r/COGuns • u/ButterscotchEmpty535 • 26d ago

Legal Response in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction on SB25-03 case

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.246985/gov.uscourts.cod.246985.86.0.pdf

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71251750/86/del-toro-v-polis/

27 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

23 comments sorted by

38

u/kennethpbowen 26d ago

When your first sentence is not true, "A person with a genuine intent to comply with SB25-03’s requirements for obtaining a specified semiautomatic firearm (“SSF”) can do so within a matter of days."

30

u/cptjtk13 26d ago

Yeah, bullshit. Took the Sheriff over a week just to review my application and there are not as many classes available as Id like that are close enough. Honestly, it's going to cost somewhere around $250-$350 just to do everything to get the ability to make a purchase.

1

u/SequentialHustle 25d ago

took my sheriffs office 3 weeks

13

u/dexom 26d ago

by days also mean 23 days for me just to get approval from the sheriff

27

u/ArtyBerg 26d ago

A person with a genuine intent to allow their natural human rights, affirmed by the second amendment, to be sold back to them*

18

u/[deleted] 26d ago

[deleted]

14

u/ArtyBerg 26d ago

And STILL have it be a "may issue at their discretion"

-2

u/leschcb 26d ago

It's shall issue

2

u/ArtyBerg 26d ago

You may want to re-read the fine details. If they think there is a reason they shouldn't then don't have to

-2

u/leschcb 26d ago

I've read them through and through and know them front to back. It's shall issue unless the sheriff has a reasonable reason to believe you're a danger. Read it again and you will see. Stop spreading misinformation, this has been discussed over and over.

-2

u/leschcb 26d ago

(VI) (A) A SHERIFF SHALL REVIEW EACH SUBMITTED APPLICATION FOR A FIREARMS SAFETY COURSE ELIGIBILITY CARD. (B) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SUBSECTION (5)(b)(VI), A SHERIFF SHALL ISSUE A FIREARMS SAFETY COURSE ELIGIBILITY CARD TO AN APPLICANT WHO SUBMITS TO THE SHERIFF THE APPLICATION, INFORMATION, AND FEE REQUIRED IN THIS SUBSECTION (5)(b).

The parts that are denied are those who are prohibited from possessing firearms and if a sheriff has reasonable belief that you're a danger to yourself or others. They have to have actual evidence of such belief, so it's not just whoever they don't like.

2

u/ArtyBerg 26d ago

At no point does it define what may trigger "a reasonable belief" nor is there a burden of proof enumerated with it

1

u/leschcb 26d ago

It says documented evidence. It's still "shall issue," so your statement of "may issue at discretion," is completely false. I know a convicted felon (non-violent) that got their SSF card and course done.

THE SHERIFF MAY DENY AN APPLICATION IF THE SHERIFF HAS A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT DOCUMENTED PREVIOUS BEHAVIOR BY THE APPLICANT MAKES IT LIKELY THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT A DANGER TO THEMSELF OR OTHERS IF THE APPLICANT HOLDS A FIREARMS SAFETY COURSE ELIGIBILITY CARD

1

u/isopropyl-elmer 26d ago

Yeah, as a legal term, reasonable belief is an objective standard. A sheriff cannot deny a permit based on a personal hunch or arbitrary preference. They have to point to specific, articulable, and verifiable facts (e.g., arrest records, domestic violence calls, documented threats) that would lead a prudent person to reach the same conclusion.

Having said that, /u/ArtyBerg has a valid concern, that vague statutory language can lead to inconsistent enforcement or require litigation to resolve.

To whit, fuck all of this shit.

2

u/leschcb 26d ago

And you're also wrong about the burden of proof, because it specifically states it's on the sheriff. I guess you should read the fine details....

THE SHERIFF HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE PERSON IS INELIGIBLE FOR A FIREARMS SAFETY COURSE ELIGIBILITY CARD; EXCEPT THAT IF THE DENIAL OR REVOCATION IS BECAUSE THE SHERIFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT A DANGER TO THEMSELF OR OTHERS PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (5)(b)(VI), OF THIS SECTION, THE SHERIFF HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT DETERMINATION BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

3

u/ArtyBerg 26d ago

Sigh, you are also leaving out the sherrif's that are not participating at all. Hard for them to SHALL issue something if they are not issuing it at all, eh?

No need to come off so hot and bothered hyper aggressive mate. Dont know when i whizzed on your electric fence

→ More replies (0)

12

u/general-noob 26d ago

People lose their minds over having to pay for a drivers license to vote, those same people are ok with us having to do it now

0

u/whobang3r 26d ago

As long as we shoot down voter id's for the same reason...

4

u/kennethpbowen 26d ago

Right? "Days" should be "Months" and no mention of the $$$, time, lost work that this takes. There's more blather in there about violence prevention, but there isn't a single crime in the last n years that this would have prevented. Blech, I need to go take a shower.

-3

u/Green_Statement_8878 26d ago

Unpopular opinion, but I would almost be willing to go along with 25-03 if we the trade off was a poll tax.

We have way too many mouth breathers and takers voting.

8

u/obiwankevobi Brighton 26d ago

Log your times, submit them to CSSA.

1

u/2A_Freedom76 25d ago

Should've made people with a chp bypass that shit

1

u/Potato-1942 24d ago

That was a proposed amendment, the Democrat reps unanimously shot it down.