TexasCHLforum.com

Awesome.

This should be good to watch.

Would a legal wizard mind explaining to me what the "color of law" is? Is that something like the "intent"?

Of all the pending actions, I strongly hope that this one is successful. As a former NJ resident, nothing would please me more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_%28law%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"In U.S. law, the term color of denotes the “mere semblance of legal right”, the “pretense or appearance of” right; hence, an action done under color of law colors (adjusts) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law."

74novaman wrote:Would a legal wizard mind explaining to me what the "color of law" is? Is that something like the "intent"?

It's a reference to Title 18 USC 242. http://www.justice.gov/crt/crim/242fin.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It means either passing and implementing a law which deprives people of their rights or using one's official position in upholding the law to go outside the bounds of the law when pretending that one's position allows one to do so.

Example: A state passes a law which prohibits all firearms from its borders and starts confiscating otherwise lawful guns. They denied their citizens their 2A rights under color of law.

Example: a police officer arrests someone and books him into jail for theft when there was no probable cause of theft and the issue was really that the police officer was mad at the guy for flunking the police officer's kid. The police officer acted inappropriately under the color of law.

That makes sense. Thanks guys! Knew I loved this forum.

AndyC wrote:From my understanding, it's considered a felony to deprive someone of their civil rights - now wouldn't it be interesting if that horse were ridden all the way

I would pay to see it. I might even fly to NJ to watch the sentencing.
It would certainly send the proper message to anti-2a Chiefs, DA's, and other persons in power that they are, in fact, not untouchable for acts committed during their 'job'

After all, "I was just following orders" was determined not to be valid for the Nazis, I think the same should apply universally to persons under a corrupt/law twisting Chief, DA, court, etc.

dicion wrote:

AndyC wrote:...I think the same should apply universally to persons under a corrupt/law twisting Chief, DA, court, etc.

Would sure be a catalyst for change, wouldn't it? In more than a few ways...

dicion wrote:It would certainly send the proper message to anti-2a Chiefs, DA's, and other persons in power that they are, in fact, not untouchable for acts committed during their 'job'

Someone tell the TSA.