jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (125 posts)

340 Sheriffs refuse to enforce.....

  1. Barefootfae profile image61
    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago

    340 Sheriffs refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.

    http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-wi … ntrol-laws

    1. Alberic O profile image73
      Alberic Oposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Those two laws are useless. I don't see how making people pay for a back ground check is gonna do anything to address crime. In addition, 15 round magazine doesn't do much either. A killer can buy many magazines and conduct a tactical/speed reload and still have pretty much the same lethality.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi there, Fae.  I have not seen you around in a long time. Thank you for starting this thread.

      A sheriff, who decides to interpret the constitutional validity of a legitimately passed statute rather than to enforce it, is clearly guilty of dereliction of duty. He is publicly renouncing his oath of office and he should be removed from office.

      According to your article, Sheriff John Cooke is one of 340 sheriffs who has assumed privileges that go far beyond his sworn duty. It should be noted that the title “Sheriff” or the “Office of Sheriff” is not mentioned in the United States Constitution and the Office of Sheriff is actually mentioned in only 33 state constitutions.

      Sheriff Larry Amerson, president of the National Sheriffs’ Association, states on the organization’s web site, “the Office/Department of Sheriff is bound by judicial review and by the laws of each state as are other elected governmental officers. As a result, the judicial branch of government is responsible in interpreting the law when conflicts arise between individual citizens and federal, state and local governmental entities in enforcing the law.” Obviously, sheriffs do not interpret the law nor do they determine guilt or innocence.

      Sheriff Amerson goes no to say, “In short, an individual sheriff’s ‘oath of office’ does not contain any additional or unique language conferring special duties, powers or responsibilities on any Office of Sheriff. As result, an individual sheriff’s oath of office is the same or identical oath of office conferred on and taken by all of these other public local, county and state officials.” {1}

      Thank you, Ms. Fae, for pointing out how some extremist are willing to disregard the Constitution, and their own law enforcement obligations, to make a political statement.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.sheriffs.org/sites/default/f … Office.pdf

  2. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    So you think the tax payer should cover the costs of a person buying a gun? 

    I had to pay for my background check to work in a government owned facility.  Sometimes you need a background check to get access to something.  And you pay for it.

    The purpose is that if they are a released felon who shot several people, or have a history of becoming murderously paranoid, you shouldn't give them a gun. Maybe they will get it somewhere else, but at least you won't be giving it to them on a platter at their local strip mall.

    I suspect gun shop owners will comply with the law, enforced or not.

  3. Alberic O profile image73
    Alberic Oposted 4 years ago

    Without the background fee, you pay the sales tax for the firearm. You pay property taxes, etc. That includes gun owners. People of Colorado, California, etc pay taxes to subsidize things we don't like. I paid for my background check for my firearms in California- $25 per purchase. California has a large deficit despite all of these taxes. Give the state less money and they'll likely make better fiscal decisions, give them a lot and politicians waste it. Now the question is, how much percentage does the cost of the weapon's background check make in Colorado's overall budget/law enforcement budget?

    1. Paul Wingert profile image77
      Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So? The potental gun owner should still pay for their own background checks.

  4. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    Most document fees genuinely pay the cost of processing the document.  Just as well, in most cases.  It means the sequester doesn't affect my green card application because I pay the real costs of the processing myself.  Like most people do when there is something they want, and that thing comes with a mandated document processing step.

    1. profile image0
      Old Poolmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      When applying for a Concealed Carry Permit, we pay for a background check as part of the fees for the permit.  I have no problem with this at all.  Why should someone else pay for something I want for myself?

  5. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    It makes me wonder: do these sheriffs want the background checks not done?  Or do they want them to be done and paid for by ... um, benevolent pixies or something.

  6. Paul Wingert profile image77
    Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago

    These sheriffs need to step down since they are not going to do their job. Nothing wrong with someone paying for their own background check.

    1. Barefootfae profile image61
      Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh they will do their job they just won't enforce anything that's unconstitutional.
      You wouldn't want them to would you?
      I applaud them.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You applaud them not wanting to enforce the requirement that gun buyers have a background check.

