Colorado sheriff says new state gun laws won't be enforced


PDA






Slim
March 17, 2013, 09:28 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/17/colorado-sheriff-says-new-state-gun-laws-wont-be-enforced/?intcmp=trending

If you enjoyed reading about "Colorado sheriff says new state gun laws won't be enforced" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AlbertH
March 17, 2013, 09:44 AM
Sheriffs and all other police officers take an oath to uphold the laws, regardless of whether they agree with them or not. If and when they choose to no longer abide by that oath it is time for them to quit, instead of becoming a criminal themselves for blatantly violating their oath of office.

These types of statements provide even more testimony as to how corruption runs rampant within in our government when even its enforcement officers are willing brag about violating the oath of office that they have taken. It makes them the very same criminal that they are charged with apprehending.

MaterDei
March 17, 2013, 09:55 AM
Sheriffs and all other police officers take an oath to uphold the laws, regardless of whether they agree with them or not.

Do they?

In the military an enlisted person takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution and to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them. However, they are specifically taught that they are not to follow immoral or illegal orders.

I would assume that although civilians, LEOs have the same duty and are taught the same thing.

OilyPablo
March 17, 2013, 10:06 AM
Constitution first. I know a bunch here will say otherwise, but sometimes "kid learned knowledge" does apply. I value the Bill of Rights. ALL of them.

Needless to say we are living in increasingly interesting times.

Creature
March 17, 2013, 10:07 AM
Do LEO'sd swear an oath to uphold and enforce the law...which also specifically includes the mention of the US Constitution?

Sam1911
March 17, 2013, 10:13 AM
If and when they choose to no longer abide by that oath it is time for them to quit, instead of becoming a criminal themselves for blatantly violating their oath of office.In most states, and CO is one (with two exceptions), the Sheriff is an elected position and, thus, functions as a representative of the citizens of his county. I don't know precisely what oath they swear when they take office, but obviously they take the responsibility of protecting the interests of their citizens very highly.

The executive branch has a strong tradition of acting as a check and balance against the legislative branch by refusing to enforce certain ill-advised laws. (Hence the current Executive branch's "de-prioritizing" the enforcement of federal marijuana laws.)

There is a procedure for removing a Sheriff who does not enforce the law to the satisfaction of his constituents. Let's see if that is employed in CO.

(I'm guessing NOT! :D)

In the world of realpolitik, a Sheriff may say "I'm not enforcing that law," and the unspoken second half of that statement is, "and he who does not like that fact may do whatever they can about it." In other words, by making a public statement like this they are committing themselves that they will take whatever repercussions may come for that act of nullification. If their constituents evict them from office -- so be it. If they are impeached -- so be it. That's a perfectly legitimate and honorable stand for them to take.

dogrunner
March 17, 2013, 10:52 AM
I worked for two agencies during a 30 plus year LEO career. Both of the oaths I swore were: To support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida.

I cannot believe that the oaths taken elsewhere would differ much.

In point of fact, as I recall, my induction oath into the military was nearly identical, but did include the section about 'officers appointed over me'.

Evergreen
March 18, 2013, 04:35 AM
I wholeheartedly disagree with Albert, It's not time for sheriffs like Weld County Sheriff John Cooke to quit! No, it's time for more sheriffs like John Cooke to enroll! If we had more law enforcement and politicians in this country like him, all our woes would end.

Uphold the Constitution first, as it was created to defend itself against its so called interpreters, who inevitably will seek to dissolve it.

kyhunter
March 18, 2013, 05:44 AM
Many sheriffs in Kentucky said they wouldnt enforce these laws, have no intention to do so, or have the manpower to do so. Rural counties especially.

IlikeSA
March 18, 2013, 06:15 AM
Law enforcement officers have discretion. There are many laws on the books that are not enforced. Believe it or not, Georgia has an adultery law on the books (16-6-9). Do you think that is enforced or should be enforced?

President Andrew Jackson said about Worcester vs Georgia (paraphrased) "They made the ruling, let them enforce it." These Sheriff's are saying the same thing.

ole farmerbuck
March 18, 2013, 07:14 AM
Sheriffs and all other police officers take an oath to uphold the laws, regardless of whether they agree with them or not. If and when they choose to no longer abide by that oath it is time for them to quit, instead of becoming a criminal themselves for blatantly violating their oath of office.

These types of statements provide even more testimony as to how corruption runs rampant within in our government when even its enforcement officers are willing brag about violating the oath of office that they have taken. It makes them the very same criminal that they are charged with apprehending.
But didnt the people who made these new laws take an oath to protect the constitution also?

AlbertH
March 18, 2013, 07:41 AM
But didnt the people who made these new laws take an oath to protect the constitution also?

I keep hearing how these laws are unconstitutional, but I never see any individuals or organizations spending the cash to to take 2A cases all the way through the court system and fight for their rights.

I have searched high and low in an attempt to find cases but can't seem to find any, why is that?
Is it because the constitution gives the States the right to regulate?
Is it that the constitutional lawyers working for the pro gun organizations have yet to find a law or case that does not meet constitutional requirements?

There has to be a reason for the lack of a fight,if these laws are indeed unconstitutional.

The people writing these legislative propositions are not fools, they have constitutional lawyers working for them, NO congressman is going to make a fool of themselves by purposely submitting a proposal that they know will not meed a constitutional challenge. They may mistakenly add sections that do but the U S Supreme Court rarely tosses out an entire piece of legislation for a single section, They put a stay on that item and send instructions back to congress to either eliminate the section or rewrite that particular section so it does meet constitutional limits.

I have searched high and low in an attempt to find recent 2A cases but can't seem to find any, why is that?

