340 Sheriffs refuse to enforce.....

Jump to Last Post 1-19 of 19 discussions (125 posts)

61
Barefootfaeposted 11 years ago
340 Sheriffs refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-wi … ntrol-laws
reply report
1. 55
  Alberic Oposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
2. 72
  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin 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.
  
  {1} http://www.sheriffs.org/sites/default/f … Office.pdf
  reply report
76
psycheskinnerposted 11 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.
reply report
55
Alberic Oposted 11 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?
reply report
1. 59
  Paul Wingertposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So? The potental gun owner should still pay for their own background checks.
  reply report
76
psycheskinnerposted 11 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.
reply report
1. 0
  Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin 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?
  reply report
76
psycheskinnerposted 11 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.
reply report
59
Paul Wingertposted 11 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.
reply report
1. 61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  76
  psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin 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).
  reply report
  62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  82
  donotfearposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I have to agree....
  reply report
  62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Obviously intelligent as well as purty!
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  How wrong you are, who is going to make them?
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Any judge can order the law upheld and enacted if anyone brings a suit against any of these sheriffs (almost inevitably someone will), if they then fail to enforce the law they can be held in contempt of court and fined or jailed.
  reply report
  62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Jailed by whom?
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You should file a suit against any patrol cop who doesn't pull someone over for speeding.
  
  Good luck.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It's not necessary, most people don't mind if they do not in certain situations and if someone does they are free to bring a suit forward, in the instance being discussed on gun law however there are plenty of people willing to.
  report
  82
  donotfearposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Of course, Sheriffs don't make the law. They take the same oath as the others, to protect. As with all aspects of law enforcement, there tends to be those who "take it into their own hands" . I know that ALL parts of Law enforcement don't always follow the rules, either.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Legalized drugs. State laws opposite of federal laws, and the feds have said they aren't going to do anything about it. It's not 'never lasted'.
  
  Also, the case you cited isn't about state vs. federal law. It's state law vs. SCOTUS ruling.
  
  Also, where state or federal law offers more protection than the other, the federal law doesn't automatically trump.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes because the Federal government has agreed not to pursue the issue, if they do the states would lose, I am very glad Obama chose not to however in that instance.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin 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
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh baloney! SCOTUS has ruled that the government may not "significantly" limit the 2nd Amendment. I can see you don't pay a lot of attention to SCOTUS rulings.
  
  If the federal govt. passes draconian gun laws - the sheriffs have every right (and duty) to protect the citizens in their counties.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
  
  All the laws being suggested currently fit under those respected by the supreme court.
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  80
  Seth Winterposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  80
  Seth Winterposted 11 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  80
  Seth Winterposted 11 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Cops interpret laws everyday, they do investigations and determine if a particular law has been violated.
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Personally, I would not equate determining if a particular has been violated with interpreting if it's constitutional.
  
  You, of course, may do so if you wish to.
  reply report
  62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well then you would be mistaken. The constitution is a determining factor in every arrest made.
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but so far as a sheriff is concerned, the court's determination of the constitutionality of a law enacted by the legislature is the determining factor. That, of course, and that the sheriff thinks he can prove guilt.
  
  The sheriff does NOT have the task of determining if a law is constitutional.
  reply report
  62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The court wont have the chance if that person isn't arrested and that charge constitutionally correct!
  report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And there you have it. The sheriff decides that a good and correct law is unconstitutional and won't arrest on it. The law is never challenged and the Supreme court never rules at all. Just the sheriff, who is charged with neither enacting nor interpreting laws.
  
  The proper authority, as designated by the constitution, is completely bypassed in favor of one individual making the decisions. Decisions that are, in fact, contrary to those of the designated law makers AND interpreters.
  report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You know I think really what those sheriffs are getting at is they really don't want to disarm people they know are no danger. It WILL come to that if these fools have their way.
  report
  62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  We could go on all day but the arrest will not be made if the cop doesn't have sure constitutional ground to tread.
  report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  There is little doubt in my mind that the US will see the day when no guns are allowed to private citizens. Hopefully not in my lifetime, but it will happen.
  
