Sheriffs refuse to enforce new Colorado gun laws

[Texashiker]

This is interesting,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-laws-on-gun-control.html?_r=0

Some sheriffs, like Sheriff Cooke, are refusing to enforce the laws, saying that they are too vague and violate Second Amendment rights. Many more say that enforcement will be “a very low priority,” as several sheriffs put it. All but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.

All but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.

The question I pose to the community, should a sheriff by loyal to the community who elected him, or to the state legislator and governor?

In a republic, why should an elected official serve someone who did not elect that person? The governor did not elect the sheriff. Some senator or representative on the other side of the state did not elect the local sheriff. The people elected the sheriff.

Should the local sheriff serve the interest of the people before upholding state law?

 

[destey]

This is just officer discretion. Same thing used every day millions of times whenever you go by a radar at 5 over and they don't pull you over. It just gives the police a tool to go after criminals, lets them bust whoever, whenever instead of watching a criminal and they can't do anything because they don't have probable cause.

Method of operation: set laws so everyone is in violation. Cherry pick criminals who are truly bad people.

 

[Brovane]

I can understand the magazine ban thing. When it happened in the mid 90
's it was easy to tell a post-ban versus a pre-ban high capacity magazine because the magazines manufactured post ban said LE only on them. However after the ban expired now the market is flooded with legally owned magazines that say LE only and some that are not marked at all. Basically the legislator when passing the ban never figured out how it was actually going to be enforced.

 

[umbrella39]

Should the local sheriff serve the interest of the people before upholding state law?

Since you are asking about ANY state law and not just this specific law no matter how silly it may be, but just in general... I'd say no. Where is it going to stop. We elect them to protect and serve not to pick what laws to enforce. But with that said.. as destey stated it's one of those low priority officer discretion hey we have a reason to search you kind of things. A cop does not have to pull you over for going 15 over if they don't feel like it, this will be looked at similarly imo.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is interesting,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-laws-on-gun-control.html?_r=0



The question I pose to the community, should a sheriff by loyal to the community who elected him, or to the state legislator and governor?

In a republic, why should an elected official serve someone who did not elect that person? The governor did not elect the sheriff. Some senator or representative on the other side of the state did not elect the local sheriff. The people elected the sheriff.

Should the local sheriff serve the interest of the people before upholding state law?

Everybody in law enforcement has sworn an oath to uphold the law. So everything depends on how you regard your oath. Long ago I stood before the union I was a member of at the time and announced to the hoots of the liberals there that I could not strike because I had sworn an oath not to. It made me very popular, worse than here, hehe, but my word is worth more to me than anything else. If you can't obey your own oath you have to resign the job. My boss, a Kansas farmer and conservative, nearly fell over. He had a great work ethic but when I complemented him on it he said that after a day of work on the farm our job was more like play.

 

[Via]

I guess law enforcement officials who overlook the residency status of immigrants are within their rights as well.

 

[Paratus]

Do I detect some jealously. :hmm:

Well this is awkward.

 

[chucky2]

I don't see a problem, given that our elected Politicians ignore immigration law, which is not vague at all, on purpose.

 

[monovillage]

Everybody in law enforcement has sworn an oath to uphold the law. So everything depends on how you regard your oath. Long ago I stood before the union I was a member of at the time and announced to the hoots of the liberals there that I could not strike because I had sworn an oath not to. It made me very popular, worse than here, hehe, but my word is worth more to me than anything else. If you can't obey your own oath you have to resign the job. My boss, a Kansas farmer and conservative, nearly fell over. He had a great work ethic but when I complemented him on it he said that after a day of work on the farm our job was more like play.

Sorry Moonie, but you're blatantly wrong, as in misinformed. The sheriffs swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, not "the law".
From the linked story.

Sheriff Cooke, for his part, said that he was entitled to use discretion in enforcement, especially when he believed the laws were wrong or unenforceable.

“In my oath it says I’ll uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado,” he said, as he posed for campaign photos in his office — he is running for the State Senate in 2014. “It doesn’t say I have to uphold every law passed by the Legislature.”

 

[Moonbeam]

Sorry Moonie, but you're blatantly wrong, as in misinformed. The sheriffs swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, not "the law".
From the linked story.

I think you will find that the constitutions of both give the task of writing law to the legislature and not the sherriffs' departments and the right to interpret them to the courts.

