Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control
New York Times ^ | December 15, 2013 | ERICA GOODE

Posted on 12/16/2013 5:56:55 AM PST by reaganaut1

GREELEY, Colo. — When Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County explains in speeches why he is not enforcing the state’s new gun laws, he holds up two 30-round magazines. One, he says, he had before July 1, when the law banning the possession, sale or transfer of the large-capacity magazines went into effect. The other, he “maybe” obtained afterward.

He shuffles the magazines, which look identical, and then challenges the audience to tell the difference.

“How is a deputy or an officer supposed to know which is which?” he asks.

Colorado’s package of gun laws, enacted this year after mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., has been hailed as a victory by advocates of gun control. But if Sheriff Cooke and a majority of the other county sheriffs in Colorado offer any indication, the new laws — which mandate background checks for private gun transfers and outlaw magazines over 15 rounds — may prove nearly irrelevant across much of the state’s rural regions.

Some sheriffs, like Sheriff Cooke, are refusing to enforce the laws, saying that they are too vague and violate Second Amendment rights. Many more say that enforcement will be “a very low priority,” as several sheriffs put it. All but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.

The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado is playing out in other states, raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown will have a muted effect in parts of the American heartland, where gun ownership is common and grass-roots opposition to tighter restrictions is high.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: banglist

1 posted on 12/16/2013 5:56:55 AM PST by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

If the Kenyan isn’t going to enforce our immigration laws, why should the sheriffs enforce his “gun control” laws?


2 posted on 12/16/2013 5:58:30 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Trust No One.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

How soon will Chickenpooper get bit by the aligator?


3 posted on 12/16/2013 5:58:32 AM PST by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
The federal guberment refuses to enforce migration, tax, gun, medical... laws so it has become a principal of law itself.
4 posted on 12/16/2013 6:00:06 AM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

If they are not expected to enforce marijuana and immigration laws, then why should they be expected to uphold gun laws? The slope is truly slippery.


5 posted on 12/16/2013 6:01:06 AM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
If the Kenyan isn’t going to enforce our immigration laws, why should the sheriffs enforce his “gun control” laws?

Precisely!

6 posted on 12/16/2013 6:03:11 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

These Sheriffs are the Good Guys, and every Citizen of their jurisdiction should support them.

As with every thing else, this is a choice. You either CHOOSE to obey, comply, enforce, etc., or you do not.

Thank you, Sheriffs, for remembering you are Americans first. We need more like you.

LEOs - take a lesson here. Law-abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional, Civil, and basic Human RIGHT to be armed are not the problem.

They only become a problem when YOU become a problem or a tool of the State.


7 posted on 12/16/2013 6:03:36 AM PST by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

“How soon will Chickenpooper get bit by the aligator?”
********************
Not soon enough.


8 posted on 12/16/2013 6:08:07 AM PST by mongo141 (Revolution ver. 2.0, just a matter of when, not a matter of if!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
“In my oath it says I’ll uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado,” he said, as he posed for campaign photos in his office — he is running for the State Senate in 2014. “It doesn’t say I have to uphold every law passed by the Legislature.”

I wonder if the Consitutional reference in sheriff oath's is pervasive across the U.S. and, if so, what it's history is.

Does it date back to the founding?
9 posted on 12/16/2013 6:10:19 AM PST by chrisser (Senseless legislation does nothing to solve senseless violence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

So proud of you, Sheriffs.


10 posted on 12/16/2013 6:13:43 AM PST by bergmeid (Resist we much!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

11 posted on 12/16/2013 6:49:24 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
If the Kenyan isn’t going to enforce our immigration laws, why should the sheriffs enforce his “gun control” laws?

Being as how the Kenyan chickenhawk from the Nairobi bathhouses is not constitutionally qualified to occupy his office, not a single law, act or order signed by him is valid. Every single thing he has ever done is constitutionally void - he is a usurper - nothing more. In contrast, most of the constitutionally elected Sheriffs in Colorado are following the Constitution, in keeping with their solemn oaths.

12 posted on 12/16/2013 7:26:15 AM PST by Bedford Forrest (Roger, Contact, Judy, Out. Fox One. Splash one.<I>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Here’s another view...

The sheriff is correct, there is no way to determine when a magazine was purchased (and in many cases when it was made). The legislature assumed that since this is true LE would simply confiscate forcing the owner to 1) forfeit them or 2) show up in court and press his case THEN go to court again to get his property back if it wasn’t destroyed/sold/stolen. In short the legislature was depending on corrupt LE to carry out the unwritten plan.


13 posted on 12/16/2013 7:37:56 AM PST by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

For those here who are willing to engage in activism and get beyond the usual armchair bravado and hackery on FR, one of the key areas that conservatives need to focus on is getting a Sherriff that will respect their constitutional rights.

A Sherriff that has an understanding of what their role actually is, is also more than likely to be on to say no to Federal thuggery when the day comes the Feds reach out to grab power in some ‘martial law’ type scenario.

That effort will also give you the opportunity to network with other like-minded conservatives in your county, something that might be real useful in a SHTF types of situation.


14 posted on 12/16/2013 8:04:17 AM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 556x45
Am I reading this incorrectly?

"One, he says, he had before July 1, when the law banning the possession, sale or transfer of the large-capacity magazines went into effect."

If the new law bans "possession" of standard capacity magazines, why would the date of manufacture matter?

As an aside, even the draconian new gun law here in MD. which bans the "sale, transfer or receipt" of mags with caps greater than 10 does not disallow possession of them.

Yet.

15 posted on 12/16/2013 8:16:59 AM PST by SnuffaBolshevik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The coomments at the source site are what you would expect. I will NOT soil myself and register there.


16 posted on 12/16/2013 8:19:28 AM PST by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitur: non vehere est inermus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SnuffaBolshevik

it was my (mis?)understanding that the CO law was similar to that of MD. If you had them before the ban it was OK to continue to have them. At any rate how do they plan to proceed in MD? How can they possibly prove you didnt have them before the ban?? Seems unenforceable.


17 posted on 12/16/2013 9:05:23 AM PST by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

There is a difference between a public official who refuses to enforce a law that he sees as a clear violation of the Constitution and thus his oath to it and Obama who refuses to enforce laws for political purposes.


18 posted on 12/16/2013 9:16:38 AM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 556x45
My guess is that (MD.'s mag ban) was just hocus-pocus to demonstrate to their low information gun-skeert constituents that they were "doing something" about magazines.

It's essentially toothless because you can go into surrounding states, load up bushel baskets with big mags and drive home and stack them in a closet or use them at the range, all legally. Don't sell, loan, transfer or give them away in state, though.

Banning possession would be a whole 'nother ball of wax.

19 posted on 12/16/2013 9:20:26 AM PST by SnuffaBolshevik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SnuffaBolshevik

I suppose its the legislative intent that matters here. There’s nothing to stop LE from confiscating your mags and hauling you into court or even dropping charges. The damage is done, your property has been stolen and its likely youll never see it again. They wouldnt need to do this many times to get the rest of the sheep back in line. I think MD police wouldnt have a problem acting this way.


20 posted on 12/16/2013 10:37:02 AM PST by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

He’s not the only one. I think almost all Colorado Sheriffs have announced that they will not enforce these unenforceable laws.


21 posted on 12/16/2013 11:51:51 AM PST by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Just reading some of the comments in the comment section is VERY telling about the mind set in the NE US. Sadly, that area was the cradle of our liberty and these folks obviously don’t know recent history or history from the 1700’s.


22 posted on 12/16/2013 3:08:49 PM PST by rktman (Under my plan(scheme), the price of EVERYTHING will necessarily skyrocket! Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson