Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Lots of discussions in the past couple of months, on the subject. Lots of sheriffs across the country stating publicly their refusal to enforce unconstitutional firearms-related legislation and instead uphold their sworn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution and legitimate laws of their states.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/163177-citizens-kansas-belong-united-states-not.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/157593-official-states-standing-up-thread.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/163492-colorado-sheriff-refuses-enforce-gun-control-bills.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/163294-police-just-dont-enforce-gun-laws.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/162739-colorado-sheriff-dems-using-salary-threats-pressure-sheriffs-gun-control.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/law-enforcement-military-homeland-security-discussion/162045-vance-county-nc-sheriff-gets.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/159945-natl-sheriffs-assn-announces-they-will-not-support-unconstitutional-gun.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/law-enforcement-military-homeland-security-discussion/159966-arkansas-sheriffs-association-statement.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/158016-utah-sheriffs-warn-obama-deadly-war-over-guns.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/concealed-carry-issues-discussions/159108-constitutional-sheriffs-peace-officers.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/159368-loving-sunshine-sheriffs.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/159132-seems-our-sheriff-knows-right-wrong.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/158767-i-will-take-off-my-uniform-stand-freedom.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/158448-good-guys-list-sheriffs-saying-no-gun-control.html
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/158488-sanders-county-montana-sheriff-wont-enforce-ban-mt-legislation.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,072 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
680 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,094 Posts
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?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
192 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,571 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
662 Posts
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'.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
444 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,571 Posts
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.
Judges are duty bound by the Constitution as well... though it seems many use it to look for little avenues where the challenged law CAN be constitutional rather than not...

While you are right that the AWB was not overturned, was there a challenge?

This is my greatest fear.... that even if all the supporters of Colorado's onerous/draconian/unconstitutional bills are voted out... that the newly elected will not repeal them... and there is no sunset on those laws I am aware of.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
23,746 Posts
Here is what Sheriff Mike Ensminger posted on his Facebook page today:

I am committed in taking a leadership role to fight for the constitutional rights of all citizens in Teller County and the state of Colorado. I will take a lead role in facilitating town hall meetings and communications to fight unconstitutional gun control laws. I will not enforce any law that will violate the constitutional rights of any citizen within my jurisdiction. Sheriff Mike Ensminger
Good Man! Great Sheriff!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
929 Posts
I can just see it now .... Mr. Fed to local sheriff ...

Mr. Fed: "Sheriff JoeBob, why aren't you enforcing our new federal gun laws?"

Sheriff JoeBob: "Well ... now I'm all confused. Ya'll jumped all over Arizona for trying to enforce federal law, ya even said it's not the state's job to enforce federal law, that only the feds should do that, so I didn't want to git ya'll mad at me too by doin' sumpin' I wasn't supposed to."
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top