You have to realize that you have a conservative brain defect that can get you in a lot of trouble. You operate under the assumption that your truthiness is the highest law in the universe and that if you have a different take on things than the laws of mere mortals like me, then your supreme view is the one that is correct. This is the same feeling every tyrant and dictator assumes for himself and the reason we have constitutions to reign in people with your defect. We simply ask you to pay the price of your fanatical thinking with time in prison to think about things if you are going to insist on bubbling up around your defective opinion.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I think you will find that the constitutions of both give the task of writing law to the legislature and not the sherriffs' departments and the right to interpret them to the courts.

You have to realize that you have a conservative brain defect that can get you in a lot of trouble. You operate under the assumption that your truthiness is the highest law in the universe and that if you have a different take on things than the laws of mere mortals like me, then your supreme view is the one that is correct. This is the same feeling every tyrant and dictator assumes for himself and the reason we have constitutions to reign in people with your defect. We simply ask you to pay the price of your fanatical thinking with time in prison to think about things if you are going to insist on bubbling up around your defective opinion.

You've gone way over the top. In fact you're far far worse than what you hate so badly.

 

[Texashiker]

Everybody in law enforcement has sworn an oath to uphold the law.

Should an officer uphold an unjust law?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Everybody in law enforcement has sworn an oath to uphold the law.

So this should include enforcing immigration laws by arresting and deporting all illegal aliens in the US.

 

[Incorruptible]

Good for these sheriffs who are standing up to the gun control morons. Also gotta love the double standards of the left since they don't have a problem with this when it comes to immigration.

 

[Thump553]

Successionist sheriff who claims the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over his office. Is this really the sort of nutjob that should be given any credence at all?

 

[chucky2]

So this should include enforcing immigration laws by arresting and deporting all illegal aliens in the US.

What?!?! No no no...people need those slaves for their various reasons. Blasphemy!

 

[Venix]

Successionist sheriff who claims the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over his office. Is this really the sort of nutjob that should be given any credence at all?

Secessionist.

90% of Colorado sheriffs agree that the laws are worthless and Unconstitutional.

 

[chucky2]

Successionist sheriff who claims the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over his office. Is this really the sort of nutjob that should be given any credence at all?

I'm curious. Since we also have laws on the books about illegals, which the POTUS himself has directed be ignored, exactly what good is the US Supreme Court? It would seem to me if we have laws, they should be enforced. Since there is abuse of laws (such as speeding) but such a vast majority, it would stand to reason that they are often not enforced because doing so would be so time consuming, far more serious police work would be impeded.

I'm assuming that the Fed gov does have on it's top importance list preventing the US from being invaded. Which yields a very perplexing set of conditions in which we have been, and are, illegally invaded, and yet the supreme commander and person leading the US actively decides to not bother fixing that problem in our (the nation he has a sworn duty to represent) favor. Curiously, enough Politicians, who also have a duty to see that our laws are followed in US interests, also willfully ignore the law.

But sherriffs are supposed to enforce what they see as vague laws that fly in the face of 2A, something that is actually in the Constitution?

I wonder how far this rabbit hole goes down....

 

[fskimospy]

I'm curious. Since we also have laws on the books about illegals, which the POTUS himself has directed be ignored, exactly what good is the US Supreme Court? It would seem to me if we have laws, they should be enforced. Since there is abuse of laws (such as speeding) but such a vast majority, it would stand to reason that they are often not enforced because doing so would be so time consuming, far more serious police work would be impeded.

I'm assuming that the Fed gov does have on it's top importance list preventing the US from being invaded. Which yields a very perplexing set of conditions in which we have been, and are, illegally invaded, and yet the supreme commander and person leading the US actively decides to not bother fixing that problem in our (the nation he has a sworn duty to represent) favor. Curiously, enough Politicians, who also have a duty to see that our laws are followed in US interests, also willfully ignore the law.

But sherriffs are supposed to enforce what they see as vague laws that fly in the face of 2A, something that is actually in the Constitution?

I wonder how far this rabbit hole goes down....

You've tried this 'invasion' nonsense before. It is simply a misuse of the term.

On topic though, you are always going to have law enforcement using their discretion on what laws to most rigorously enforce. I do find it funny how people's views on discretion shift depending on the issue though.

 

[chucky2]

You've tried this 'invasion' nonsense before. It is simply a misuse of the term.

It's simply accurate in the context of the US vs. illegals from Mexico. I know that it's uncomfortable in the 'get the votes from those other brownies' context, plus not PC, so it's must be "nonsense" and "misuse", but I'm afraid it's not. Fear not: I completely understand your side, and the Pubbies, will do anything and everything to keep the illegal gravy train (both economic and voting) rolling with only token efforts to stem it.

On topic though, you are always going to have law enforcement using their discretion on what laws to most rigorously enforce. I do find it funny how people's views on discretion shift depending on the issue though.