  I can see a useful function in a political stance and declaration, absolutely. Just not a decision to become a Supreme Court instead of a sheriff. If all the hullabaloo is just a statement like every other politician makes, no problem, but if any sheriff actually refuses to enforce laws duly passed by their legislature because they don't like them they really need to find a new line of work.
  report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well you would sadly likely have mass resignations of men who are actually good public servants.
  report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Any sheriff that refuses to follow the law himself, including performing the duties of his office, is not a good public servant. A good part of the general mess the US is in is that elected officials are more interested in what they want than in the country, law or even what the people have said they want.
  
  I won't be one bit happy when the feds decide to take away guns, whether I still own one or not. But I'll be a sight unhappier when my local sheriff decides he is above the law and will do as he pleases. Given the amount of pure, deadly force at his command it isn't a pleasant prospect.
  report
  62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I hope we have such public servants as the ones you describe!
  report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  To each his own. I prefer, particularly when I arm one, to have one that follows the laws of the nation.
  report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Is he a good public servant merely because he follows what that directive is and he being the only one in his jurisdiction that feels that way?
  God love him because he may not be able to get the job done.
  report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Then it is preferable for each county to enforce, ignore or change federal laws as they see fit? Presumably they can do the same to state laws?
  
  I disagree.
  report
  62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It is preferable for each man to do what is right and just! Unlike the Germans did, you know simply follow the law.
  report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And each person determines what is right and just for themselves, then behaves appropriately.
  
  Doesn't sound too workable to me. Anarchy never does.
  report
  60
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hopefully not before the price of quality 3d printers comes down.
  report
  62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  King George had just laws too, we are a nation of revolutionists.
  report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yep! And thank goodness we had all those nasty guns (as well as overseas friends) to make it all possible.
  report
  62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I think you miss the point, it took brave men to challenge the authority just as it takes brave men to challenge an over aggressive federal government. But you seem to think they should follow like lemmings because an out of control hierarchy says so.
  report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  To challenge is one thing. To declare oneself to be judge and jury without trial is another. Plus, of course, the next step is executioner.
  
  You like the idea because you agree with his viewpoint. Let that viewpoint change to something you don't like and I dare say your comments would be much different.
  report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ah but he does. The people making the law have done their very best to make sure it falls within already established Supreme Court decisions on the matter. And if they mess it up that same court will disapprove the law they make.
  
  You may not agree, the sheriff may not agree, but neither you nor he have the duty OR right to make that call.
  report
  80
  Seth Winterposted 11 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You didn't get it, did you? No law was broken, and that's the whole point. That, and that the judge was honest enough not to try and reword the law to her own liking, according to her own ideas of what it should be.
  
  Prof. Bernadez, right? Do you think that the governing system as well as the justice system used in the book would work here? Government and laws were nonexistent, justice was done by hiring an individual to rule according to their personal ethics and morals. They might throw in a little "custom" but on the whole rulings were based on personal concepts of morality. That judge, if you recall, might decide, based solely on his own outrage, that a man that struck a woman should be immediately evicted from the colony, without a suit. That's what you want?
  
  It worked well enough in a penal colony on the moon, but somehow I don't see anarchy as being particularly useful in the US.
  
  Nor, as I mentioned and you glossed over, do I find reason to honor or respect anyone that swears to do their best to perform a difficult job and then refuses to do so because (while still being paid to do that job) they suddenly don't like the job.
  
  You are actually advocating intentionally violating the constitutional arrangement of the justice system because, in your opinion, congress has passed a law violating that same document. You haven't the training or experience to make that call, but will do so irregardless simply because you don't like a law.
  reply report
  80
  Seth Winterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "You haven't the training or experience to make that call, but will do so irregardless simply because you don't like a law." -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?"-Me
  
  So Wild...ever tear the tag of the bottom of a mattress? Or drive 56 in a 55?
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You claiming I am your duly elected sheriff, with a duty to enforce the law?
  
  Yes I have. Your point? That I'm being paid to enforce that law?
  reply report
  80
  Seth Winterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So you admit that you break laws when you think they are silly. But didn't you also say....
  
  "And each person determines what is right and just for themselves, then behaves appropriately.
  Doesn't sound too workable to me. Anarchy never does."
  