Talk is free, actions take cash, and possibly even jail time.

Just my thoughts.

Al

Tony50ae
March 18, 2013, 08:10 AM
Albert, like you said, actions take cash and what sheriff is going to challenge these laws in court without cash. Not to mention ordinary people in these times when money is tight? And just because legislatures pass laws does not mean they are always constitutional. It may take YEARS before they are ruled otherwise. Look at the handgun ban in D.C. It took years and the right case to overturn that. Then more time and another right case to overturn Chicago's and apply the second amendment to all the states.

I even say the courts get it wrong from time to time as well. For example, the last part of the second amendment says "shall not be infringed" yet even the SCOTUS has ruled there are restrictions. Really? How does shall not be infringed mean that?

Tony50ae
March 18, 2013, 08:30 AM
I pose this question, If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, yet there is a contradicting law, the what is the sheriff supposed to do? If he enforces it he is wrong per the Constitution. If he does not he is wrong. Most if not all law enforcement officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution first.

Sam1911
March 18, 2013, 10:14 AM
but I never see any individuals or organizations spending the cash to to take 2A cases all the way through the court system and fight for their rights.That's exactly what SAF does. A couple of very interesting cases recently are known as "Heller vs. District of Columbia" and "McDonald vs. Chicago." You should look them up and see what kinds of (rather amazing) progress our side has made in the courts recently.

The long and short of it is that Constitutional challenges take a LONG time to work through the court system (think in terms of a decade or so) and cost millions. That isn't an overnight process and isn't supposed to be. Heck, for decades the Court wouldn't even consider hearing a 2nd Amendment case. We live in quite interesting times now! :)

The people writing these legislative propositions are not fools, they have constitutional lawyers working for them, NO congressman is going to make a fool of themselves by purposely submitting a proposal that they know will not meed a constitutional challenge.:rolleyes: I think a cursory review of the folks putting forth a lot of this legislation gives the lie to the first part of this statement! Heck, most of them are demonstrably unable to even identify or describe correctly the parts of weapons, or the purposes of those parts, that they're trying to ban. They ARE fools, I don't really think that is arguable. However, when it comes to Constitutionality, they don't ask themselves whether a law they want to pass is Constitutional. They ask "what am I likely to be able to get away with?"

sota
March 18, 2013, 10:31 AM
The long and short of it is that Constitutional challenges take a LONG time to work through the court system (think in terms of a decade or so) and cost millions. That isn't an overnight process and isn't supposed to be. Heck, for decades the Court wouldn't even consider hearing a 2nd Amendment case. We live in quite interesting times now!

Problem is the creation of laws is supposed to be a slow and arduous process as well... and as we've seen in NY and with attempts in CO that slow and arduous part can and has been preempted by "leaders" that border on tyranical. What are we to do about that failure on the part of the law making system?

XZenTigerX
March 18, 2013, 10:52 AM
What an Honorable & Courageous Sheriff!
He is STANDING for the PEOPLE he swore to protect, even if that protection is from a corrupt and broken government. I would stand by that man to the death.

People that follow the law without question are BLIND and not informed of the true nature of the world we live in and have designed.

If you follow laws which you KNOW are unconstitutional then you ARE THE CROOK:mad:

Sam1911
March 18, 2013, 10:58 AM
I don't know that that is necessarily true. The legislative branch (especially the House) is supposed to be the fastest-moving body, most responsive to the needs of the day and (oh, the irony) the will of the people.

When a "leader" stretches his authority to drive an act through the legislature to deliberately remove the normal opportunity for the citizens to organize their response and give comment, that's going to have to be taken up in the state courts (if such actions violate state law) or at the ballot box.

Justin
March 18, 2013, 11:35 AM
Sheriffs and all other police officers take an oath to uphold the laws, regardless of whether they agree with them or not. If and when they choose to no longer abide by that oath it is time for them to quit, instead of becoming a criminal themselves for blatantly violating their oath of office.

These types of statements provide even more testimony as to how corruption runs rampant within in our government when even its enforcement officers are willing brag about violating the oath of office that they have taken. It makes them the very same criminal that they are charged with apprehending.

Corruption? Really? That's rich.


Speaking as someone who's been involved with the process of fighting the proposed laws in Colorado, it's been clear from day one that the majority of citizens in this state oppose these onerous and ridiculous laws.

I have watched, in person, as state senators have ignored the testimony of residents from all over the state, rather choosing to screw off on Facebook than give their constituents the respect they are due.

And when they aren't busy ignoring citizens, they're badgering rape victims who have demonstrated the courage to stand up in public to testify against these laws.

I've watched as the Colorado Senate democrats have changed the rules of testimony again and again, in order to favor out-of-state professional victims over citizens of this state.

I've seen them change the procedure, forcing testimony to be given on five gun control bills all on the same day in order to limit debate time and cram these laws down our throats with as little public input as possible.

I've seen a story go public wherein it became clear that the democrats in this state stated they would refuse to vote for a pay increase due to the sheriffs because they wouldn't support them in their efforts to institute gun control.

If you well and truly think that a sheriff is corrupt because he refuses to enforce laws that even many of the proponents admit are unenforceable (and unconstitutional, according to law scholar Dave Kopel), then, please, tell us what you think of the downright belligerent and outright shady actions of the Colorado state democrats.



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk. Hence all the misspellings and goofy word choices.

lakecitybrass
March 18, 2013, 11:54 AM
To say that elected representatives would never be foolish enough to write legislature that would be obviously in violation of the Constitution, is foolish - unless you read what Oregon state senator Ginny Burdick wrote and proposed. Part of her state bill would enabled law enforcement to conduct warrentless searches of private homes to find guns the law says are illegal. Under this law, you would be allowed to keep one rifle, locked up in the house. I cannot conceive of any LEO doing this.