        In favor armed psychotics and felons are you? Or do you just think the tax payer should pay for it? What next, tax payers cover fishing licenses and parking fees too? Because god forbid someone's use of a tool should cost them money.

      2. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Which is hilarious because constitutionally the federal government has the right to do so, so actually the Sheriffs are doing something unconstitutional to refuse to do something that has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme court.

        Which is a crime.

        1. HowardBThiname profile image89
          HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No Josak, it is not a crime. You should research a bit about sheriff's and law enforcement powers.  The sheriff supersedes the federal govt. That's just the way it is. And the sheriff is in charge of enforcing the Constitution in his county. If he thinks a law is unconstitutional - it behooves him to reject it.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            In Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), the Supreme Court rejected attempts by the state of Arkansas to nullify the Court's school desegregation decision, Brown v. Board of Education. The state of Arkansas, acting on a theory of states' rights, had adopted several statutes designed to nullify the desegregation ruling. The Supreme Court relied on the Supremacy Clause to hold that the federal law controlled and could not be nullified by state statutes or officials.

            So no you are wrong.

            Additionally it behooves no one to have individual sheriffs deciding what the law should be, that is what the courts and legislature are for, a Sheriffs job is to enforce the laws of the above. So as I said it's a crime. It's also a blatant abuse of their position.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Sheriffs are employees of the state, not the federal government. They work under their state laws, and their oath to uphold the Constitution. If a state law is contrary to a federal law, then it isn't up to the sheriff to challenge it. His job is to uphold the state laws and the Constitution.

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "could not be nullified by state statutes or officials."

                Any law hat contravenes a federal one under the supremacy clause of the constitution and within it's boundaries is automatically null and void, if the state law is null and void but is followed anyway then the people following it are committing a crime and failing to uphold the constitution (in particular the supremacy clause created by the founding fathers to solve just this issue).

                1. BuckyGoldstein profile image61
                  BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You have seen too many movies where the Feds come in and take charge. In the real world the Sheriff is the supreme law enforcement agent!

                  1. donotfear profile image91
                    donotfearposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I have to agree....

                  2. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    In the real world the law is the law in the United states Sheriffs do not make the law, plenty of times the states have refused to enact federal law (desegregation for example) it has never lasted. It will not in this instance either.

            2. HowardBThiname profile image89
              HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, Josak - you are wrong. An elected sheriff is the top law enforcer in his/her county.

              http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I never said otherwise, I simply noted (with proof) that the Federal government can and has place a court order to force them to enforce the law, that doesn't mean they are not the highest law enforcer but they are only the enforcer, they don't get to make the law or enforce it selectively.

                1. HowardBThiname profile image89
                  HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You're issuing a false equivalence, Josak. In the case you cite, the locals were opposing the rights afforded citizens by the Constitution. Just the opposite is true when we're talking about gun-grabbing laws.

                  A better comparison would be if the federal govt. passed a law that stated all women (or blacks, or gays, whomever) were to be rounded up and forced to provide slave labor. That would be an illegal law under the Constitution and the sheriffs would be obligated not to enforce it in their counties.

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Nope it would be the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn it, since the SC has already ruled that gun legislation is not unconstitutional there is absolutely no basis for sheriffs picking and choosing their own laws.

      3. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The problem becomes one of a job definition.   The description of sheriff does not include interpretation of the constitution OR making laws.  It is only concerned with enforcing them.  So no, when the sheriff refuses to enforce the law (do his job) because (s)he has personally expanded the job description to be above the Supreme Court then (s)he deserves no respect for it.  Just to be fired.

        A recent court decision near me was most impressive when a female judge, sitting on a rape case, acquitted the rapist (and he was a rapist).  Her court brief was impressive; the stress and frustration very clearly came through as she set free a man she knew to be a rapist, but weaseled through a loophole in the law.  She refused to let her own prejudices and desires take precedent over the law, exactly as she was supposed to. 

