Color of Law

[marlin.357]

From the FBI website 18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law.

"The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.

During 2009, the FBI investigated 385 color of law cases. Most of these crimes fall into five broad areas:

Excessive force;
Sexual assaults;
False arrest and fabrication of evidence;
Deprivation of property; and
Failure to keep from harm."

Seems to me that SB281 will make the citizens of Maryland vulnerable to deprivation of property and failure to keep from harm, including sexual assaults by depriving us of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Anyway we can use this to put pressure on the legislature?

 

[Brooklyn]

This FBI ?

 

[marlin.357]

well, yeah.....

 

[bpSchoch]

unfortunately, the legislature is immune when they violate the constitution. The executive branch however is not. This statute 18 USC 13 section 241/242 and 42 USC 1981 are the ones to use to against the executive branch when they try to enforce it.

A warning to the legislature is that they will be placing many government workers at risk of lawsuits and wasting a lot of tax payer money having to defend government officials from these lawsuits.

 

[Biggfoot44]

When Md initially begins CCW. Section 1983 suits may be relavent if LE Ofc/ Agencies ( take certain actions ) involving fully laefull citizens. Ideally at the time will will have dialogue between the various 2A groups , and the various Md LE Agencies for smooth transition. But in some places , and some situations 1983s are nesecarry. Visit our neighbors to the north at PAFOA for the situation there.

 

[thebullpupkid]

From the FBI website 18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law.

Cornell lists the entire code. Deprivation is preceded by conspiracy:
18 USC § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

Here's the text of yours:
18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

I know it's the fact that I don't have a law degree, pay dues to the bar, and have aspirations of political office but in my reading of these bills, AWBs, HB281, and the lot of them represent crimes committed by our own politicians. Signed, sealed, and preserved in the public record.

Now generally speaking for the federal reps, they are exempt from arrest during the active legislative cycle (I think the legislative body can vote away their protections...not 100% on how it works, they're not fully immune...)and you cannot imprison them or impede their travel to the legislative chambers.

I know it would never in a million years happen but if we believe that words have meaning, it's hard to argue that 53 senators co-sponsoring a gun ban bill aren't directly engaging in a conspiracy against specifically enumerated constitutional rights. I'm sure there are concepts of chilling the application and evolution of law and likely 1st amendment arguments against enforcing these code in such a manner as well but it's interesting that they are written as precisely as they are. On one hand they seem constitutional for they seem to give teeth to the principal that unconstitutional laws are invalid. On the other, they could possibly restrict the ability of lawmakers to freely debate... It would be interesting and simultaneously scary to see the SCOTUS critters rule on the application of these statutes.

 

[K31]

Since .gov teaches how to deprive people of property who haven't been convicted of anything, I would not hold my breath.

 

[Brooklyn]

Cornell lists the entire code. Deprivation is preceded by conspiracy:
18 USC § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

Here's the text of yours:
18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

I know it's the fact that I don't have a law degree, pay dues to the bar, and have aspirations of political office but in my reading of these bills, AWBs, HB281, and the lot of them represent crimes committed by our own politicians. Signed, sealed, and preserved in the public record.

Now generally speaking for the federal reps, they are exempt from arrest during the active legislative cycle (I think the legislative body can vote away their protections...not 100% on how it works, they're not fully immune...)and you cannot imprison them or impede their travel to the legislative chambers.

I know it would never in a million years happen but if we believe that words have meaning, it's hard to argue that 53 senators co-sponsoring a gun ban bill aren't directly engaging in a conspiracy against specifically enumerated constitutional rights. I'm sure there are concepts of chilling the application and evolution of law and likely 1st amendment arguments against enforcing these code in such a manner as well but it's interesting that they are written as precisely as they are. On one hand they seem constitutional for they seem to give teeth to the principal that unconstitutional laws are invalid. On the other, they could possibly restrict the ability of lawmakers to freely debate... It would be interesting and simultaneously scary to see the SCOTUS critters rule on the application of these statutes.

Codes of this sort are intended primarily to deal with petty corruption and protection of minorities. Do not be surprised if your suit is dismissed in summary judgment. With prejudice- if there is any merit to any litigation at all I trust MSI , SAF, etc to find it.

 

[bpSchoch]

Codes of this sort are intended primarily to deal with petty corruption and protection of minorities. Do not be surprised if your suit is dismissed in summary judgment. With prejudice- if there is any merit to any litigation at all I trust MSI , SAF, etc to find it.

Yes that's SOP. They will defend with motion to dismiss (in fact most seem to use a canned motion that is floating on the internet). However because of that you need to be prepared to 'tear' down their motion with truth, fact, law and evidence (I call it TFLE) and appropriate cites. The state doesn't want you to be able to get to the discovery stage which opens up the can of worms for them so they will fight like heck to get it dismissed.