Creature
March 18, 2013, 12:14 PM
lakecitybrass wrote: Part of her state bill would enabled law enforcement to conduct warrentless searches of private homes to find guns the law says are illegal. Under this law, you would be allowed to keep one rifle, locked up in the house. I cannot conceive of any LEO doing this.

You cant? Then this will blow your mind:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/robert-farago/carneys-point-new-jersey-showdown/

Pilot
March 18, 2013, 12:28 PM
^^^^Glad that guy stood his ground against illegal search. effing New Jersey. :fire:

CoRoMo
March 18, 2013, 12:32 PM
It is both refreshing and encouraging to hear legislators like Greg Brophy state publicly that he will willfully violate this law and sheriffs like Cooke and Maketa publicly state that they will not enforce this law.
The people writing these legislative propositions are not fools...
Eh hem, http://colorado.mediatrackers.org/2013/03/06/breaking-anti-second-amendment-legislators-criminal-record-exposed/
...they have constitutional lawyers working for them...
Can you please cite this claim? Also, are you implying that they use constitutional lawyers in the legislative process or merely that they employing them? Does being a "Constitutional Lawyer" give someone some sort of higher understanding of freedom? Or might there be great divisions between the political beliefs amongst those who wear the label "Constitutional Lawyer"?
I never see any individuals or organizations spending the cash to to take 2A cases all the way through the court system...
Dang. You are admittedly not up to speed on these things. There have been countless challenges to all kinds of gun control laws. Heller and McDonald are certainly the big two, but there are many others. Since you couldn't even find them two -in your search high and low (where are earth were you "searching"?)-, I suggest you begin with them. Read and enjoy.

Carl N. Brown
March 18, 2013, 12:38 PM
Norval Morris, dean of the U Chicago Law School, proposed in his 1970 book suspending the Fourth Amendment to implement a ban on handguns through warrantless searches: the right to privacy did not extend to the possession of deadly weapons in his view. When he came up for appointment to a government position, his disregard for the Fourth Amendment was brought up in the hearings and cost him that job.

Deltaboy
March 18, 2013, 08:43 PM
I Want them TO uphold the USCON.

k_dawg
March 18, 2013, 10:50 PM
Sheriffs and all other police officers take an oath to uphold the laws, regardless of whether they agree with them or not. If and when they choose to no longer abide by that oath it is time for them to quit, instead of becoming a criminal themselves for blatantly violating their oath of office.

These types of statements provide even more testimony as to how corruption runs rampant within in our government when even its enforcement officers are willing brag about violating the oath of office that they have taken. It makes them the very same criminal that they are charged with apprehending.

I disagree. Nuremberg defense is kaput.

These Sheriff's have no more duty or moral/ethical obligation to enforce such laws than they would if the 'law' commanded them to deny basic human rights to blacks, jews or any other group.

JRH6856
March 18, 2013, 11:08 PM
I keep hearing how these laws are unconstitutional, but I never see any individuals or organizations spending the cash to to take 2A cases all the way through the court system and fight for their rights.

I have searched high and low in an attempt to find cases but can't seem to find any, why is that?

Maybe you haven't wanted to find any? Maybe this link to a TFL thread (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=416973) will help.

And if that doesn't satisfy you, perhaps you should troll some other forums and get their input. :scrutiny:

Speedo66
March 19, 2013, 12:20 PM
Robert Johnson, the District Attorney in Bronx County, NY (Da' Bronx) publicly stated he would not enforce the law on death penalties.

Small article in a couple of papers, but no big furor about his disregarding a law he was supposed to enforce.

Needless to say, there are quite a large number of criminals in the Bronx, and no doubt this was a reelection ploy.

AlbertH
March 20, 2013, 10:37 AM
Maybe you haven't wanted to find any? Maybe this link to a TFL thread (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=416973) will help.

And if that doesn't satisfy you, perhaps you should troll some other forums and get their input. :scrutiny:
I have done research and throughout history, the U S Supreme Court has allowed states to enact gun laws that directly violate many peoples interpretation of the second amendment right to bear arms. Have a look at the various states and their "black" laws. then there is the "savages" who were allowed to be legally killed for the good of a nation.

The U S Constitution actually gives the individual states the "right to regulate"

I guess the thing that really upsets me is when some "Patriots" feel that it is OK to disregard or are even willing to give up other parts of the U S Constitution in order to protect the Second Amendment.

The United States Constitution is an entire document, consisting of the Articles of incorporation, and the Amendments. Once it is not taken in its entirety the United States no longer exists for without the Articles of incorporation there is NO U S A but instead just a well armed lawless land

just my thoughts,

Al

Solo
March 20, 2013, 01:51 PM
Robert Johnson, the District Attorney in Bronx County, NY (Da' Bronx) publicly stated he would not enforce the law on death penalties.

Small article in a couple of papers, but no big furor about his disregarding a law he was supposed to enforce.

Needless to say, there are quite a large number of criminals in the Bronx, and no doubt this was a reelection ploy.
There are legitimate grounds for not enforcing the death penalty state sanctioned execution of someone who was innocent (an act for which there can be no restitution to its victim) and even religious reasons.

razorback2003
March 20, 2013, 02:00 PM
The law infringes on the 2nd Amendment. The sheriffs are doing the right thing and not enforcing an unconstitutional law. It is no different than sheriffs not enforcing a law that infringes on people gathering to pray.

