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 ...
If the Kenyan isn’t going to enforce our immigration laws, why should the sheriffs enforce his “gun control” laws?
How soon will Chickenpooper get bit by the aligator?
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.
Precisely!
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.
“How soon will Chickenpooper get bit by the aligator?”
********************
Not soon enough.
So proud of you, Sheriffs.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
The coomments at the source site are what you would expect. I will NOT soil myself and register there.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.