Failed injunction request for the suit about requiring initiative language. Polis fails at the appellate court trying to stop an injunction. Lastly, both Polis and Weiser see your rights as loopholes.
This is the first of a couple posts today updating lawsuits I've posted about in the past.
This first one concerns a failed effort to try and get an injunction against the enforcement of the new Colorado law that requires (sometimes-false) language be included on initiatives that would lower taxes.
The federal judge hearing the case did not rule against the plaintiffs, but he did rule that there was no need for a restraining order preventing enforcement of the law until the court case comes up.
The legal theory the plaintiffs are working under here is that the addition of the language in the bill is a violation of the First Amendment since it compels speech of anyone wanting to do a ballot initiative; i.e. that they MUST include speech that they may not agree with.
The article below quotes the judge's top-line ruling:
"'I find that the plaintiffs have failed to show that the speech at issue here is in fact compelled speech of them as opposed to simply being government speech,' [Judge] Brimmer said."
I had to smile at this. Sit and think this through with me.
It isn't always the case, but it is possible that the required language the Democrats insisted be put on citizen initiatives is not true. It's also possible that it would be a half truth.
So, can we therefore say conclude, as is hinted at by Brimmer, that government speech (whatever that means) doesn't need to be true?
I mean, we should none of us be surprised that it sometimes isn't, but it's startling and kind of funny to see that acknowledged.
Kind of sad that it'd be a given too.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/08/30/judge-advance-colorado-tabor-ballot-initiative-ruling/
Quick update on the Democrat's attempt to stay the injunction on their minimum age to purchase a rifle bill. It's good news.
Gov Polis, through his office as the official representative of the state, has tried to prevent the temporary injunction barring enforcement of the new Democrat law to prevent anyone under 21 from buying any gun in Colorado from standing.
He tried to convince the judge that put in the restraining order (based on the fact that the law was likely to not be held up in court and the potential injury to Coloradan's rights if the law were allowed to be enforced while we wait for the court to rule) to withdraw it. No luck.
He appealed to the next level up, the 10th Circuit and, once again, has had no luck.
The injunction barring the law until the actual court hearing stands again. That is, the law cannot be enforced until the trial takes place and a ruling is issued.
Good news if you are a fan of your rights, regardless of whether or not Polis (quoting the article) "blasted the decision".
Let me also repeat what I've said before. If you're concerned about defending your rights, the best way given the current political reality in this state is to donate to a local gun-rights organization that will take the fight to the courts, specifically the Federal courts.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/08/29/jared-polis-age-limit-gun-appeal/
A pattern I've noticed: both Gov Polis and AG Weiser seem eager to characterize rights as "loopholes".
In the previous post there was a statement given by Polis re. losing his appeal on the injunction against the minimum-age gun law he signed. The reporter characterized it as his blasting the decision.
Let's look more in full at what he said. I attached the quote as screenshot 1 (from the first article below). Note the language.
A " ... loophole [presumably to Federal law--a law which is currently being challenged as we speak] allows kids under 21 to buy a rifle ..."
Putting aside the issue that the "kids" here are 18 year olds who we trust to drive, use medical marijuana as prescribed, to vote, to join the military, note the use of the word loophole.
When the US Supreme Court ruled against Colorado in the 303 Creative Case, the AG did some blasting of his own regarding the decision. I pulled a quote from the article linked second below and attached it as screenshot #2. Give it a read.
The loophole AG Weiser refers to here is, presumably, the one that allows people who make expressive art for money to not be forced to create things that express a view contrary or offensive to their own. You know, that whole "no compelled speech" bugaboo.
That's two examples, proximate to each other in time, of Colorado Democrats referring to fundamental rights in some form or another as a loophole. That is "an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded" according to Merriam Webster (see the attached screencap from their online dictionary).
Pardon me Jared Polis and Phil Weiser, my rights are not loopholes or a way around the laws you pass or support.
My rights supersede laws. My rights are not subject to what you think is a good idea or the proper way you think life should run.
Adults, with a few exceptions, have a right to keep and bear arms. Not allowing people under 21 to have handguns (something, again, which is being challenged now) was an exception to that right.
People have freedom of conscience in this country. They have the freedom to say that, no, I will not affirm that statement or belief. That freedom extends to the things they do as well as the things they say. If others choose to give money to someone because they like their artistic work or statements, that's their business, but their money doesn't get to buy that person's compliance. That money doesn't get to dictate their beliefs.
I think it is telling of of their beliefs, their paradigm of how government should run and what its role should be, that these two (and likely other Progressives in this state who bemoaned these rulings but perhaps did so without using the word loophole to do it) would see it as the job of government to tell "allow" us freedoms and rights.
Funny, I guess I never saw the Constitution and Bill of Rights in that light.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/08/29/jared-polis-age-limit-gun-appeal/
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/colorado-leaders-cautious-about-altering-anti-discrimination-law-following-scotus-decision/article_01104cf4-1788-11ee-b860-27536ba79787.html