Deer_Freak
March 20, 2013, 02:23 PM
The military has changed the oath from constitution to president. That needs to be fixed ASAP. I was recently swore in as an auxiliary deputy. I swore an oath to the constitution and the laws of Franklin county, not to any individual.

Apparently Obama is scared to death of the idea of oath keepers. Why? I don't know! I am not privy to anything more than a civilian. I was deputized to shoot IDPA in LEO matches. Everyone knows my health is going downhill.

JRH6856
March 20, 2013, 03:49 PM
I have done research and throughout history, the U S Supreme Court has allowed states to enact gun laws that directly violate many peoples interpretation of the second amendment right to bear arms. Have a look at the various states and their "black" laws. then there is the "savages" who were allowed to be legally killed for the good of a nation.

The U S Constitution actually gives the individual states the "right to regulate"

I guess the thing that really upsets me is when some "Patriots" feel that it is OK to disregard or are even willing to give up other parts of the U S Constitution in order to protect the Second Amendment.

The United States Constitution is an entire document, consisting of the Articles of incorporation, and the Amendments. Once it is not taken in its entirety the United States no longer exists for without the Articles of incorporation there is NO U S A but instead just a well armed lawless land

just my thoughts,

Al

Whether or not the SCOTUS has "allowed" the states to regulate Constitutionally protected rights depends largely on how the Court has interpreted and applied the 14th Amendment.

As initially written and ratified, the Constitution "gives" the states nothing. Instead, it is the states giving certain powers and authority to the federal government, prohibiting the federal government from infringing or abridging certain rights and reserving the all remaining unenumerated rights to the states or to the people, collectively and individually.

In 1866 the 14th Amendment created the status of citizen of the United States, separate and apart from state citizenship and prohibited the states from abridging the privileges and immunities of US citizens. However, it did not define or enumerate any privileges and immunities so it is left to the courts to determine what those privileges and immunities are and then decide if the states have or have not abridged them.

When incorporating Constitutional limitations against the states, the Court has shied away from making decisions based on the privilege and immunities clause largely due to the uncertainty created by lack of enumeration, preferring to base their rulings in due process and/or equal protection whenever possible.

In doing this, the Court has, at times, based a ruling in the theory of Substantive Due Process. SDP aims to protect individuals against majoritarian policy enactments which exceed the limits of governmental authority—that is, courts find the majority's enactment is not law, and cannot be enforced as such, regardless of how fair the process of enforcement actually is.

Cosmoline
March 20, 2013, 03:53 PM
There are a LOT of laws. Huge reams of them. More than any human can read in a dozen lifetimes. And EVERY SINGLE LEO in the country, without exception, has opted to not enforce the vast majority of them. Heck they've opted to not even KNOW the vast majority of them. There is no requirement that every LEO enforce every law. So the sheriff is well within his authority to opt not to enforce one or another.

JRH6856
March 20, 2013, 06:16 PM
There is more than one issue here.

Federal law. State and local LEOs and prosecutors are not responsible for enforcing federal law so a sheriff saying he will not do so is somewhat moot. OTOH, A sheriff saying he will not allow the law to be enforced is a horse of an entirely different color and could be deemed obstruction of justice by a federal prosecutor or grand jury.

State Law. State laws are enforced as necessary and at the discretion of the LEO or the District Attorney/State Prosecutor or grand jury. If the violation of law is not causing anyone any problem or generating any complaints, the violation may well be overlooked. Even if enforced by an LEO, the DA/SP may decline to prosecute or the grand jury may decide not to indict.

CoRoMo
March 20, 2013, 06:30 PM
If 30-round AR mags are being bought, sold, and traded on ARMSLIST's Colorado pages after the law goes into effect, people are going to be arrested.

There are at least two county sheriffs who did not oppose this law. But county sheriffs don't have to conduct stings on ARMSLIST buyers/sellers, city police and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation can nail a few loose cannons to the wall and there you go; game over.

Colorado gun owners will see a few guys go to jail or at least get fined/convictions. We will all say, "Well, he knew he was breaking the law and they nailed him", and we will all follow the law to the letter because it will be too risky to continue to violate it.

hermannr
March 20, 2013, 10:01 PM
Albert, did you know that if you were on a jury, and you were presented a case, you do NOT have to follow the jury instructions, and you can aquit someone charged with what you believe to be an unjust, and unconstuitutional law?

If you can do that, why do you feel that a Sheriff cannot do what this Sheriff has stated?

3GunEric
March 20, 2013, 10:10 PM
The President :evil: says that Feds "Have other fish to fry" when it comes to enforcing federal drug laws in Colorado.

Libs :banghead: seem ok with that. Why do they crazy when we suggest the same strategy?

AlbertH
March 20, 2013, 10:20 PM
Albert, did you know that if you were on a jury, and you were presented a case, you do NOT have to follow the jury instructions, and you can aquit someone charged with what you believe to be an unjust, and unconstuitutional law?

If you can do that, why do you feel that a Sheriff cannot do what this Sheriff has stated?
When an elected or appointed public official takes an oath oath of office to uphold the law, then plainly states that he will refuse to do so, is violating of that oath and therefore has become above the laws themselves.

Why is he any different than a criminal. He is refusing to enforce the very laws he took an oath to uphold. If he is not willing to abide by that oath of office, then he should step down and allow someone who to take his place.
Talk is free, actions can cost in many ways.

Would you prefer we live in a well armed lawless land?

It is acceptable for only parts of the constitutional process to be followed?

If anyone feels that they are being denied their constitutional rights, they can attempt to clarify those rights through the court system. The Constitution articles of incorporation provide directions as to how to accomplish this.

