Quote of the Day
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. In short, unless a previous case “clearly established,” with high factual particularity, that the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional, the officer does not pay. 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. And because each individual act of disarmament will be unique, such prior decisions will be vanishingly rare. The result is a surprisingly free hand for states to determine who should and should not be armed, even in contravention of the Supreme Court’s dictates.
University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
University of Houston Law Center
Qualified Immunity as Gun Control
July 5, 2023
This looks to me like a conspiracy to violate rights and perhaps other crimes by Krishnamurthi and Salib. Can’t they be satisfied with the current violations of the constitution?
If violating the constitution, and openly admitting they know it is unconstitutional, becomes pervasive I could see the response become correspondingly unlawful.