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

AlbertH said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

AlbertH said:

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?

Click to expand...

Maybe you haven't wanted to find any? Maybe this link to a TFL thread will help.

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

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.

JRH6856 said:

Maybe you haven't wanted to find any? Maybe this link to a TFL thread will help.

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

AlbertH said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Make no mistake... this law WILL be enforced!!!

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.

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?

The President 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?

hermannr said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

Outstanding. I would like to see sheriffs refusing to enforce more victimless crime laws, like the war on drugs.

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!

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?

deleted

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?

MErl said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Something I'm unsure about with this law.
It specifically says transfer is banned.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

JRH6856 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.