Colorado Sheriffs Will Sue Over Gun Laws


When the police think that regular citizens — people with whom they must constantly interact in their work — are better off with guns than without them, shouldn’t the people making the laws those cops have to enforce be listening?

More than half the 62 elected sheriffs in the State of Colorado are preparing a lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of broad gun-control laws the Legislature passed and the Governor signed last month.

The Denver Post reported Wednesday that 37 of the State’s sheriffs are presently involved, although more are likely to join. It’s not known yet whether the suit would be filed in State or Federal court.

The suit would take aim at three gun-control measures signed into law by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper on March 20 — eight months after a mass murder at an Aurora theater elicited a call from liberal legislators, governors, Congressmen and the Administration of President Barack Obama to create new laws expanding government’s role in determining who can own what type of gun.

Together, the Colorado legislation limits magazine capacity to 15 rounds, requires universal background checks that encompass private gun sales and then requires the customer to pay for the background check.

At the time the new measures passed, a Republican State Senator voiced what gun-owning Coloradans were thinking: “I’m telling you right now: I will not obey this law. I will willfully and purposefully and civilly disobey this law.”

The sheriffs’ proposed lawsuit would argue the Colorado laws violate the 2nd Amendment’s right to bear arms, as well as the 14th Amendment’s protection of citizens’ immunities from state infringement.

Sheriffs’ support for the suit isn’t quite unanimous, but it’s gaining momentum. One sheriff who said he won’t be signing on attributed his reluctance not to any disagreement he had with the spirit of the suit; rather, he said he just doesn’t believe in suing “anybody for anything.”

Personal Liberty

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • R.F.

    Sheriffs swear to obey and enforce the law. They should do so.

    • CongressWorksForUs

      No. They first and foremost swear an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States, which this law clearly violates…

      • R.F.

        I believe the constitutional process is that the courts decide on constitutionality of laws. Law enforcement officers are just that – law enforcement officers.

        • Steve E

          If you believe that the courts can make the right decision, I got some 32 oz. sodas in NYC I’ll sell you.

          • coloradobear

            Me too, plus I have some 100 round magazines in California I’ll sell you. Wake up. The Constitution IS the rule of law. Any OTHER law which may be legilated at any level, from State to Federal, which violates or goes against, infringes on any part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights is a “BAD LAW” which the people do not have to obey. For the past 50 years, we have been blindly allowing politicians to legislate away our rights without putting up so much as a whimper. We are the Shrew that has been pushed into a corner. Now these politicians will get a fight.

          • vicki

            And unlike Obamacare or the IRS Tax Code the Constitution is really easy to read and understand.

          • R.F.

            I believe more in the courts than in you to make proper legal decisions. And you can keep the sodas but thanks anyway.

        • Ole SC

          If you think that we have constitutionalist judges in the superior courts, appeals courts and supreme courts, then you need to take a closer look. Do you think that it’s constitutional to force a citizen to purchase health care, wear a seat belt, kill a baby, man marry a man, women marry a women, and I could go on for an hour but you should get the point. And if you don’t get the point, then you have a serious problem.

          • R.F.

            It is the Constitution that clearly outlines the role of the Senate, House, and President in law making and the role of the courts in deciding constitutionality. You may not like the process that the Founders decided upon but that’s your problem.

          • Ole SC

            No R.F. that’s all of our damn problem. Since you obviously haven’t notice, this country is in one hell of a mess and it is a direct result of liberal policies of, politicians and courts. The design of our founding fathers is best in the history of the world, but, the process is being circumvented by the un-constitutional actions of all of those mentioned. The Second Amendment is not debatable, it is what it is and is our God given right and comfirmed by the Constitution and does not need to be decided by any court!!!!!!!! period

        • Timothy Marvin

          RF, those law enforcement officers are citizens of the united
          states and can sue the state of coloradoor violating the constitution!!

        • vicki

          Do you really want momma government to decide for you what is right? We are soveriegn. We decide. This article explains some of the methods to be used.

    • vicki

      They do. And refusing to enforce such obviously unconstitutional “laws” is doing so. It is ALSO honoring their oath to protect and defend the Supreme LAW of the land. The Constitution.

      • R.F.

        What’s obvious to you is not obvious to a majority of American citizens. About 90% favour tighter controls on heavy weaponry. And the Constitution specifies which branches of government shall make laws and pass judgement on them if need be. I’m not sure that selling weapons that can murder scores of school kids in just seconds by some loonie is what the Founders had in mind when they mentioned “a well regulated militia.”

  • Darral

    sheriffs also take an oath to defend the constitution, Gun Control is Treason, read Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. Essay Dare call it Treason and let us call it what it is TREASON, Abolish this Destructive Treasonous Democratic party.