        So it is with a sheriff.  Either enforce the laws he has sworn to uphold or get out of the way and let someone else have the job.  Anyone wanting the job in order to force their own personal will and prejudice on the populace need not apply.  Or anyone that has decided that local laws take precedence of the laws of the US.

        1. Barefootfae profile image61
          Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The interesting issue there is most sheriffs are elected officials.

          You can't just fire them. And good luck running someone against them on this one because they may just be re-elected.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            They probably will be re-elected.  As a people we are not known for giving any consideration to the good of the nation, just in getting what we want personally.

            At the root, this is no different than re-electing a congressman that brings home the pork.  We all pay lip service to that being a bad thing - until it hits our own pocketbook.  We all pay lip service to controlling our borders, until Arizona tries to enforce national laws that the politicians don't want enforced.  We all agree with national laws that we personally like, and want everyone to live under them, while demanding that the ones we don't like shouldn't apply to us.

            Just like those applauding and re-electing their local sheriff for not enforcing national laws.  As much as I detest gun control laws, breaking the country into small fiefdoms so as to ignore national laws is not the answer.

      4. Seth Winter profile image81
        Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        With the nation going to hell in a hand-basket I'm glad these Sheriffs refused. It's good to hear that that people won't follow orders they feel unjust...if we had more thinkers like that the Holocaust wouldn't of happened.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Are you sure you want a sheriff that only enforces the laws (s)he agrees with personally?  Would it be OK if (s)he also makes new ones at his/her discretion?

          1. Seth Winter profile image81
            Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            We are not talking about making new laws but enforcing bad ones. If you don't run a background check, it's a victimless crime. Besides cops are fairly busy as is, would you rather they spent time running background checks or out catching bad guys?

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I just hadn't thought of a sheriff as the one appointed to decide what is a "bad" law, to be ignored, and what is a "good" one that should be enforced, that's all.

              I'd always thought of that as the task of the lawmakers and the Supreme Court.  Perhaps I was mistaken, and our constitution does not delegate that authority to Congress and the SC after all, but to the locally elected sheriff instead.

              1. Seth Winter profile image81
                Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well it's a common enough occurrence.  There are alot of old laws that instead of being stricken from the law books and just not enforced. For instance, in Arkansas it's legal to beat your wife, but only once a month. Various other states have laws about beating wives being allowed as long as the belt is under a certain width...so Wilderness should the Sheriff's allow wife-beaters off scott free simply because the law books read a certain way? Or better yet, I made hinting references to this is earlier arguments if America ever got truly bad and they started rounding up people for the "ovens" like in Nazi Germany would you still be okay with officer's following their orders?

                Sure this isn't Nazi Germany, but we are talking about certain rights that our forefathers wanted protected. Regardless of what the media says guns are used for more then just self-protection and hunting. Our fore-fathers intended guns be there to protect us from tyrannical governments. By Congress ignoring the part of the 2nd Amendment that says "Shall not be infringed" they are effectively ignoring the Constitution. I'm not suggesting we lead a revolution but guns are here for our protection...and more then just home protection.

                So tell me Wilderness do you support wife beaters or can the law sometimes have gray areas?

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I do believe that if you beat your wife anywhere in the US you will find yourself in jail.  Laws prevent such actions so the question then goes back to you - should the sheriff ignore recent laws in favor of those he prefers from years ago?

                  I completely understand that you interpret "Shall not be infringed" in a particular manner, and that you wish the sheriff to make the same definition.  Take your complaint to the courts instead, where their job description includes interpreting the law, but don't put that task on the sheriff.

                  Short story:
                  A recent rapist was turned loose near me; he was found not guilty under the law.  The judge in the case, in her (her! brief, very plainly said that the man was guilty of rape, but that there was a loophole in the law that prevented conviction.  That the act performed was not rape under the law.

                  You could almost feel her frustration, anger and despair in that brief, but it was her job to interpret the law and she did so.  She didn't give her own prejudice or opinion priority over what those that are empowered to create laws wrote.  That wasn't her task; interpreting the law as written was.  (On a side note, it took the legislature less than a week to fix the loophole).  She earned a tremendous amount of respect from me for that act that she so hated to perform, but had sworn herself to do.

