5 USC 3331 also makes it a violation of federal law for ANY government official to violate their oath of office.

reply to post by Nucleardiver

The Colorado Oath Keepers also tried to speak in front of both the governor and the state legislators and they were not allowed to be heard either.

I'm a Patrick Henry type of guy...

I expect the sheriffs association to continue encouraging me to be this way while also trying to restore the D and the 2nd E back into the FERAL government.

who pays the sheriff?

Because most sheriffs are elected into office, salary often depends on a county's financial budget.

Originally posted by Nucleardiver

Originally posted by Dianec
reply to post by Nucleardiver

 

For those who are not holding up to their oath I wonder if this then means they be relieved of their duties.

It would be nice if the law was enforced and they were actually charged under 5 USC 7311 but that would never happen.


Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311. 5 USC 3331 also makes it a violation of federal law for ANY government official to violate their oath of office.

That's some great information so thank you I'm joining that site as soon as my replacement credit card gets to me. They need support even if through memberships. It would seem that these actions could lead to the people overthrowing the corruption of the double standard that has been created in government. Takes an oath but really means nothing since protected from being held accountable if fail to uphold. It's empty. It makes our country weak in fact. I do hope this leads to more changes in this regard. Never say never. As the word spreads someone will create a petition and word it well. Change is not easy. It takes courage and persistence. It also takes time so hopefully more will spare some of their free time to get this government to stop being the snake and start being the eagel it was meant to be.

Since much of American English has roots in Spanish, and by extension permutations to Spanish by Native Americans which most call "Mexican":
"fe" = faith or belief, proof
"de" = from, of, about, belonging to, starting from (originating with)
"ral" = contracted form of "real" = real, authentic(ity), true; again contracted from "Rey al", where Rey is "King" and "al" is "the", "at", "into", or "to him ('them' in vulgar Spanish, a.k.a. Mexican)". "King to... of... over... them (everyone)." Adding "al" after the nominative denotes total possession.

Thus "federal" is "proof of the King's truth over everyone".



Hey, I can play the conspiracy angle too, no?