Colorado sheriff says new state gun laws won't be enforced
- Thread starter Slim
- Start date
- Status
Bighouse Doc
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2007
- Messages
- 56
"..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
Moderator Emeritus
Sheriffs criminals for NOT following orders. NAZIs criminals FOR following orders... a guy just can't win with you Albert!
LOL!
LOL!
Mosbyranger
Member
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
MR
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
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
Member
I think he's talking about standard-capacity magazines. But not sure.
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
Moderator Emeritus
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/breakingn...riffs-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.)
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/breakingn...riffs-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
Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2004
- Messages
- 119
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...
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
Member
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.
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
Member
David,
Nobody, not even the bill sponsors, know that satisfactorily.
Nobody, not even the bill sponsors, know that satisfactorily.
You know whats nice about America
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.
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.
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
Last edited:
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.
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.
took me less than 15 seconds to find this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Second_Amendment_case_law
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2007
- Messages
- 56
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
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
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.
False flags in political arguments...that is a true losing battle.
Last edited:
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
Member
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.
Okay...so why are you being so negative then?
Zak Smith
Member
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.
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.
- Status