Judge Marcia Krieger wrote she did not want to be viewed as a super legislator (did you take note of that Don Quick?), yet her very ruling betrays her as such. Instead of ruling on the law as is, she ruled on the law as she interpreted it. What’s been lost in all this hoopla about the gun laws being ruled “constitutional” (for now), is that the defacto magazine ban on what 9News said was “essentially all magazines” still exists. As Kyle Clark himself reported:
“If one line in this bill is interpreted literally… it could ban sales and transfers of ammunition with a removable baseplate, and that’s essentially all magazines.”
Interpreted literally? Isn’t that how Krieger is supposed to be reading the law? As it stands, now, Coloradans are at the mercy and temperament of whoever is Governor or Attorney General. Little confidence is inspired when the best defense gun control advocates had against such an accusation was this:
“They don’t think that will happen.”
We’ve already got a Democratic Attorney General candidate in Don Quick who feels his knowledge of law is superior to the Supreme Court and his will trumps those of all the Coloradans who passed a constitutional amendment; what hope do Colorado gun owners have if he suddenly decides to interpret the magazine ban more broadly than current Attorney General Jon Suthers? The law as it currently stands, only doesn’t ban virtually every magazine because of a directive Suthers wrote. Should Quick become Attorney General—or, another liberal Democrat somewhere down the line—and decide to write a new directive, there would be nothing stopping him from doing so.
We only have to look at the overreach of the EPA over the past decade, where unelected bureaucrats decided a congressional law passed in the 70’s gives them pretty much an unlimited scope of power over all the air and water across the country. Good luck finding a piece of private property where they can’t get you now.
The right and prudent ruling (and, the one where the judge does not act as a super legislator) would have been for Krieger to strike down the law because of that one line alone. Forget whether the rest of the law was constitutional, that one line was so egregious, she should have written she could not ignore the ambiguous power a hastily written law granted the government. If Hickenlooper and Democratic legislators decided it was still in Colorado’s best interests to have such a law on the books, he could certainly call a special session. And, with Democratic majorities in both houses, they should have no problem passing an identical bill minus that unconstitutional line.
As a judge, Krieger has to read the law as is, not how she wants it be. Deciding this law was constitutional despite the defacto magazine ban still being in it, shows she failed to do that.
"it could ban sales… essentially all magazines.”
Let's hope so.
Back to black powder muzzle loaders, you gunnuts.
Pretty much what I said on a Pueblo Chieftain article that is receiving a lot of debate. Some of the comments are worth reading (though some, of course, are just the childish gibberish of fervently devoted party idolaters): http://www.chieftain.com/opinion/2671996-120/gun-law-bill-colorado
My comment there is currently still 'pending' moderator approval, but here is what I said:
This judge felt the need to define what the legislators meant by "designed to be readily converted" to support her ruling.
Hickenlooper, after signing the bill into law, felt the need to have the Attorney General issue an 'interpretation' of what the legislators meant by the phrase 'designed to be readily converted.'
The judge's interpretation stands until another judge changes it.
Hickenlooper's interpretation stands until another Governor's administration changes it.
The law stands, so far, as written.
The common understanding of the English language apparently means nothing – even though it is the language of 'the people.' The words written by the legislative branch were so unclear they needed 'interpretation' by the other two branches. It doesn't matter what 'the people' think it means – it means what the government says it means – subject to change.
Both the executive branch and the judicial branch felt the need to define what the simple phrase "designed to be readily converted" meant before they were comfortable backing the law as written.
The governor's attorney general's interpretation stands until the governor (or a future governor) changes it.
The judge's definition stands until another judge interprets the words a different way.
Merriam-Webster is thrown to the curb. What the words mean to 'the people' is now irrelevant.
It begs me to ask, are we all so stupid we don't know what those simple words mean – that we need two branches of government to tell us what the third 'meant?'
If we allow the legislature to pass laws that are so arbitrary (and poorly written) the other two branches need to redefine them in order to support them, what have we done to ourselves? Especially when the laws are so unclear that they can be undone – or changed to fit any situation – simply with the stroke of a pen by any of the three branches? Consider when 'the pendulum swings' which it always does (when the other 'side' takes the majority power): Do we really want these kind of 'double edged' laws on the books – when both edges cut only toward the people and never toward the oligarchy? Or do we, perhaps, want to hold our legislators accountable for producing clear, well-worded laws that are understandable to the people who are subject to them without 'interpretation' by the other two branches of government?
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
"The 7 Commandments are abridged for the last time, simply reading, All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."
Pretty much what I said on a Pueblo Chieftain article that is receiving a lot of debate. Some of the comments are worth reading (though some, of course, are just the childish gibberish of fervently devoted party idolaters): http://www.chieftain.com/opinion/2671996-120/gun-law-bill-colorado
My comment there is currently still 'pending' moderator approval, but here is what I said:
This judge felt the need to define what the legislators meant by "designed to be readily converted" to support her ruling.
Hickenlooper, after signing the bill into law, felt the need to have the Attorney General issue an 'interpretation' of what the legislators meant by the phrase 'designed to be readily converted.'
The judge's interpretation stands until another judge changes it.
Hickenlooper's interpretation stands until another Governor's administration changes it.
The law stands, so far, as written.
The common understanding of the English language apparently means nothing – even though it is the language of 'the people.' The words written by the legislative branch were so unclear they needed 'interpretation' by the other two branches. It doesn't matter what 'the people' think it means – it means what the government says it means – subject to change.
Both the executive branch and the judicial branch felt the need to define what the simple phrase "designed to be readily converted" meant before they were comfortable backing the law as written.
The governor's attorney general's interpretation stands until the governor (or a future governor) changes it.
The judge's definition stands until another judge interprets the words a different way.
Merriam-Webster is thrown to the curb. What the words mean to 'the people' is now irrelevant.
It begs me to ask, are we all so stupid we don't know what those simple words mean – that we need two branches of government to tell us what the third 'meant?'
If we allow the legislature to pass laws that are so arbitrary (and poorly written) the other two branches need to redefine them in order to support them, what have we done to ourselves? Especially when the laws are so unclear that they can be undone – or changed to fit any situation – simply with the stroke of a pen by any of the three branches? Consider when 'the pendulum swings' which it always does (when the other 'side' takes the majority power): Do we really want these kind of 'double edged' laws on the books – when both edges cut only toward the people and never toward the oligarchy? Or do we, perhaps, want to hold our legislators accountable for producing clear, well-worded laws that are understandable to the people who are subject to them without 'interpretation' by the other two branches of government?
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
"The 7 Commandments are abridged for the last time, simply reading, All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."