Maybe its time to stop complaining and put up the cash necessary to get the 2A issue resolved instead of expecting others to do the job for you.

just my thoughts

Al

henschman
March 20, 2013, 10:37 PM
Outstanding. I would like to see sheriffs refusing to enforce more victimless crime laws, like the war on drugs.

3GunEric
March 20, 2013, 11:12 PM
Al,

There is nothing to be "resolved" about the 2nd A! Only in the mind of weaklings who want it shredded.

Any talk of our reps "upholding" their oath is a charade when one considers the edicts coming from D.C. like Obama Care. Any rep or executive who forwards additional limits on 2nd A is violating that very oath.

Those German Police were just upholding the Nuremberg "Laws" when they isolated the Jews into the Ghettos - we know what followed. All legal and endorsed by the "courts."

It is time to see the world as it is and understand that what you are stating would have worked in 1950 but we are facing serious trouble!

MErl
March 20, 2013, 11:12 PM
Something I'm unsure about with this law.
It specifically says transfer is banned. That means to me I cannot sell them At All. Even to someone out of state. Is this the correct interpretation? The buyer would not be violating CO law but the seller would.
Is the value of all my mags their scrap value come 6/1?

CoRoMo, can you name the 2 counties that supported this?

tomrkba
March 20, 2013, 11:47 PM
deleted

r1derbike
March 20, 2013, 11:48 PM
Curses, Batman! I thought the only one allowed to conduct sting operations across the entire United States to prove that it was the entire population's fault, not his, was Bloomberg!

Easy there, Robin. How do you think we got this neat Batmobile and Bloomberg HotLine?

CoRoMo
March 21, 2013, 01:10 PM
CoRoMo, can you name the 2 counties that supported this?

Not entirely certain. I'd guess Joe Pelle and Gary Wilson.

There are 64 counties, yet only 62 sheriffs participated in the letter discussed in this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=699611

Cosmoline
March 21, 2013, 03:10 PM
When an elected or appointed public official takes an oath oath of office to uphold the law, then plainly states that he will refuse to do so, is violating of that oath and therefore has become above the laws themselves.

They make those decisions all the time. It's just that usually the refusal to enforce arises due to budget problems. So a county without sufficient staff may adopt a policy to not enforce a wide array of minor offenses. The only difference here is the political motive for the refusal, but a sheriff is elected to political office. If the state doesn't like it, the state has its own law enforcement agency to enforce the law and they no doubt will do so.

CoRoMo
March 21, 2013, 06:36 PM
Something I'm unsure about with this law.
It specifically says transfer is banned.
I wonder if I disassemble a mag, is it still a mag?

If a friend has a broken spring in his, could I take a spring out of one of mine and give/sell that spring to him? Probably.

But are the remaining parts that I have... a magazine? Maybe, maybe not.

Might I be able to sell the remaining parts to him or anyone else then? Maybe, maybe not.

The law says we must maintain "continuous possession" of grandfathered mags, but there is no penalty for not doing so. This means it is legal to destroy or throw the magazines in the trash. A crime is only committed when you transfer possession of one.

JRH6856
March 21, 2013, 07:22 PM
This means it is legal to destroy or throw the magazines in the trash. A crime is only committed when you transfer possession of one.

As long as we are speculating...

So you throw away a mag. The trash collector picks up the can. Now the mag is in his possession. You, having transferred it, are in violation.

He dumps the can. The mag is now in possession of the truck driver. The collector, having transferred it, is in violation.

The driver dumps the truck at the landfill. In doing so he transfers possession of the mag to the landfill manager. The driver is now in violation.

SabbathWolf
March 21, 2013, 07:41 PM
There is more than one issue here.

Federal law. State and local LEOs and prosecutors are not responsible for enforcing federal law so a sheriff saying he will not do so is somewhat moot. OTOH, A sheriff saying he will not allow the law to be enforced is a horse of an entirely different color and could be deemed obstruction of justice by a federal prosecutor or grand jury.

State Law. State laws are enforced as necessary and at the discretion of the LEO or the District Attorney/State Prosecutor or grand jury. If the violation of law is not causing anyone any problem or generating any complaints, the violation may well be overlooked. Even if enforced by an LEO, the DA/SP may decline to prosecute or the grand jury may decide not to indict.
I was just going to mention this, but you did a much better job.

One of the Sheriffs in Florida made it a point to mention he has no duty or authority to enforce Federal laws anyways.

JRH6856
March 21, 2013, 09:38 PM
State Law. State laws are enforced as necessary and at the discretion of the LEO or the District Attorney/State Prosecutor or grand jury. If the violation of law is not causing anyone any problem or generating any complaints, the violation may well be overlooked. Even if enforced by an LEO, the DA/SP may decline to prosecute or the grand jury may decide not to indict.

To continue this, even though one LEO may decline to enforce, any other LEO with jurisdiction and authority may choose to do so. So a Sheriff may refuse to enforce and a city police officer in the city where the violation occurred or state police officer may choose otherwise. And gain if the sheriff moves to prevent enforcement, he probably is exposed to obstruction of justice charges at the state level.

CoRoMo
March 22, 2013, 04:55 PM
CoRoMo, can you name the 2 counties that supported this?
Looky here...

http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/156551

Pitkin County Sheriff Joe DiSalvo is distancing himself from parts of a statement issued by the County Sheriffs of Colorado (CSOC) on Tuesday against tighter gun control laws.

...

“I did say I would stand with them on this letter, but there are some things I feel differently about,” DiSalvo said. “In my mind and I think in most of our constituents’ minds certain weapons that are designed solely for the purpose of killing a lot of people don’t belong on the street.”