Of course. I'm sure though few would argue that since murders, rapes, kidnappings are hard to prevent, that the police should just use their discretion and ignore those and concentrate on giving speeding tickets, which are far easier to do. The same goes for the illegal invasion...of course, my argument would be to just apply the law all the time unless you are applying it for a greater crime.

So for example, forget about the pack of people going 15 over like the last 20 packs of 15 over, and instead worry about car going 10 over with 4 spare tires on it.

Or, crazily, when you get an illegal instead of just releasing him, actually, and this is crazy I know, send him back to his country to take up his country resources rather than depress the wages here and take up this country resources. Wait, that doesn't heart bleed or buy votes or exploit cheap labor...dang, I knew there was a reason it 'couldn't be done'.

So I say, the sheriffs should just use Politician logic when they encounter something they don't like. What's good for the goose...

 

[fskimospy]

It's simply accurate in the context of the US vs. illegals from Mexico. I know that it's uncomfortable in the 'get the votes from those other brownies' context, plus not PC, so it's must be "nonsense" and "misuse", but I'm afraid it's not. Fear not: I completely understand your side, and the Pubbies, will do anything and everything to keep the illegal gravy train (both economic and voting) rolling with only token efforts to stem it.

Nope, we've been over this before. Words have meaning even if that meaning is not convenient for you.

Of course. I'm sure though few would argue that since murders, rapes, kidnappings are hard to prevent, that the police should just use their discretion and ignore those and concentrate on giving speeding tickets, which are far easier to do. The same goes for the illegal invasion...of course, my argument would be to just apply the law all the time unless you are applying it for a greater crime.

This sounds like a great plan until you put about five seconds of thought into it. Apply the law "all the time" how? Police departments enforce the law through the strategic deployment of resources. It's not like most situations of non-enforcement are a cop seeing someone breaking the law and deciding not to do anything, it is how each agency uses the money and manpower it has to best protect the public.

For example, police departments frequently do not ask for immigration status when interviewing witnesses. Say you have a murder. They are deciding not to enforce that part of the law in order to get a murderer off the streets. There is an illegal immigrant right there waiting to be deported. Should the cop ignore it? Which one do you think the community prefers?

You have a spare patrolman. Do you send him to the area where five women have been raped over the last few months or do you have him go investigate immigration status? He may not find any rapists but I'm sure he can find some illegals to deport. Which one do you think the community prefers?

Or, crazily, when you get an illegal instead of just releasing him, actually, and this is crazy I know, send him back to his country to take up his country resources rather than depress the wages here and take up this country resources. Wait, that doesn't heart bleed or buy votes or exploit cheap labor...dang, I knew there was a reason it 'couldn't be done'.

So I say, the sheriffs should just use Politician logic when they encounter something they don't like. What's good for the goose...

The US continues to deport an enormous number of people each year, but it (correctly) focuses on deporting people who are breaking the law.

I get the feeling that you haven't put much thought into this.

 

[Oldgamer]

I had to laugh, because they showed on ABC news and on MSNBC that these same Sheriffs who are saying they are not going to enforce the gun laws, are the same ones who are "secessionists".

But I have a question, if these various law enforcements are deciding which laws they are going to enforce and not enforce based on their own beliefs, then they could just as easily ignore civil rights laws.

Honestly I think they should lose their jobs.

 

[chucky2]

Nope, we've been over this before. Words have meaning even if that meaning is not convenient for you.

Ironically, we've been over this before and you were wrong then, as you are wrong now. Also ironically, we went over this in the gays can now "marry" threads. Amazingly, the arguement from the gay "marriage' proponents there was that words change meaning (even after thousands of years across multiple different societies that had the same understanding of the word marriage), but yet now, words must have meaning. I will continue to call it what it is to US: An illegal invasion, which is entirely accurate. You can keep trying to diminish it to suit your political and personal needs.

This sounds like a great plan until you put about five seconds of thought into it. Apply the law "all the time" how? Police departments enforce the law through the strategic deployment of resources. It's not like most situations of non-enforcement are a cop seeing someone breaking the law and deciding not to do anything, it is how each agency uses the money and manpower it has to best protect the public.

For example, police departments frequently do not ask for immigration status when interviewing witnesses. Say you have a murder. They are deciding not to enforce that part of the law in order to get a murderer off the streets. There is an illegal immigrant right there waiting to be deported. Should the cop ignore it? Which one do you think the community prefers?

We really don't need to put any thought into the illegal invasion issue. We have laws on the books, we simply need to do what is needed to enforce them. The Politicians willfully are not - for each of their various political reasons (and economic, got to get that $). In your example, we simply do both. Detain the illegal for deportation, and catch the murderer. Then when the illegal is detained, we actually deport them. The key here is actually making a concerted, sustained, effort at all levels, not an ignored/half-assed one.