                  So it is with a sheriff.  It isn't his job to either interpret the law OR to decide which ones are "good" and which ones are not.  He earns no respect from me for redefining the task he was elected for; only disgust that he would ignore his sworn oath to perform his duties.  Duties which very plainly do not include interpreting the law or deciding if it it violates the constitution.

                  1. BuckyGoldstein profile image61
                    BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Cops interpret laws everyday, they do investigations and determine if a particular law has been violated.

                  2. Seth Winter profile image81
                    Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I've read that story before on a past post of yours, but what does that prove besides the law is broken or that you support loophole rapists? Because that's what happened there, a rapist got off because the law was broken.

                    Taking an idea or complaint to the court probably won't accomplish anything.  After all didn't Rosa Parks have to break the law to get something accomplished? Or Gandhi?  Maybe the 340 Sheriff's that are refusing to follow the laws, might be able to make a stand for what they believe in and actually accomplish something.

                    Wilderness I'm going to introduce a possibly new concept. Ever hear of the term "Rational Anarchist?"

                    I first heard the term while reading "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A Heinlein. The term basically means that you will follow the rules until you deem a rule irrational and then you won't follow it. Everyone has varying degrees of rational anarchists in them, the Sherriffs seem to have more then others. But everyone breaks laws they think are stupid...I'm willing to be even you.

                    Ever drive faster then the LAW tells you to? Do you always drive the Lawful speeds while driving in a Residential area or come to a complete stop at every single stop sign?

  7. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    If you don't want to follow the law, don't become a police officer.  I can just imagine what my boss would do if I announced I would just stop doing part of my job.  the same thing should happen to them.

    1. BuckyGoldstein profile image61
      BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What if a law is enacted that women should be arrested on sight should they follow that law too?

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes.  That or resign, take your choice.

        1. BuckyGoldstein profile image61
          BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Be hard pressed to find that one enforced, unless you were elected sheriff, you don't seem to have a thought of your own. Not trying to be unpleasant just pointing out what I see.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Be pretty hard pressed to find that one voted into law, either.

            Make a silly supposition, get a silly response.

            1. BuckyGoldstein profile image61
              BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              In Nazi Germany laws like that existed, people were rounded up because of their race and other bizarre reasons. The good German followed the law and killed for the state based upon those laws. It should matter to us all that a law is wrong! And good men do not follow bad laws.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Good men don't accept a salary for a job they refuse to do, either.

                These sheriff's that can't stomach the laws they swear to enforce need to resign.  Not continue to draw pay for refusing to work.  I don't get to cherry pick the tasks on my job and neither do they.  Either do it all or do none.

                1. LucidDreams profile image73
                  LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Agreed, do your job or resign. If you refuse to do what the people who elected you ask for, then stop collecting a paycheck!

            2. Seth Winter profile image81
              Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Wilderness and psycheskinner have made me see the light. I'm off for a crusade to make sure that wife beater's in Arkansas get one free beat per month...those cops better follow those laws.

              After that I'm off to Washington, Lynden to make sure the cops enforce "No drinking and dancing at the same establishment."

              For anyone else that wants to cry injustice here's the site.
              http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/washington
              Remember these are the law, and we the Sheeple must obey.

              1. LucidDreams profile image73
                LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Some laws don't make any sense, but at the same time the elected officiials are there to enforce them. We can all look over the totally unreasonable laws, do you think this is one of them? Elected officials cannot pick and choose when and how to do their job, they have rules and guidlines to follow in order to be fair to all citizens.

  8. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    If  there is a unused , or unreasonable law that says a horse shouldn't walk more than five miles an hour over a wooden bridge ,  and the cop sees a horse speeding across the bridge , does he have to ticket the horse ?

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Legally?  Of course, or at least take whatever action that unreasonable law requires.