  But didn't you just say that you determined that going faster then the allotted speed is right for you, and didn't you behave against what the law wished? At what point do you become a hypocrite?
  
  Sheriff''s can do everything else in their duty, protect citizens, keep the peace, etc but if they decide to not enforce a law they deem silly (because it's unconstitutional and a victimless crime) suddenly they become the bad guy?
  
  Personally I'm more worried of drivers over 50 not driving the speed limit and running me over then I am of some guy wanting to purchase a .22 or BB gun for his kid.
  report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I speed, yes. My last speeding ticket was in 1974 - over a million miles ago. Will you still claim I'm not law abiding?
  
  But the issue isn't me. It's an elected sheriff making his own decisions about the constitutionality of a law. You gripe that no sheriff should enforce an unconstitutional law, and you are 100% correct. They should not.
  
  Now. Who decides that it is unconstitutional? The sheriff? You? I? No, it's specified in the constitution itself that that task ultimately falls to the US Supreme Court or, with it's permission, lower courts. Nowhere does it mention the sheriff or anyone else anywhere in the executive branch of the government - it is only in the judicial branch that such decisions may be made.
  
  From wikipedia, which has a decent explanation of how this works:
  "The judiciary (also known as the judicial system) is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make law (that is, in a plenary fashion, which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case. This branch of the state is often tasked with ensuring equal justice under law. It usually consists of a court of final appeal (called the "Supreme court" or "Constitutional court"), together with lower courts."
  
  It cannot be made plainer; a sheriff has exactly zero authority to decide how to interpret any law or its constitutionality. He has no authority, he has no responsibility or duty to do so. Just the duty to enforce laws made by legislature and interpreted by the judiciary to be valid.
  report
76
psycheskinnerposted 11 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.
reply report
1. 62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What if a law is enacted that women should be arrested on sight should they follow that law too?
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. That or resign, take your choice.
  reply report
  62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Be pretty hard pressed to find that one voted into law, either.
  
  Make a silly supposition, get a silly response.
  reply report
  62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  65
  LucidDreamsposted 11 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  80
  Seth Winterposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  65
  LucidDreamsposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 11 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 ?
reply report
1. 90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  His boss is the public! He is elected not hired!
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
65
LucidDreamsposted 11 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
reply report
1. 80
  Seth Winterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Google this....
  "No hesitation targets"
  reply report
  65
  LucidDreamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Why bother?
  reply report
2. 62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  This isn't a story about an irresponsible gun owner killing anybody. Its a story about an irresponsible 16 year old.
  reply report
  82
  donotfearposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  ...........and very irresponsible parents for allowing an unsupervised child access to a loaded gun.
  reply report
  62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin 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!
  reply report
0
JaxsonRaineposted 11 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.
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 11 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 !
reply report
1. 60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yeah King Obama
  
  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.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 11 years agoin 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 !
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yet in fact Sandy Hook would not have occurred the way it did if those laws had remained in place.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 11 years agoin 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 ".
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin 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
  reply report
  77
  Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin 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"
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 11 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 !
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 11 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 ?
reply report
1. 0
  HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
2. 90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Most of those we get put back in office you know.
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
3. 65
  LucidDreamsposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  luciddreams I believe that is exactly what hitler said !
  reply report
  73
  Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Sort of like Obama and the immigration laws?
  reply report
  90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
54
ocbillposted 11 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.
reply report
1. 62
  BuckyGoldsteinposted 11 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  This same person likely believes the UN is the sovreign governmental body in the world.
  reply report
2. 0
  HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The difference, OCBill, is that there is no Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing citizens the right not to be taxed.
  reply report
54
ocbillposted 11 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
reply report
1. 90
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin 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.
  reply report
54
ocbillposted 11 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.
reply report
76
psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago
What s also good for the economy is having people will to pick crops and clean hotel rooms for minimum wage.
reply report
1. 54
  ocbillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  what does that have to do with safety & background checks?
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 11 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 .
reply report
61
SpanStarposted 11 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.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

340 Sheriffs refuse to enforce.....

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

340 Sheriffs refuse to enforce.....

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies