Cops & Sheriffs refusing new State gun laws?

This is a discussion on Cops & Sheriffs refusing new State gun laws? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Are there cops and Sheriffs refusing to abide by new State laws to ban "assault-weapons", limit magazine sizes, and require universal background checks? How do ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
Like Tree22Likes

Thread: Cops & Sheriffs refusing new State gun laws?

  1. #1
    Ex Member Array Randalls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Sumner
    Posts
    163

    Cops & Sheriffs refusing new State gun laws?

    Are there cops and Sheriffs refusing to abide by new State laws to ban "assault-weapons", limit magazine sizes, and require universal background checks?

    How do you guys feel about folks refusing such new State laws along with new Federal laws?

    Should one respect new State gun laws but not new Federal gun laws?

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array michaelpthompso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Arvada Colorado, USA
    Posts
    48
    Weld County Colorado Sheriff John Cooke says he will not enforce Colorado's new anti-gun laws. http://bit.ly/141Ee2z

    He says they are unenforceable feel-good knee-jerk reactions that will do nothing to make the public safer.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    BugDude and ColoradoNative like this.

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,562
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Randalls View Post
    How do you guys feel about folks refusing such new State laws along with new Federal laws?

    Should one respect new State gun laws but not new Federal gun laws?
    I feel great about it. I am not about to respect ANY law that does not respect my INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
    Ghost1958 and 1MoreGoodGuy like this.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array xXxplosive's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,699
    They are sworn first to uphold and defend the US Constitution.......that is their Oath.
    Ghost1958 and 1MoreGoodGuy like this.

  7. #6
    Member Array Momokahn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    61
    These officers are sworn to uphold the constitution not abide by what they feel is violating their sworn oaths. Once these measures go through the court system AND IF they are upheld as constitutional then it is up to the cops. I doubt very seriously if they are going to enforce much of anything and rightfully so. They have biogger fish to fry then bother law abiding citizens. Cops make judgement calls everyday. When is the last time any of us have obeyed the speed limit to the exact number, not me and the police just let us keep driving as long as we are not nuts about it.
    Snub44 likes this.

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,562
    Constitutional Sheriffs & Peace Officers Assn

    Sheriffs Stand Tall For The Constitution video @ Youtube (68 mins, powerful statements about serving the People, not just about 2A; from a 2011 meeting of regional sheriffs in/around Siskyou Cty, CA)
    Ghost1958 likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array velo99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Native Texan
    Posts
    644
    The DOJ set the standard a few years ago by stating they would not enforce federal immigration law in Arizona. Lead by example was taught in the military.
    zonker1986 likes this.
    We have different gifts,according to the grace given to each of us.

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,562
    Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:

    "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.

    This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted."

    "Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
    "




    MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):


    Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

    The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.'

    Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.

    If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

    It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

    Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array CIBMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,029
    State law being in conflict with federal law is nothing new.For law enforcement on the state and local level to come out and refuse these laws and point out that these new laws being porposed are in large part unenforceable,is drawing attention to something that already existed and is now being expanded upon.How do you enforce a redundant law?If you are a sheriff how do you tell a deputy to ignore a state law infavor of enforcing a federal one?Does a state trooper set aside his oath to enforce a law that is clearly against his oath?Alot of states are deep in debt.Why should a state blow it's funding to enforce redundant unconstitutional federal laws?
    The easy way is always mined.

  12. #11
    Ex Member Array heatherr855's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    S.C.
    Posts
    192
    It's not just cops and sheriffs here.Our state leaders has said they won't enforce any federal bans.That said,i'm not even going to speculate or assume.Will see what happens,if anything does.

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,308
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:

    "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.

    This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted."

    "Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
    "




    MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):


    Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

    The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.'

    Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.

    If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

    It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

    Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.


    And there, folks, is the difference between the U.S. (us) and the Monarchy from which we escaped (Britain). You see, in Britain, any law passed by Parliament is "Constitutional" (they have no constitution) by it's very passage.

    Let me say that again: ANY LAW passed by the British Parliament is LEGAL. It is, by it's very passage, the law of the land. There are no powers in the PEOPLE, they have to do what the Parliament says they must do. From Parliament's own website:

    Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law.
    (and again, there is no one document that is the UK Constitution. The constitution is ALL the laws passed by Parliament)

    WE are the government of this country.... if only WE would GOVERN.
    CIBMike, ccw9mm and Ghost1958 like this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array DocT65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    595
    Most all of my LEO colleagues wonder who is going to enforce any of the propsed anti-gun laws. LEO's are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and these are clearly in violation of such. Just sayin'.
    CIBMike likes this.
    "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

    Flight Surgeon, USAF
    Law Enforcement Tactical Surgeon

    NRA Patron Member

  15. #14
    Member
    Array dling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    And there, folks, is the difference between the U.S. (us) and the Monarchy from which we escaped (Britain). You see, in Britain, any law passed by Parliament is "Constitutional" (they have no constitution) by it's very passage.

    Let me say that again: ANY LAW passed by the British Parliament is LEGAL. It is, by it's very passage, the law of the land. There are no powers in the PEOPLE, they have to do what the Parliament says they must do. From Parliament's own website:


    (and again, there is no one document that is the UK Constitution. The constitution is ALL the laws passed by Parliament)

    WE are the government of this country.... if only WE would GOVERN.
    Great Britain is a Constitutional Monarchy with a democratic Parliament. It is true that the citizens of Great Britain only have the rights that Parliament grants them at any point in time.

    I have had conversations with some of my UK in-laws about this and many of them just don’t understand the significant difference between our system and their system.

  16. #15
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,632
    Quote Originally Posted by DocT65 View Post
    Most all of my LEO colleagues wonder who is going to enforce any of the propsed anti-gun laws. LEO's are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and these are clearly in violation of such. Just sayin'.
    Not at all. Possibly. Clearly. Each of these can be legitimately and rationally argued. It isn't unconstitutional until
    a judge says it is.

    If the sheriffs are so convinced it is unconstitutional, they and plenty of people holding the same belief are more than
    welcome to go to court and request an injunction and a stay.

    Under our system it is not their individual judgment to make, except of course anyone is free to offer an opinion
    here and elsewhere.

    My own view is that if the CO style law was unconstitutional, the AWB was also unconstitutional; and there were 10
    years for that to be challenged and overturned. It wasn't.

    We may not like the law, the results, the politicians, but we are bound by it and the procedures we use for
    settling disputes. What the sheriffs are proposing is lawless, and per the oath they take in my state (don't know about
    CO--- see other running thread on this) they would be bound to uphold it.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

people refuse to hunt in colorado over gun laws

,

sheriff's refusing

Click on a term to search for related topics.