Harve Curry
Member
As a LEO how do enforce gun laws, in good conscience, that clearly contradict the 2nd Amendment?
2nd Amendment and law enforcement question & poll
- Thread starter Harve Curry
- Start date
- Status
It's the duty of the courts to determine what is constitutional. No matter how much I'd like to I don't have that authority. I don't think it's what you are getting at, but if the courts deem it unconstitutional then it's no longer a law and cannot be enforced.
Harve Curry
Member
Yes I know it's "supposed" to be the duty of the courts, but as some of us know the court/judges don't always do the right thing.
So I'll add this thought to the question, if it happened to you and you know in your gut it's wrong, then how can you do it to someone else.
Hypothetically , if you can answer that way..
So I'll add this thought to the question, if it happened to you and you know in your gut it's wrong, then how can you do it to someone else.
Hypothetically , if you can answer that way..
The Constitution is the foundation of our Republic. I cannot believe in it in parts. I have to take it as it is. All or nothing. I am not charged with the duty of the judicial branch. I either have faith in the character of those that carry that duty, or I take action to correct the problem as provided for under the law.
There is a grave danger to freedom when those among us exercise more power than is allowed them. It has happened in our country to be sure. We have gone a long way down that road. I can't take it upon myself however to correct the problem by ignoring the law. If we do this we are only helping to destroy the very foundation that we are trying to save.
There is a grave danger to freedom when those among us exercise more power than is allowed them. It has happened in our country to be sure. We have gone a long way down that road. I can't take it upon myself however to correct the problem by ignoring the law. If we do this we are only helping to destroy the very foundation that we are trying to save.
Harve Curry
Member
I agree with most of what you write but I have to disagree with you here: QUOTE :GMarshall139. "..I can't take it upon myself however to correct the problem by ignoring the law. If we do this we are only helping to destroy the very foundation that we are trying to save."
Alot of crimes could be justified with that sentence. " I was just following orders".............
Whether our jobs have required that we take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution or not, I believe as citizens we're still obliged to.
So I'd say to enforce something you know is inherently wrong over something you know is Right, creates a quandary for the LEO, but they should rise above it. I know some that have..
Alot of crimes could be justified with that sentence. " I was just following orders".............
Whether our jobs have required that we take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution or not, I believe as citizens we're still obliged to.
So I'd say to enforce something you know is inherently wrong over something you know is Right, creates a quandary for the LEO, but they should rise above it. I know some that have..
When I last checked, I wasn't empowered to decide what laws are constitutional and what laws aren't. That's way above my paygrade, and I'd never survive a confirmation battle in the Senate anyway.
I use discretion in all the laws I enforce. We were taught in our basic criminal law class, that discretion is built into the system at all levels from the officer on the street to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and that our legislators were not gifted enough to write laws comprehensive enough to cover every possible situation we would encounter, and it was the duty of everyone in the system to look at the situation and attempt to apply the law in a manner that would serve society.
So how I apply the law totally depends on the situation. Let me give you a hypothetical example. Here in Illinois we have a requirement to register as a gun owner and have a FOID (Firearm Owners Identification Card) if you possess a firearm. If I responded to a call where a law abiding homeowner had used a gun in a clear case of self defense, I doubt if I'd even check to see if he had a valid FOID card. I don't see how that would affect the situtation. However I legally couldn't return the gun he used until he presented a valid FOID card, but at least he wouldn't become a convicted felon for merely possessing the means of self defense. I've seen this same attitude applied to cases even in anti-gun Chicago.
It all depends on the situation. Last Summer I sent in charges on a person who stole a handgun, and those charges included possession of a firearm without a FOID card, along with theft and possession of a stolen firearm.
I do work the political side of the house to change those laws that I feel are unconstitutional.
Jeff
I use discretion in all the laws I enforce. We were taught in our basic criminal law class, that discretion is built into the system at all levels from the officer on the street to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and that our legislators were not gifted enough to write laws comprehensive enough to cover every possible situation we would encounter, and it was the duty of everyone in the system to look at the situation and attempt to apply the law in a manner that would serve society.