  • coloradobear

    These legislators are some of the Marxists who work for Obama, not the people of Colorado. Why else would he jump on Air Force One and rush out here to congratulate them, pat them all on their little pointed heads and then give a speech full of more Obama Rhetoric and lies abiut the “need” for more gun control when we have over 50% of the Colorado law enforcement community telling them clearly that what they are doing is wrong? What I don’t understand is that during the week long testimonies being given in Denver prior to the voting on these bills, why the hell didn’t these Sheriffs who also testify stop the procedings and arrest everyone of those Liberal traitors right then and there. These Sheriffs clearly knew that those politicians had broken the “Law of the Land” and violated their oath of office. What does it take to stop these elected officials who are clearly NOT working for their constituents but are using their elected position to further the Communist agenda and the disarmament of this nation. I for one will NOT obey any of their laws. I will wilfully disobey all of them and I will defy them. And if they attempt enforce any of their infringing laws upon me, I will resist in any and all manner necessary to defend my freedoms. My liberties are God given and NO man has the right to strip me of them. I will not be punished by these communists for the deeds of a psychotic, deranged, Liberal murderer.

  • Right Brain Thinker

    The PLD pattern holds—put the word GUN in the title of an article and the ranting and raving begins. And we are again using Colorado as an example of something, just as we recently did with the allegations that the DHS was going to “target” Christians.

    And LOOK—-all those CO sheriffs that are climbing on board! Of course, it is hard to get an exact list of who they are, but a quick look shows that many of them are from the very smallest counties in CO, and those counties have populations of only one or two THOUSAND. You can find nearly that many folks shopping in any two Wal-Marts on a busy weekend.

    Yep, we have another case here of “one flea is found on one small dog” and that is blown up to a NATIONWIDE FLEA EPIDEMIC. Lord love a duck!


    The Obama “cyber-warrior-program”…what is it and how to spot the “assets”!

    What most people are not aware of, is that, shortly after Obama’s inauguration on January 23/08, something called “the Cyber-Warriors for Obama Project” was activated. This project is paid for through funds from Obama’s political corporation, called: the 501(c)4 Organizing for Obama. Instructions of the project are contained in a white, three-ring binder with Obama’s circular campaign logo imprinted on the outside of the binder with the name “Cyber-Warriors for Obama” printed in blue across the top. Inside this binder are the names and e-mail addresses of 3,575 “cyber assets,” or “warriors,” listed in alphabetical order under about a dozen or so “team leaders.” Most of these “assets” are being paid just over minimum wage, and most work from home and have no overhead. Supervisors make substantially more.

    The binder contains multiple tabs , among them, one section with the word “targets” has a list of religious web sites, web sites recognized as Christian. Another section has a listing of conservative Internet sites. There is another tab with the label “problem sites” that are quite extensive. That particular section is broken down further into “birther” sites, “pro-gun” sites, “anti-abortion” sites, just to name a few. There is also a section of the usual news sites, like CNN, ABC… Numerous e-mail addresses each corresponding to the appropriate news organization, which also includes Fox…

    The first page of the binder has bullet points labeled “objectives” and instructions for the cyber-assets. There is also a very detailed non-disclosure agreement with the word “DRAFT” typed in big, light grey letters across the body of the two-page agreement. The agreement and the instructions are typed on white paper with a warning, printed in red on each page, that the document was not to be copied or disseminated! The instructions are very specific; Infiltrate web forums, collect screen names, avatars, and posters’ tag lines, and attempt to resolve these to their actual identities. At times, the instruction to the “asset” is only to monitor but do not disrupt without authorization.

    There is another section titled “Divert, Disrupt and Destroy,” listing “how to’s” in certain cases.There is also a section on maintaining a social media presence, and another on the most effective use of Twitter.

    Lastly, there is a “reference section,” which included statistics, specific language to use to marginalize different posters, and effective methods to discredit people while maintaining a sense of legitimacy. The subheading is “And the truth shall set you free.”

    Truth? They are hired on their hacking abilities, or more precisely on their abilities to make postings through proxy servers and effectively use alternate identities and multiple e-mail addresses. Their purpose is to spread disinformation, not truth.

    There are also various pages that contain “motivational statements”, including one that referred to Obama as the “Pharaoh of the Internet,” an odd characterization.

    But what’s important is that suddenly, through the use of Internet aliases, multiple e-mail addresses, and screen names, a project that employs 3,575 people will have the appearance and effectiveness of maybe 10,000 or more different people.

    These people, “Cyber-warriors”, were hired through the campaign offices located throughout the country, and that training meetings were held at various locations. The binders were for instructional purposes, not to hand out, and contain a list of web sites.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      The BINDER fairy tale again! JAY is so fond of this fairy tale that he is now posting it on multiple threads. He will probably follow his past pattern and do so even on threads where it is irrelevant. JAY knows that if you feed horsepucky sandwiches to the ignorant and paranoid wherever you may find them, they will follow you anywhere and beg for more.