      In practice, of course, all localities have silly long outdated laws on the books that no one enforces.  All localities also have time and budget constraints; most laws are ignored simply because there is no one to enforce them.  That is a part of a sheriff's task - prioritize which laws to enforce - until or unless his boss (legislature, city council, whatever) tells him different.

      It would be a little unusual for a legislature to enact a new law and instruct, either directly or indirectly, that it not be enforced.

      1. BuckyGoldstein profile image61
        BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        His boss is the public! He is elected not hired!

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You begin to see the problem.   Yes, his boss is the public - the same public that voted in the legislature that made the law you don't like.

          Get that same public to instruct him not to enforce the law and you'd find me on your side.  Let the sheriff make the call himself, and I can't go with you.

  9. LucidDreams profile image73
    LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago

    More killing because of irresponsible GUN OWNERS! It's fine thoufg, we REALLY need these guns, just because more kids die each day means nothing (they really do help protect us from bad guys)

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/loc … 0838.story

    1. Seth Winter profile image81
      Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Google this....
      "No hesitation targets"

      1. LucidDreams profile image73
        LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Why bother?

    2. BuckyGoldstein profile image61
      BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This isn't a story about an irresponsible gun owner killing anybody. Its a story about an irresponsible 16 year old.

      1. donotfear profile image91
        donotfearposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        ...........and very irresponsible parents for allowing an unsupervised child access to a loaded gun.

        1. BuckyGoldstein profile image61
          BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Granted not all 16 year olds are as mature as others but at 16 he should know not to mess with what ain't his!

  10. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Lol, besides they are just doing what Obama has done... and what law enforcement all over the country does. Choosing which laws to enforce and which laws not to enforce.

    Obama mandated not to uphold certain laws. Police often ignore many many crimes(like speeding, and perjury on gun-background checks). They are no worse than the rest of the country in that regard.

  11. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    These sherrifs have more sense than the whitehouse not to ignore the limits of our costitutional rights ,  Our great King Obama has decided he wants to entirely change the rules of the game of democracy !  I just gained a new sense of respect for law enforcers everywhere ! Personally I've grow very tired of the idiocy of certain lawmakers all over this country trying to  socialize this countries inalienable rights  !  Pelosi,   Fienstein, "Bloomburger"! Why have thier constituencies  figured out how moronic these people are and take responsibilty  for their own stupidity and bounce them out of office !

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh yeah King Obama tongue

      Clinton and Reagan both placed limitations on weapons, this is hardly new or radical. Particularly in the face of such regular and wholesale slaughter of innocents.

      1. ahorseback profile image46
        ahorsebackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Clintons bill was allowed to expire because it simply changed absolutely zip ! In crime statistics !   Josak , what you need to do is demand  that once and for all , the existing laws , rules and regulations , AND background checks are enforced ! Stop the revolving doors of justice from spinning out off thier pivots ! We wouldn't need  NEW laws if the old ones were enforced !

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yet in fact Sandy Hook would not have occurred the way it did if those laws had remained in place.

          1. ahorseback profile image46
            ahorsebackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You couldn't be more wrong Josak , "Yet IN FACT sandy hook not have occurred the way it did " , a semi-auto matic gun  with -9 --10 roung magazines instead of  3- 30 rounders , Wow !  Such a huuuuge difference ! you've got to be more careful with those "facts "!  Even without a gun whatsoever  youu could kill even more people with a chemical , a fuel or an old fasion   time bomb with a lit fuse for Goodness  sakes  !   I love how anti-s  use  "facts ".

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It would not have happened the way it did, explosives maybe but probably he lacked the skill patience and ingredients necessary to do so without getting caught, it appears that after his third reload he screwed up his reload and jammed the gun at which point he killed himself with his pistol, so if that was three reloads with 10 round clips that is one third of the total rounds and possibly one third of the casualties, maybe less as people would have had more time to run.

        2. Zelkiiro profile image86
          Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, Clinton's bill did nothing to change crime statistics, which is why violent crime took a massive nosedive in the mid-90s.

          /facepalm

          1. Jack Burton profile image78
            Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Okay, zel...

            You really want to try to explain just how a bill that banned nothing, that enabled people to legally sell and buy the very firearms it proposed to stop, that didn't take a single weapon off the streets somehow caused a massive drop in crime?

            Especially considering that AR and similar type weapons are seldom used in crimes in comparison to simple handguns? Be specific, Give details of your claim.

            "According to the vast majority of research, including by the University of Pennsylvania and a Congressionally mandated study by the U.S. Department of Justice, the AWB neither increased nor decreased violent crime. The government’s study argued it would be difficult to determine the effect of the AWB one way or another, because the guns it affected were used in only a small fraction of crimes prior to the ban.

            http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/10/25/t … S96c"

  12. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    I believe you're losing your sense of reason in the minor details ,  nothing will stop an idiot who choses to "go out  with a big bang ", even a total gun ban  . I understand that we all need answers to -Why ?  But trying to fill in that emotional gap in understanding makes us all lose our sense of reasoning !
    We have to look to the bigger ,more obscure picture to ever , ever cure this human stain ! Its a grey , grey area !

  13. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    There are now  16 states with law enforcement refusing to enforce firearms restrictions ,  what is that telling us about the overreaching of state and federal governments controls ?

    1. HowardBThiname profile image89
      HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's telling us that American citizens want to exert their Constitutional Rights NOT to be subjected to the whims of the Federal Government.

    2. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That there are a lot of sheriffs coming up for re-election.  That they think the best way to get votes is to refuse to do their sworn job.

      And that there is a lot of people who think that their opinion of what is constitutional over rides that of the Supreme Court.

      1. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Most of those we get put back in office you know.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That they do.  This time, however, with sheriffs making big headlines and people asking why their own sheriff doesn't follow suit, it might be a virtual necessity.

    3. LucidDreams profile image73
      LucidDreamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This tells me, alot of Sheriffs need to get fired. They are supossed to uphold the law, not defy it . Kind of hard to arrest people and have them prosecuted for breaking laws when your own office is only enforcing laws they see fit.

      1. HowardBThiname profile image89
        HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Lucid, Sheriffs are higher on the law enforcement totem pole (in their county) than are federal agents. Our constitution is set up to give *elected* sheriffs more power than federal agents. It's one way of protecting American citizens from an out-of-control federal govt. If a law runs counter of the Constitution of the United States, the sheriff has a duty to protect the citizens in his/her county from that law. No one gets to "fire" sheriffs because they don't agree with them. They can be relieved of their duties if they actually break the law - or even on a whim - if the citizens impeach, but the federal govt. has no jurisdiction there, save to enforce constitutional laws. It's not like a sheriff can run around killing people.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Can you point me to the section of the constitution where it says states, or the sheriff they elect, can violate federal law at will?

      2. ahorseback profile image46
        ahorsebackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        luciddreams I believe that is exactly what hitler said !

      3. Reality Bytes profile image90
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sort of like Obama and the immigration laws?

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly like Obama and the immigration laws.  The laws are there, he has sworn an oath to secure our borders and he refuses to do any more than a token show of force.

          To be fair, past presidents and congress's have done the same thing for decades.  No one has made a serious effort to secure our southern border since the Alamo.

  14. ocbill profile image70
    ocbillposted 4 years ago

    You can't pick and choose what federal laws you want to uphold and follow. There are people who believe that paying federal taxes is unconstitutional. (throw this suffix Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments in wikipedia..So now sheriffs are above the lawmakers but once a blizzard or whiteout destroys parts of Colorado they run and ask for help. Even an amendment to the constitution will not make these sheriffs happy. Send in the FBI to lock them up and hire sheriffs who will enforce it. This is ridiculous, let's just have more access to guns, especially in the oh so very calm state of Colorado ( Columbine, Dark Knight. what next..?.) Some people just don't change no matter the dire consequences.

    1. BuckyGoldstein profile image61
      BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Another one who knows nothing of how the real world works.

