Posted on 07/20/2023 12:41:18 PM PDT by CFW
Qualified Immunity is a controversial legal principle that “protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff’s rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a ‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional right.” The bottom line for those of us who believe in civil liberties is that Qualified Immunity makes it very difficult to hold public officials accountable, especially police officers even in cases of horrific brutality, and it’s grating to think that this doctrine was invented by the Supreme Court in 1967.
There’s a tension between the Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment, and Qualified Immunity. We have covered it here at Bearing Arms before, and discussed the downsides and risks to our rights and liberties from this invented doctrine. But there are Very Smart People out there, a couple of law professors, who think that the worst aspects of Qualified Immunity are a fantastic mechanism to undermine the Supreme Court’s NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling and attack gun rights.
In a forthcoming paper in the Notre Dame Law Review Reflection, Prof. Guha Krishnamurthi (University of Oklahoma College of Law) and Prof. Peter Salib (University of Houston Law Center) call for the abuse of Qualified Immunity to confiscate guns.
[snip]
"Here, we suggest an unlikely source of continuing power, after Bruen, for states to disarm individuals they deem dangerous: qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields state officers from monetary liability for many constitutional violations. […] Thus, a state law enforcement officer may, after Bruen, confiscate an individual’s firearm if the officer deems that person too dangerous to possess it. The officer’s justifications may conflict with the federal courts’ understanding of Bruen or the Second Amendment—perhaps flagrantly. But unless a previous, authoritative legal decision examining near-identical facts says so, the officer risks no liability....
(Excerpt) Read more at bearingarms.com ...
SCOTUS needs to reign in sovereign immunity as an escape clause for government employees. They knowingly take illegal actions or pass unconstitutional laws and escape repercussions because they shrug and respond, "How could we have known we were violating the Constitution?". They knew and their actions were deliberate because they understand how long it takes for a case to make it through the court system. And that is only if someone has the time and financial wherewithal to bring a case in the courts.
Actually there is a great cause of action for abuse of office under 42 USC sec. 1983. It is used a LOT, and is very effective.
Shouldn't these guys get bodyguards?
any cop who violates their oath to uphold the constitution because they have sovereign immunity should be fired.
any government official who supports this should be recalled.
any foreign professor who encourages such should be deported because they are foreign agents and do not deserve to live here.
Take it from me bitch.
” we suggest an unlikely source of continuing power, after Bruen, for states to disarm individuals they deem dangerous: qualified immunity.”
And I suggest if law enforcement starts blatantly ignoring the Constitution and the courts to illegally disarm people, then the people may start blatantly ignoring any claims that law enforcement has to authority, or to the normal protections we afford to people who do obey our courts and Constitution...
Law professors wrote this.
What is mind boggling to me is that with all the “Defund the Police” movement, as well as MANY high profile Cops and Fed LEO doing bad things in the past few years.
There seems to have not been a serious effort to get rid of QI.
I think the landscape would have a massive change if QI was massively scaled back.
“we suggest an unlikely source of continuing power”
Nice language for Public Service employees.
Goobermint is not now, nor has ever been your friend.
Brings to mind the full context of the “kill all the lawyers” passage. That same social compact they willingly scorn is the same one that protects them from things best left unstated.
Go ahead, and see how many millions of Dollars the department’s city ends up settling for with the victims.
If the people are legally allowed to own the firearms, and the firearms are legal to own in the state, then the officers would NOT be covered under qualified immunity for confiscating weapons without probable cause.
What sort of numbnutz “Law professors” are these, anyway?
Harvard University Law School
IANAL but if one reads the plain text law they are thinking of charging Trump under (Section 241 of Title 18 of the United States Code), that is to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” in the “free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” It looks to me that these guys are clearly violating the same statute.
I wonder how "Law Professors" feel about Swatting.
Last I heard it was an "Equal Opportunity" blessing.
As a result of the BLM riots, everyone thinks they understand qualified immunity. It most assuredly does not protect you from litigation if you’re a police officer and you knowingly do something that commits a violation of constitutional rights. Take care of the blacks tell it, an officer can just shoot somebody so qualified immunity, and walk away. The truth is DOJ prosecute them for violation of constitutional rights. The city incurs massive liability in the tort claim. And the city or government agency looks for Waze to deem the officers behavior is malfeasance. If they can do that, there is no qualified immunity. An example would be an officer seatbelt the man who stole his wife away and murdered him. But everybody is so eager to believe what BLM says.
Thanks for explaining. I always wondered why states were able to pass laws that went against the US Constitution and the State Constitution.
Do you know any LEOs that would volunteer to confiscate guns?
I would rather work the flight deck on a Chinese Aircraft Carrier than try to take Americans’ guns away.
Ever notice those shouting the loudest aren’t the ones actually tasked with seizing? Kinda like those who say there is too many people and something needs to be done about it, but never step forward as an example to follow.
“Do you know any LEOs that would volunteer to confiscate guns?
“
I am in Mass... YES, I know MANY. (tend to be Ma State Troopers, coty/ town inside 128 Boston, Newton, Etc)
I also know A LOT that would not. (most town cops)
Hey Joe, let’s go raid Bubba’s place and grab his guns!
Sure Tom, now that we have qualified immunity what could go wrong?
Yes. They really should be worried, but they think they are the biggest brains on the planet and can just think their way past any such hurdles.
But the fact is, they are attempting something that has never actually been done before. There have been revolutions backed by the majority of the populace, or at least a large plurality, where they didn’t need to engage in much violence because they had the numbers. And there have been fairly bloodless revolutions that were not backed by the majority, but were backed by the military and law enforcement in a country where the citizens were disarmed. There’s never been a successful bloodless revolution by a minority in a country where there are more guns in private hands than there are people. That’s new territory for them and they should not expect it to play out according to whatever little plan they have dreamed up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.