So how I apply the law totally depends on the situation. Let me give you a hypothetical example. Here in Illinois we have a requirement to register as a gun owner and have a FOID (Firearm Owners Identification Card) if you possess a firearm. If I responded to a call where a law abiding homeowner had used a gun in a clear case of self defense, I doubt if I'd even check to see if he had a valid FOID card. I don't see how that would affect the situtation. However I legally couldn't return the gun he used until he presented a valid FOID card, but at least he wouldn't become a convicted felon for merely possessing the means of self defense. I've seen this same attitude applied to cases even in anti-gun Chicago.
It all depends on the situation. Last Summer I sent in charges on a person who stole a handgun, and those charges included possession of a firearm without a FOID card, along with theft and possession of a stolen firearm.
I do work the political side of the house to change those laws that I feel are unconstitutional.
Jeff
EghtySx
Member
German soldiers were just following orders in WWII.
EghtySx,
So you're comparing the United States to Nazi Germany?
Jeff,
I think you summed it up very well in your first sentence. Good point on discretion as well.
Harve,
There's a difference in a law and an order. I am under no obligation to follow an unlawful order. Key word being unlawful.
So you're comparing the United States to Nazi Germany?
Jeff,
I think you summed it up very well in your first sentence. Good point on discretion as well.
Harve,
There's a difference in a law and an order. I am under no obligation to follow an unlawful order. Key word being unlawful.
EghtySx
Member
No. I was comparing police who blindly follow unconstitutional orders to nazi soldiers. You sound like Sarah Brady twisting words like that.
Another example:
Twisting again. If a law is unconstitutional, it is unlawful as the constitution is the highest law of the land.
Stop assigning your own meaning to things when the question is obvious.
Lone_Gunman
Member
A law passed by the legislature is a law until it is struck down by the courts. Until a court rules it "un-Constitutional" then it is the law of the land.
Police have to enforce that, but I like the ideas expressed by Jeff White... judgement needs to be involved.
A better question would be:
What are we to do with obviously un-constitional laws that have been ruled constitutional by the courts?
Police have to enforce that, but I like the ideas expressed by Jeff White... judgement needs to be involved.
A better question would be:
What are we to do with obviously un-constitional laws that have been ruled constitutional by the courts?
EghtySx said;
If a law has been ruled unconstitutional it's no longer a law. At least in the jurisdiction of the court that ruled it unconstitutional.
Let me ask YOU a question. Who decides if a law is constitutional?
Jeff
If a law has been ruled unconstitutional it's no longer a law. At least in the jurisdiction of the court that ruled it unconstitutional.
Let me ask YOU a question. Who decides if a law is constitutional?
Jeff
Lone_Gunman
Member
I don't think that EghtySx understands that all laws are "constitutional" until struck down by a court, after which it is no longer a law.
Your right, technically no one enforces an unconstitutional gun law. However I think Harve meant gun laws that we would rule unconstitutional if we were judges.
Jeff
Jeff
Optical Serenity
Member
While here in the south very few officers go out of their way to enforce gun laws, it does not mean we can avoid it. And as has been said before, I am not a Supreme Court Justice nor do I play one on TV.
I am a law enforcement officer under an oath and mandate to uphold the laws of the State of Georgia. This means, that if someone is in violation of the GA gun law 16-11-127, then well, I have taken an oath to bring them in to be tried on that charge.
To ask this type of question and be serious about it is ridiculous. Yes, I may not like the law I enforce, but I have a duty to the people of Georgia to enforce it. If the people do not like the law, they can & should petition their elected officials to change the law.
Why is it people always want to look at the enforcement branch and not at the legislative branch? Its easy to accuse the accuser, but no one wants to take blame for voting in officials who pass laws we do not like.
I am a law enforcement officer under an oath and mandate to uphold the laws of the State of Georgia. This means, that if someone is in violation of the GA gun law 16-11-127, then well, I have taken an oath to bring them in to be tried on that charge.
To ask this type of question and be serious about it is ridiculous. Yes, I may not like the law I enforce, but I have a duty to the people of Georgia to enforce it. If the people do not like the law, they can & should petition their elected officials to change the law.