Bighouse Doc
March 22, 2013, 06:55 PM
When an elected or appointed public official takes an oath oath of office to uphold the law, then plainly states that he will refuse to do so, is violating of that oath and therefore has become above the laws themselves.

Why is he any different than a criminal. He is refusing to enforce the very laws he took an oath to uphold. If he is not willing to abide by that oath of office, then he should step down and allow someone who to take his place.
Talk is free, actions can cost in many ways.

Would you prefer we live in a well armed lawless land?

It is acceptable for only parts of the constitutional process to be followed?

If anyone feels that they are being denied their constitutional rights, they can attempt to clarify those rights through the court system. The Constitution articles of incorporation provide directions as to how to accomplish this.

Maybe its time to stop complaining and put up the cash necessary to get the 2A issue resolved instead of expecting others to do the job for you.

just my thoughts

Al
"..When an elected or appointed public official takes an oath oath of office to uphold the law, then plainly states that he will refuse to do so, is violating of that oath and therefore has become above the laws themselves..."

A lot of NAZI leaders used that one at the war crimes trials!

-Doc

AlbertH
March 22, 2013, 07:09 PM
"..When an elected or appointed public official takes an oath oath of office to uphold the law, then plainly states that he will refuse to do so, is violating of that oath and therefore has become above the laws themselves..."

A lot of NAZI leaders used that one at the war crimes trials!

-Doc
Thats real interesting, you comparing those sheriffs to NAZI's, especially seeing as both should be considered criminals

Sam1911
March 22, 2013, 07:36 PM
Sheriffs criminals for NOT following orders. NAZIs criminals FOR following orders... a guy just can't win with you Albert!

LOL!

:rolleyes:

Mosbyranger
March 22, 2013, 07:54 PM
HMMMM.... I guess I cannot sell mags in Colorado or sell a firearm without a background check. What to do, I wonder. Oh, I know. I'll just drive the 27 whole miles to Free Utah and sell my possessions to whomever wishes to purchase them. I do not believe that any Colorado law enforcement official can enforce Colorado laws in Utah. Problem solved...
MR

Sam1911
March 22, 2013, 08:02 PM
I guess I cannot sell mags in Colorado or sell a firearm without a background check. What to do, I wonder. Oh, I know. I'll just drive the 27 whole miles to Free Utah and sell my possessions to whomever wishes to purchase them. I do not believe that any Colorado law enforcement official can enforce Colorado laws in Utah. Problem solved...

Not that you'd sell a FIREARM to a private citizen outside of the state, of course. CO law enforcement can't enforce CO laws in UT, but lots of folks can enforce FEDERAL law.

zxcvbob
March 22, 2013, 08:04 PM
I think he's talking about standard-capacity magazines. But not sure.

Agsalaska
March 23, 2013, 12:00 AM
Sheriffs and all other police officers take an oath to uphold the laws, regardless of whether they agree with them or not. If and when they choose to no longer abide by that oath it is time for them to quit, instead of becoming a criminal themselves for blatantly violating their oath of office.

These types of statements provide even more testimony as to how corruption runs rampant within in our government when even its enforcement officers are willing brag about violating the oath of office that they have taken. It makes them the very same criminal that they are charged with apprehending.
Utter complete nonsense.


What if the Colorado state legislature past a law saying woman did not have the right to vote in elections. Or anyone publishing a journal not approved by the governors office shall be arrested.

What then?

Justin
March 23, 2013, 01:06 AM
Here's a list of laws that the sheriffs of Colorado are most likely not enforcing:

http://www.idiotlaws.com/dumb_laws/colorado/

Tell me, Albert, should the sheriff who oversees Pueblo resign because he doesn't enforce a law that says it's a crime to allow dandelions to grow within city limits?

How about the sheriff of Sterling? Should he be run out of office on a rail because he doesn't enforce a law requiring that cats that are outside after dark must wear a flashing light?

What about the Sheriff who oversees the Denver Metro area? Should he resign from office because he doesn't enforce a ban on loaning a vacuum cleaner to a neighbor?

Still, regardless of what you think, according to The Denver Post, the Colorado Sheriffs' decision to not enforce this law is something they have a right to do:

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22817663/weld-sheriffs-refusal-enforce-gun-rules-within-letter


Also, I find it tremendously telling that, despite your dislike of the Colorado sheriffs, and their unwillingness to enforce the magazine ban, you seem to have no ire whatsoever for the lawmakers who pulled all sorts of highly unethical shenanigans in order to ram these bills through (detailed in my previous post which you studiously avoided.)

David W. Gay
March 23, 2013, 02:54 AM
A few general questions:

1) How exactly is the mag limit to be enforced? Is there a registry of current "large capacity" mags in CO?

2) Similarly, how exactly is the UBC to be enforced, without knowing who currently owns what? Or, does the 4th amendment no longer apply in CO?

3) How do you prove a law enforcment officer is not trying to enforce any given law - particularly one that seem impossible to enforce to begin with?

These are simple questions, that should have simple answers. Well, at least, this simple mind thinks so...

Zak Smith
March 23, 2013, 03:00 AM
Hey Albert,

It's kind of hard to have a court case, let alone a Supreme Court case, won already when the law isn't even active yet. Furthermore, those Sheriffs have filed suit to block the bills they oppose.

Also, you seem to be operating under the impression that it is illegal for a LEO to not enforce every law on the books. That is false.

Zak Smith
March 23, 2013, 03:01 AM
David,

Nobody, not even the bill sponsors, know that satisfactorily.

thorazine
March 23, 2013, 05:39 AM
Good for you sheriff!

Because if certain CO politicians have their way... down the road more and more restrictions on ownership will be implemented.