As far as what the community prefers: Half of the answer is who cares, because it doesn't matter what they prefer, the law is the law. The other half is, the community wants legals there, unless you have a community so made up of sympathizes/exploiters that it actually doesn't.

You have a spare patrolman. Do you send him to the area where five women have been raped over the last few months or do you have him go investigate immigration status? He may not find any rapists but I'm sure he can find some illegals to deport. Which one do you think the community prefers?

I think the community prefers both. The patolman is local and he can go to the area where 5 women have been raped. And if in his duties he has to stop someone of latino traits, due to the illegal invasion, he can detain them until their legal status is verified. The community is presumably part of this country called the US, and the US has this department called ICE/Border Patrol. They can certainly do the same thing the patrolman would do, and even better, once detained can expedite the illegals removal. Shocking, I know.

The US continues to deport an enormous number of people each year, but it (correctly) focuses on deporting people who are breaking the law.

I get the feeling that you haven't put much thought into this.

Cute soundbite. The US is also at the same time willfully allowing stupid amounts of illegals across the border, and also at the same time allowing stupid amounts to stay within it's borders. No other 1st world country does this. They don't do it for a reason. The same reason we have the laws we already have on our books.

I get the feeling you need to say you have the feeling I haven't put much thought into this because you are either a sympathizer and/or exploiter...is it both or just one?

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

I had to laugh, because they showed on ABC news and on MSNBC that these same Sheriffs who are saying they are not going to enforce the gun laws, are the same ones who are "secessionists".

But I have a question, if these various law enforcements are deciding which laws they are going to enforce and not enforce based on their own beliefs, then they could just as easily ignore civil rights laws.

Honestly I think they should lose their jobs.

So you think the POTUS and other elected Politicians should lose their jobs. Given your posting history, interesting.

 

[fskimospy]

Ironically, we've been over this before and you were wrong then, as you are wrong now. Also ironically, we went over this in the gays can now "marry" threads. Amazingly, the arguement from the gay "marriage' proponents there was that words change meaning (even after thousands of years across multiple different societies that had the same understanding of the word marriage), but yet now, words must have meaning. I will continue to call it what it is to US: An illegal invasion, which is entirely accurate. You can keep trying to diminish it to suit your political and personal needs.

Yes, language changes over time. If you believe that culture has changed significantly enough that the general population now takes the word 'invasion' to mean widespread illegal immigration please provide some support for this. (not links from nativist or right wing sites, but in general use for the population)

We really don't need to put any thought into the illegal invasion issue. We have laws on the books, we simply need to do what is needed to enforce them. The Politicians willfully are not - for each of their various political reasons (and economic, got to get that $). In your example, we simply do both. Detain the illegal for deportation, and catch the murderer. Then when the illegal is detained, we actually deport them. The key here is actually making a concerted, sustained, effort at all levels, not an ignored/half-assed one.

This is why you need to put more thought into it. Now the next time someone is murdered no immigrants will talk to the police under any circumstances, so now murders go unsolved. There's a very specific reason that law enforcement professionals so frequently operate in this manner, and its because they find it to be much more effective.

As far as what the community prefers: Half of the answer is who cares, because it doesn't matter what they prefer, the law is the law. The other half is, the community wants legals there, unless you have a community so made up of sympathizes/exploiters that it actually doesn't.

My whole answer is that the law and the police exist to serve the community. What they want definitely matters, particularly when implementing limited police resources.

I think the community prefers both. The patolman is local and he can go to the area where 5 women have been raped. And if in his duties he has to stop someone of latino traits, due to the illegal invasion, he can detain them until their legal status is verified. The community is presumably part of this country called the US, and the US has this department called ICE/Border Patrol. They can certainly do the same thing the patrolman would do, and even better, once detained can expedite the illegals removal. Shocking, I know.

So in other words you want him to spend his time actively attempting to stop rapes, and only enforcing immigration law incidentally along the way. In no way is that enforcing all laws equally. It's almost like that's what we already do and what you're complaining about.

Cute soundbite. The US is also at the same time willfully allowing stupid amounts of illegals across the border, and also at the same time allowing stupid amounts to stay within it's borders. No other 1st world country does this. They don't do it for a reason. The same reason we have the laws we already have on our books.

I get the feeling you need to say you have the feeling I haven't put much thought into this because you are either a sympathizer and/or exploiter...is it both or just one?

Chuck

lol. When you have no argument try to impugn the motives of your opponent. It couldn't possibly be that you have bad ideas.