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.
“we suggest an unlikely source of continuing power”
Nice language for Public Service employees.
Goobermint is not now, nor has ever been your friend.
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?
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.
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?
Yup...the bottom will fall out at some point. Prep while ya can.
interesting how these “professors” who try to appear wise do not understand the law of unintended consequences and may well themselves be caught up in that “QUALIFIED immunity trap”. these perfessers need to keep in mind that ALL roads go two ways. even a one way. just fyi.
War it is, then.
Bkmk