Why is it people always want to look at the enforcement branch and not at the legislative branch? Its easy to accuse the accuser, but no one wants to take blame for voting in officials who pass laws we do not like.
I'm not sure where you're coming from on this. We have three branches of government in this country each of whose purpose it is to act as a check against the power of the other two. As police, and enforcers of the law, we are part of the executive branch. The legislature makes laws, and the courts rule on their constitutionality.
If I as a police officer want to act based on my own beliefs on what laws are constitutional then I am usurping power from the judicial branch. That is unconstitutional.
You keep mentioning orders. The poll question dealt with laws. There's a big difference. I am under no obligation, nor do I intend to follow orders that are either unlawful, or by definition unconstitutional.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Following orders is different than enforcing laws.
Take New Orleans for example. There was no LAW allowing the disarming of folks there. THAT was an illegal ORDER and should have been disobeyed by the officers involved, who are now paying the price.
If Louisiana had a LAW stating that folks could be disarmed , it would have been OK for the police to have disarmed people, but shame on the people for allowing such a law to be on the books.
There's a hell of a difference between an illegal order and an unconstitutional law.
I would expect LEOs to enforce all laws on the books, regardless of whether they are constitutional or not. I'd expect non LEO's to spend their time and resources removing unconstitutional laws from the books so we wouldn't then have to worry about it in the first place.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
I don't think you'd enjoy having every cop act as a Constitutional-law judge as much as you think you would. The majority of cops on the street might decide they don't need to enforce that gun law or this silly drug law. Then again, there might be some who would decide that the 14th Amendment wasn't quite kosher and if "Billy 'n 'em" want to blow off steam by burning a cross in somebody's yard, well, that's just boys being boys. No need for law enforcement.
There are a whole lot of examples that don't go the way you or I might prefer. Far safer and saner, for better or for worse, to divide that kind of power between two branches of government than to let police officers become knights running fiefdoms where the law may or may not apply.
You and I may not like the law as it's written, but at least it's written and we know more or less what it says. If we went your way, you could easily find yourself in a situation where you followed the law as written and it doesn't matter a bit because the officer didn't like that particular law and no court is going to rescue you.
Bad juju.
There are a whole lot of examples that don't go the way you or I might prefer. Far safer and saner, for better or for worse, to divide that kind of power between two branches of government than to let police officers become knights running fiefdoms where the law may or may not apply.
You and I may not like the law as it's written, but at least it's written and we know more or less what it says. If we went your way, you could easily find yourself in a situation where you followed the law as written and it doesn't matter a bit because the officer didn't like that particular law and no court is going to rescue you.
Bad juju.
Re: Cops following orders and gun laws.
I wish I had a dime for every time a cop has said "don't blame us, we don't make the laws" (attempting to shift blame, pass the buck, to the legislative branch).
Yet, why is it that practically every proposed gun control law has strong backing of law enforcement? Sheriffs, chiefs, police unions, etc. I'll do a news search on the state level for stories from the past year if necessary. Law enforcement sponsorship/backing is THE single common denominator. Can everyone stipulate to this fact?
Why is every freedom-robbing, gun-grabbing legislation signed amid a backdrop of police uniforms in photo op formation?
Yet we're assured that 99% of beat cops are pro RKBA.
We've even been told by LE members on this board that they can't speak out on pro-gun issues; standing "orders" against taking a political position (in or out of uniform). What a cop-out (pun intended).
I see a huge discrepency between LE actions, and what is professed in these gun forums. Seems like LE has no problem backing gun control. Except when it comes to organized support of RKBA, "Nah-uh, I'm just following orders" (hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil).
Next time a gun-grab is proposed and LE support is trumpeted to the mountaintops, I'll be looking for the groundswell of pro-RKBA officers to dispell the (mistaken?) impression thats being put forward. A perfect time for cops with the courage of their convictions, to disobey an unlawful order, eh?
I wish I had a dime for every time a cop has said "don't blame us, we don't make the laws" (attempting to shift blame, pass the buck, to the legislative branch).
Yet, why is it that practically every proposed gun control law has strong backing of law enforcement? Sheriffs, chiefs, police unions, etc. I'll do a news search on the state level for stories from the past year if necessary. Law enforcement sponsorship/backing is THE single common denominator. Can everyone stipulate to this fact?
Why is every freedom-robbing, gun-grabbing legislation signed amid a backdrop of police uniforms in photo op formation?
Yet we're assured that 99% of beat cops are pro RKBA.
We've even been told by LE members on this board that they can't speak out on pro-gun issues; standing "orders" against taking a political position (in or out of uniform). What a cop-out (pun intended).
I see a huge discrepency between LE actions, and what is professed in these gun forums. Seems like LE has no problem backing gun control. Except when it comes to organized support of RKBA, "Nah-uh, I'm just following orders" (hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil).
Next time a gun-grab is proposed and LE support is trumpeted to the mountaintops, I'll be looking for the groundswell of pro-RKBA officers to dispell the (mistaken?) impression thats being put forward. A perfect time for cops with the courage of their convictions, to disobey an unlawful order, eh?
U.S.SFC_RET
Member
In 2000 I was pulled over in Virginia for speeding and was asked if I had any firearms in my vehicle to which I replied yes. He told me to state the type and how many and I did. He then explained to me that that law was meant for criminals. I was out of state with firearms in the vehicle. He used discretion.
Harve Curry
Member
The situation:
A man or woman should not be afraid of police if they're armed, same as a policeman is not afraid if they are armed.
Being Armed gives you the tools to defend yourself in any situation that might arrise, to the best of your ability, that otherwise might harm or kill you.
We should be able to agree that the first law of the land regarding firearms is this:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Despite what the spin doctors would tell us about that sentence, it is easy to understand, even if some need a dictionary. It's not rocket science. You do not have to have a degree, be a Senator, Congressman, or President.
It was written for people by people.
To lay blame on the electors is kinda passing the buck.
Citizens didn't ask for these laws they were shoved down their throats in the name of we're here to protect you, or we must get this evil thing off the streets. Spin doctors of all shapes, sizes, in positions of power and manipulation.
Like I wrote in the beginning how can you enforce something on another that you would not want done to yourself? That you know is wrong. That you know from history has alway led to disaster. That you know is not what was intended by the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Personally I'd be ashamed, I couldn't do it.
I grew up it was policemen. Now it's LEO's, Law Enforcement. Maybe that's part of the difference today. The way young people are taught and then enter police academies and are taught some more .
A policemen is part of the checks and balances.
A man or woman should not be afraid of police if they're armed, same as a policeman is not afraid if they are armed.
Being Armed gives you the tools to defend yourself in any situation that might arrise, to the best of your ability, that otherwise might harm or kill you.
We should be able to agree that the first law of the land regarding firearms is this:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Despite what the spin doctors would tell us about that sentence, it is easy to understand, even if some need a dictionary. It's not rocket science. You do not have to have a degree, be a Senator, Congressman, or President.
It was written for people by people.
To lay blame on the electors is kinda passing the buck.
Citizens didn't ask for these laws they were shoved down their throats in the name of we're here to protect you, or we must get this evil thing off the streets. Spin doctors of all shapes, sizes, in positions of power and manipulation.
Like I wrote in the beginning how can you enforce something on another that you would not want done to yourself? That you know is wrong. That you know from history has alway led to disaster. That you know is not what was intended by the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Personally I'd be ashamed, I couldn't do it.
I grew up it was policemen. Now it's LEO's, Law Enforcement. Maybe that's part of the difference today. The way young people are taught and then enter police academies and are taught some more .
A policemen is part of the checks and balances.
Harve Curry
Member
U.S.SFC_RET ,
Refreshing.
That is a smart policeman. When he said "explained to me that that law was meant for criminals", shows alot of good character.
It could have gotten ugly cost you alot of time, money, and more.
Jurors can do the same thing when they see a law is being wrongly applied.
Refreshing.
That is a smart policeman. When he said "explained to me that that law was meant for criminals", shows alot of good character.
It could have gotten ugly cost you alot of time, money, and more.
Jurors can do the same thing when they see a law is being wrongly applied.
Harve Curry said;
Harve, did you have to take Civics or Government in order to graduate from high school? Do you remember what it said about the three branches of government?