You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere Albert.

AlbertH
March 23, 2013, 06:47 AM
Everyone has a Constitutional right to their own feelings and thoughts and NO ONE can refuse them those rights. Only in America.

What isn't understandable is how some are willing to give away the constitutional rights of others to protect their own and it is happening on both sides of the isle.

I read of people willing to do this in many places all to often, including right here on THR. The constitution was based on compromise and once that compromise is gone, so is the true meaning of the United States Constitution.

When the Constitution says that something is a right, It should not be denied, nor used as barter regardless of whether you believe in that right or not.

Once we as Americans start to barter the United States Constitution away for our own personal agenda it is no longer what our forefathers fought and gave their lives for.

Just my thoughts.

Al

Talk is free, actions have costs and consequences.

AlbertH
March 23, 2013, 06:52 AM
Here's a list of laws that the sheriffs of Colorado are most likely not enforcing:

http://www.idiotlaws.com/dumb_laws/colorado/

Tell me, Albert, should the sheriff who oversees Pueblo resign because he doesn't enforce a law that says it's a crime to allow dandelions to grow within city limits?

How about the sheriff of Sterling? Should he be run out of office on a rail because he doesn't enforce a law requiring that cats that are outside after dark must wear a flashing light?

What about the Sheriff who oversees the Denver Metro area? Should he resign from office because he doesn't enforce a ban on loaning a vacuum cleaner to a neighbor?

Still, regardless of what you think, according to The Denver Post, the Colorado Sheriffs' decision to not enforce this law is something they have a right to do:

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22817663/weld-sheriffs-refusal-enforce-gun-rules-within-letter


Also, I find it tremendously telling that, despite your dislike of the Colorado sheriffs, and their unwillingness to enforce the magazine ban, you seem to have no ire whatsoever for the lawmakers who pulled all sorts of highly unethical shenanigans in order to ram these bills through (detailed in my previous post which you studiously avoided.)

So by your own words, you are saying it is OK for any law official to pick and choose what laws they wish to enforce. Does that right remain true regardless of how heinous the crime may be? So much for the United States Constitution and the laws that were based on it, eh.

Trying to compare Apples to Oranges has always been a losing battle. If anyone doesn't believe me, just try using it in a court of law. Using scare tactics will drive far more people away from ones cause than an intelligent well thought out campaign.

The biggest problem I see with most 2A proponents is the fact that instead of using a rational plan of action, they try and use the apples to oranges approach or scare tactics.

Just my thoughts, In this case they may just get me in trouble because I told them to a moderator.

Al

JRWhit
March 23, 2013, 08:39 AM
Albert I'm sorry but you are walking with blinders on.
I do not have a copy of the Co sheriffs' oath to office, but hey are an elected official. In my state they swear to uphold and defend the constitution both state and federal. The U.S. constitution upholds and protects our rights not only from the federal gov.,but also from the state gov. To voice somehow that legislators don't pass unconstitutional laws is ridiculous. Why do we have a supreme court? You say you have studied throughout history on this matter but anyone who does any light reading could prove otherwise. Most recently along with ones already listed, that you have selectively ignored, a federal court that has overturned a ban on conceal carry in Illinois. If the Illinois Gov chooses to appeal to SCOTUS as they have indicated they may, then we will see if SCOTUS will even see the case. As you may know from your claimed studies, SCOTUS may or may not choose to see cases that have been ruled on from lower courts.
You keep stating that we are holding up our 2nd A right at the expense of other rights. Please explain what rights are being deprived from these actions.
A overwhelming majority of Colorado citizens are voicing there opposition to the efforts of the Colorado Legislature. Voice of the people and all. I have to wonder, if this were a separate issue, and one that you supported, would you then say that the voice of the people are being ignored? Have you anything to say about the Department of Homeland Security openly stating that they will not be enforcing certain laws dealing with illegal immigrants? Or anything to say about the President who has also stated that certain laws will not be enforced? I have a distinct feeling that you voice selective outrage.
The constitution does not allow the states to regulate rights. The constitution is a guarantee that goes straight to the people, that those rights will not be violated. That is pretty simple. And if the laws in CO prevail then I'm sure we will see it pan out in the courts. Despite your claim that no cases exists.

JRWhit
March 23, 2013, 08:49 AM
took me less than 15 seconds to find this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Second_Amendment_case_law

Sam1911
March 23, 2013, 08:54 AM
Albert? Are you somehow conflating someone taking away someone else's rights with the decision by a number of sheriffs to NOT enforce a law they and their constitutions oppose?

If not, well then you just lost me completely as I can't tell what you're now talking about.

If so...that's just a logical leap I can't hurl myself across.

Bighouse Doc
March 23, 2013, 10:23 AM
Lex mala, lex nulla!

In the US Army, it is CRIME to carry out any illegal order!

Blind obedience to bad laws has been the evil rulers best means of gaining power!

-Doc

HOOfan_1
March 23, 2013, 12:49 PM
Trying to compare Apples to Oranges has always been a losing battle. If anyone doesn't believe me, just try using it in a court of law.

I am sure plenty of cases where precedents were used to decide a case would be considered an apple to orange comparison in someone's eyes.

Using scare tactics will drive far more people away from ones cause than an intelligent well thought out campaign.


Who is using scare tactics? You are saying these Sherriffs ought to be yanked out of office...Seems like you are using scare tactics.


False flags in political arguments...that is a true losing battle.

AlbertH
March 23, 2013, 01:37 PM
Your cause just drove another ally away. keep driving nails in that coffin.

AlbertH
March 23, 2013, 01:51 PM
I am sure plenty of cases where precedents were used to decide a case would be considered an apple to orange comparison in someone's eyes.



