This is a discussion on Progress, one county at a time. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by HotGuns There will always be much argument about discretional enforcement, mostly by people that dont understand the concept or have never had ...
Thats one way to look at it.I guess that is just one more check, the officer (or DA) can be fired or replaced
I happen to think that the mayor,city council, or whoever made an illegal or unconstitutional law or allowed it to happen should be fired. That would take care of that, and any other politician that replaced those that were fired might take note and think about the responsibility that they are charged with before acting on their own.
Freedom of speech means nothing to those who are too weak in their convictions to speak out against the evil that eating the heart of a nation like a cancer- Billy Graham
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Maker of cool things to shoot
My first thought is "Awsome, win for the constitution!" Then my mind jumped to Obama's executive order giving amnesty to illegal aliens. Do we want law enforcement/legislators choosing which laws to enforce?
I think I understand both sides of the argument. If it is unconstitutional, then it is an invalid law. But then, we have a legal process to bring the law to the courts for verification that it is illegal and then revocation. If you just choose to ignore it, it stays on the books and when you get a new prosecutor/etc. it can be enforced again. How about a middle ground where you initiate the process to get the law overturned, and while the law is being debated in the courts, you have more justification for not enforcing it since it is being challanged.
I don't know. I don't have the legal background, or know the applicable state/federal laws that impact constitutionality issues, but just choosing to ignore it doesn't seem like the right course of action.
I realize Obama's amnesty plan and this gun control issue are not the same, since being here illegally is most definitly not constitutionally protected, but I don't want to play by his rules.
Walk softly ...
Apparently, states must be able to pass laws regarding gun control even though they seem to conflict with our 2nd Amendment rights. Otherwise, they would have been challenged from the get-go. Either they fall into that twilight-zone called states rights or the politicians and judges actually thought gun-control laws would actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It seems it only took about 200 yrs. for them to figure out that criminals don't obey laws and now some radical thinkers are questioning the Constitutionality of laws that only criminalize law-abiding citizens. That's progress for ya!
Is this the state attorney's version of jury nulification?
Retired USAF E-8. Avatar is OldVet from days long gone in a neighborhood long gone. Oh, to be young again...
Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield
I like it. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. The Constitution is written in plain English and it does not require "interpretation". It requires enforcement, and that includes enforcement of the Constitution against laws that are blatantly not permitted. The DA is doing his job, IMO.