      • vicki

        Right Brain Thinker doesn’t and says:
        “The BINDER fairy tale again! JAY is so fond of this fairy tale that he is now posting it on multiple threads.”

        RBT is so fond of ad hominem and argument to ridicule that he is posting it on multiple threads.

        • Right Brain Thinker

          I’m just following JAY around and cleaning up horsepucky after him, Vicki. (actually “bumping into him” would be more appropriate). Bob Livingston DOES rely on me to help uphold the intellectual integrity of the site. Bob will be upset if you keep interfering with my mission.
          STOP IT, VICKI
          STOP IT NOW!

          By the way, are you into irony enough that you can recognize that YOU are following ME around and posting inanities on multiple threads in my wake?. LOL

          • vicki

            The difference is that I am not following you. I am working thru the threads and come across your posts from time to time and some I choose to comment. But if you want to dream that you are a leader feel free. It is your right and power to do so.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            “SOME you choose to comment”? Okay, Vicki, whatever you say—-that would be more believable if you didn’t “choose” to do so quite as often and didn’t make such inane comments. It really looks as if you’re just trying to be a pest.

            The last thing I would ever “dream” about is being responsible in any way for anything you say or do—-that would properly be described as a “nightmare” anyway.

          • vicki

            You really are incapable of avoiding ad hominem aren’t you.

          • WTS/JAY

            RBT is walking ad-hominem…not his fault, he was born that way.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            No, dear, I choose when to reply or not after some thought, and I also choose the words I use—-fairly carefully. All those things you call “ad hominems” and “attacks to ridicule” are merely calling a “spade a spade”, and it is unfortunate that you can’t understand that.

            When people say stupid things over and over, they prove themselves to be stupid, when they repeat lies over and over, they prove themselves to be liars, etc.. That’s not “attack”, it’s just speaking truth—-why do you have so much trouble with truth?

          • WTS/JAY

            RBT: Bob Livingston DOES rely on me to help uphold the intellectual integrity of the site.

            Thanks for the belly laugh, RBT. Perhaps you serve a purpose after all.

      • WTS/JAY

        One could understand selling one’s soul for a large sum, RBT, but for minimum wage? You come cheap, don’t you? But then again, you never held to high standards to begin with, did you?

        • Right Brain Thinker

          Vicki and JAY must be working the night shift together at the “Shiils’n’Trolls’r’Us shop. They are talking to each other over their cubicle dividers and chuckling about their little “joint warfare” game with RBT.

          It must be a slow night for the trolls, no gun or AGW stuff to talk about, so they must keep themselves amused somehow. I’m just checking back before bedtime—-watched a pretty good movie—-“Flight” with Denzel Washington—-I recommend it to all.

          Go for it, trolls. The two of you are a walking, talking “ad hominem” against the concept of rational and honest discourse. I will point that out to you when the mood strikes me—enjoy.

  • machodog

    I don’t know if you people have noticed but, oaths and promises mean nothing to demoncrats. As it is now, the governor is replacing sheriff’s duties and passed them on to secret service agents even enabling them to arrest sheriffs that refuse to uphold gun control. Also in the making is a bill to ban the sheriffs’ position altogether. We will have an American gestapo. Praise the Lord and pass the ammo. I am drawing up a petition to recall Hickenlooper.

    • vicki

      Last I checked the Sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer in the county and supersedes city, state AND federal agents. Might be a wee bit messy to try and compromise that position.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Depends on where you are. In some states like VA, Sheriffs are only “high” in rural areas where they are the only law enforcement around besides the somewhat thinly spread State Police. In the more heavily populated regions that have Sounty Police Departments, they do virtually no “law enforcement” at all—-they run the jail, provide security at the courthouse, and serve legal papers—-they supersede no one.

        And that ignores the fact that many,if not most, are elected to their positions, with all the implications thereof.

        • Right Brain Thinker

          That’s “County” Police——and while I’m fixing things, I meant to say “”most, if not all, are elected”


    I think the sheriffs have a handle on this, removing guns from legal citizens will not mean more effective police work, in fact it might mean a whole lot less protection for all involved…..Interfering with the 2nd amendment, disarming legal citizens means, shooting fish in a barrel for criminals…

  • Steve M

    Gun companies could also file a lawsuit against these new laws due to them unnecessarily cutting into their profits and increasing business cost by forcing them to develop new mags and variations on popular firearms that are banned based on cosmetic features alone.

  • Guest

    Let those treasonous politicians can pass whatever they want real americans won’t follow their bs laws and regulations. Obviously our politicians don’t care about the constitution or civil liberties so we have no choice but to protect ourselves from them no matter what.