Who is using scare tactics? You are saying these Sherriffs ought to be yanked out of office...Seems like you are using scare tactics.


Flase flags in political arguments...that is a true losing battle.
When people start making personal attacks at me for the observations I make, I come to realize that I am not welcome in their forums, especially when those personal attacks come from long time members.

The quickest way to lose the 2A battle is to alienate people with negative comments..

Congradulations on your accomplishment

shinyroks
March 23, 2013, 02:08 PM
They make those decisions all the time. It's just that usually the refusal to enforce arises due to budget problems. So a county without sufficient staff may adopt a policy to not enforce a wide array of minor offenses. The only difference here is the political motive for the refusal, but a sheriff is elected to political office. If the state doesn't like it, the state has its own law enforcement agency to enforce the law and they no doubt will do so.
The state is stretched thin on men and resources at the State Trooper level due to their own budgetary cuts. I sincerely doubt they would take this onto their plate.

HOOfan_1
March 23, 2013, 02:12 PM
The quickest way to lose the 2A battle is to alienate people with negative comments..


Okay...so why are you being so negative then?

Zak Smith
March 23, 2013, 03:08 PM
AlbertH,

You're not talking sense. The LEOs in question have filed suit. Furthermore, the idea that LEOs are obligated to enforce all laws on the books is faulty. If that were true, it would be illegal for an officer to give a warning for speeding 5 mph over the speed limit, just as an example. In addition, there is the concept of a "unlawful order" (stemming from military use) wherein the order exceeds the authority vested in the person giving it. As you correctly refer to, the Constitution is the highest law of the land and although there is settled case law for many circumstances, there is not for others and it comes down to the judgement of the chain of command, be it an individual officer or the Sheriff, to determine what they can in good conscience enforce without abridging others' rights as defined in the Constitution.

Now, you've said we all have a right to our feelings and that is true. What is happening here is that you are getting strong opposition to your opinions and you are entitled to your feelings in reaction to that. If that means you want to go elsewhere, then so be it. We are not required to agree with you or make you feel good about it. In my opinion, you are factually incorrect and the rationale in your argument is faulty, and you are basically endorsing some of the most egregious gun control law in the United States at this time. Maybe this isn't the right place for you.

This post is solely the opinion of myself and does not reflect my status as THR moderator.

SabbathWolf
March 23, 2013, 04:56 PM
.... The constitution was based on compromise and once that compromise is gone, so is the true meaning of the United States Constitution.

When the Constitution says that something is a right, It should not be denied, nor used as barter regardless of whether you believe in that right or not.....




This whole statement makes no sense to me Albert.

When the Constitution says something is a RIGHT...then it is a RIGHT.
Period.
The Constitution was not based on compromise at all. It laid out very specifically the inalienable RIGHTS we have that cannot legally be messed with.
That's not a compromise.
Maybe I am just missing your point?

Justin
March 23, 2013, 08:21 PM
So by your own words, you are saying it is OK for any law official to pick and choose what laws they wish to enforce. Does that right remain true regardless of how heinous the crime may be? So much for the United States Constitution and the laws that were based on it, eh.

Trying to compare Apples to Oranges has always been a losing battle. If anyone doesn't believe me, just try using it in a court of law. Using scare tactics will drive far more people away from ones cause than an intelligent well thought out campaign.

The biggest problem I see with most 2A proponents is the fact that instead of using a rational plan of action, they try and use the apples to oranges approach or scare tactics.

Just my thoughts, In this case they may just get me in trouble because I told them to a moderator.

Way to fail to actually address any of the questions in my previous post.

zxcvbob
March 23, 2013, 08:30 PM
Who are you talking to? I think Albert left in disgust (or confusion; it's hard to tell) hours ago. :rolleyes:

JRH6856
March 23, 2013, 08:34 PM
The Constitution was not based on compromise at all. It laid out very specifically the inalienable RIGHTS we have that cannot legally be messed with.
That's not a compromise.
Maybe I am just missing your point?

In Albert's defense (for a change) he has a point. The Constitution was a radical document. When the Articles of Confederation proved to be too weak, a convention was called to modify them. Instead, the Convention produced the Constitution and an entirely new form of government for the United States. It was controversial and there was a lot of resistance to it. The framers (Federalists) felt it was fine as written, but the opposition (Anti-federalists) felt it gave too much power to the federal government (or general government as it was called) and insisted it needed a Bill of Rights. When there was a danger it would not be ratified, a compromise was reached and in exchange for Anti-federalist support for ratification, the Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights in the form of amendments.

HOOfan_1
March 23, 2013, 09:34 PM
In Albert's defense (for a change) he has a point. The Constitution was a radical document. When the Articles of Confederation proved to be too weak, a convention was called to modify them. Instead, the Convention produced the Constitution and an entirely new form of government for the United States. It was controversial and there was a lot of resistance to it. The framers (Federalists) felt it was fine as written, but the opposition (Anti-federalists) felt it gave too much power to the federal government (or general government as it was called) and insisted it needed a Bill of Rights. When there was a danger it would not be ratified, a compromise was reached and in exchange for Anti-federalist support for ratification, the Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights in the form of amendments.

Even after it was ratified though, there wasn't any more compromise in politics than there are today. Jefferson hated Hamilton, and pretty much ended his friendship with Adams.

When someone is being stridently contrarian it's hard to have compromise or understanding.

JRH6856
March 23, 2013, 09:56 PM
^^^Still, without compromise on the Bill of Rights, there would not have been ratification and no Constitution.

If you enjoyed reading about "Colorado sheriff says new state gun laws won't be enforced" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!