The fact of the matter is, that until a court rules that a law is unconstitutional, that law has the same force as if it were part of the constitution. that's it, game over. That's how we do things under our form of government.
If you want the Second Amendment to be the first and only law of the land regarding firearms, you may; run for office, be elected, introduce legislation that repeals every gun law on the books, pass your law and lobby whoever is president to sign it, or pass it with enough votes to over ride a veto, or you may get appointed to the federal bench and begin ruling these laws unconstitutional as they cross your desk. You can violate these laws, get arrested and then you will have status to challenge them in court. The other option is to support political candidates who will do these things for you when they are in office.
Our system is set up to work that way. The police are not arbiters of what is constitutional and what isn't. That is the job of the courts. Discretion as I explained it exists.
That's as good as it gets. Live with it.
You have the tools to change things to be the way you'd like them to be, use them. I'm really sorry that they don't work faster. Many of us share in your frustration. But you have to attack the problem the right way. The police are not the problem. The legislature and the courts are the problem. And that is where the problem must be fixed.
Jeff
Harve, did you have to take Civics or Government in order to graduate from high school? Do you remember what it said about the three branches of government?
The fact of the matter is, that until a court rules that a law is unconstitutional, that law has the same force as if it were part of the constitution. that's it, game over. That's how we do things under our form of government.
If you want the Second Amendment to be the first and only law of the land regarding firearms, you may; run for office, be elected, introduce legislation that repeals every gun law on the books, pass your law and lobby whoever is president to sign it, or pass it with enough votes to over ride a veto, or you may get appointed to the federal bench and begin ruling these laws unconstitutional as they cross your desk. You can violate these laws, get arrested and then you will have status to challenge them in court. The other option is to support political candidates who will do these things for you when they are in office.
Our system is set up to work that way. The police are not arbiters of what is constitutional and what isn't. That is the job of the courts. Discretion as I explained it exists.
That's as good as it gets. Live with it.
You have the tools to change things to be the way you'd like them to be, use them. I'm really sorry that they don't work faster. Many of us share in your frustration. But you have to attack the problem the right way. The police are not the problem. The legislature and the courts are the problem. And that is where the problem must be fixed.
Jeff
Yes, game over.
But (you just knew there had to be a BUT didn't you?
), at some point do not your own values, ethics, and morals come into play? Can you not envision that our country would at some point go down a dark path, and pass a law that would, for example, authorize the round-up and incarceration of all Muslims? What do you do then? Follow orders and hope that one day the law will be overturned? Or say, "Hell no, I won't arrest and incarcerate people just because of their religion!"
What about when you hear that some of these Muslims are being tortured? What about when you hear that some of them have "vanished"?
IMHO opinion, how you answer this question as an agent of the government is critical. Do you have a limit or not?
Last edited:
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
No, I can't stipulate that fact. In Texas law enforcement has been pro CCW pretty much from day one. There are no calls for an "assault rifle" bill or any complaints about "cop killing" bullets.
I'm sure you can find one or 2 exceptions here and there but at least in my state you won't find what you are looking for.
Again this is a reflection of the PEOPLE of the state. You keep forgetting how all of these cops, judges, senators, etc get their jobs.
Don't want anti gun cops? Don't elect anti gun politicians and don't allow anti gun politicians to appoint anti gun judges.
It's a lot of work.
While the Second Amendment may very well be clear and concise, you can't just stand behind that amendment as the world crumbles around you and shout "But it is my right!" You have to continue to fight for it.
Last edited:
Hypnogator
Member
Reminds me of a question I was asked on my Warrant Board at the time I applied for Warrant Officer as a CID Special Agent. A young lieutenant wanted to know how I could enforce laws against pot if I didn't believe in them. (I did, apparently he didn't.) My response was, "My duty is to enforce the law as written. If I believe a law is unjust, I will work dilligently to see that it gets changed, but who am I to say what laws I will or won't enforce? If I choose which laws to enforce, what if I think that murder is OK under certain circumstances? My duty is to enforce the law, and to lobby for change if a law needs changing."
- Status
Similar threads