      "Send in the FBI to lock them up and hire sheriffs who will enforce it." Sheriffs are not hired they are elected! The FBI has no jurisdiction to "lock them up" in a lot of States the FBI is not even considered a peace officer. In each county in the United States the Sheriff is the top law enforcement official and they reign supreme!

      1. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This same person likely believes the UN is the sovreign governmental body in the world.

    2. HowardBThiname profile image89
      HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The difference, OCBill, is that there is no Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing citizens the right not to be taxed.

  15. ocbill profile image70
    ocbillposted 4 years ago

    These sheriffs do fingerprints for and cooperate with background checks for realtors, insurance agents, CPAs, licensed stock brokers to manage money, yet people who want to own firearms they won't enforce that sine they think it is knee-jerk?
    So,once there's another mass shooting they'll just chant in their minds, "knee jerk, I don't follow it".
    It's just ridiculous to even debate this regardless of ...it's my constitutional  blah-blah from 200+ years ago. It's like if it ain't in the bible I don't believe or follow it .
    Move ahead with the times and accept what is best for society as the people did 200 yrs ago....

    U.S.A. political system is based on a system of checks and balances. The sheriff does not have supreme rule. The state elected this official. They answer to someone.
    It appears necessary and imminent a law will be passed to enforce that these "sheriffs" do what he/she needs to do whether the mayor makes them do it or the Feds (from a new law). You legal eagles will be disappointed when the sheriffs do have to abide by the govt. background check fee so the few rebels don't horde all that ammunition and guns for the upcoming civil war or that imminent trespasser on your property you've been itching for the past 20 years. Accept something that is good for all. It helps the economy too.  @barefoot  I never heard of the UN?  I was born 10 days before Lincoln. - loll

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Pretty much right,a at least until you say that paying Uncle Sam to do paperwork without producing anything of value is good for the economy.  At that point you lose me; there is little in the way of taxation OR fees that can be collected from the population that is good for the economy.

      In truth, any gun sales lost because of the extra fee or because the check can't be passed will hurt, not help the economy.

  16. ocbill profile image70
    ocbillposted 4 years ago

    I should have left the economy out of the equation. This should be done for safety, forget money but then again it is a corporate driven society.  Then there's the dilemma of what is mostly good for all is not always good for corporations.
    Maybe put in a substitute measure. If you have fingerprints on file with the state, FBI or had a recent background check in the last 180 days, it can be waived.

  17. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    What s also good for the economy is having people will to pick crops and clean hotel rooms for minimum wage.

    1. ocbill profile image70
      ocbillposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      what does that have to do with safety & background checks?

  18. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    Reminder to all the knee jerk wanna be  gestapo jack bootet gun banners out there !  There are already  background checks on all gun  purchases in all the sport shop stores and at all the gunshows I've ever been to {Dozens and dozens ], there are also safety courses required   for all hunters out there who want to carry a gun or even a bow in many cases  ,  Stop acting like you know  all the facts  about guns , the purchase of them is very restricted !  I have absolutely no criminal record what so ever and I have still been worried at times  that I might be denied  for some mix up in  vital records , I've seen that happened more than not !   

    Just how it   that you  can justify no guns for law abiding citizens and yet , you don't believe in capital punishment ?   You don't ever request the closing of the revolving exit only doors of justice !  And wrist slapping soft jawed  judges are becoming the norm for criminal law ,  does that bother anyone ?  How about the multi billion dollar a year publicly paid  defense attorney system ? Bother anyone ?  No !  How about this , the most restrictive gun ownership state and city in the country ....New York City , has also the least amount of criminal prosecutions  of gun law breakers ?  These sherrifs ought to be given medals for sticking up for the constitution that so many Americans  today use for toilet paper .

  19. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 4 years ago

    Having the consumer pay for their own background check I personally cannot see how that has any affect on gaining access to firearms, this simply looks purely like another way of gaining revenue.

    Maybe it's just me but it seems to me like a 15 round clips is still significant enough to do serious damage to a gathering or individuals. I questioned if saving people's lives is not taken seriously.

 
working