Colorado revolt: 55 of 62 sheriffs refuse to enforce new gun laws December 16, 2013
Gun control don't go 'round here, law dogs!
Posted on 03/06/2019 4:39:42 PM PST by real saxophonist
Resolution declares Weld County to be a ‘Second Amendment sanctuary’
MARCH 6, 2019, BY CHUCK HICKEY
WELD COUNTY, Colo. — Weld County on Wednesday became the third in Colorado to pass a resolution declaring to be a so-called “Second Amendment sanctuary county.”
The Weld County Commission unanimously passed a resolution that will allow law enforcement officers not to comply with state gun laws that the commission and law enforcement deem “unconstitutional.”
Fremont and Custer counties have passed similar resolutions.
The move comes as the Colorado Legislature considers a so-called “red flag” bill that will allow family and household members or law enforcement to petition a judge to remove firearms from someone who is deemed dangerous to themselves or others.
“The issue isn’t an issue of safety as much as it is an issue of protecting the constitutional rights of citizens,” Commissioner Chair Barbara Kirkmeyer said in a statement.
Sheriff Steve Reams said the bill crosses too many constitutional lines and says the issue is mental health, not firearms.
“I have a duty for public safety but also have a duty to protect the Constitution,” Reams said.
The commissioners affirmed their “support for the Weld County Sheriff in the exercise of his sound discretion to not enforce against any citizen an unconstitutional firearms law,” according to the resolution.
The board “will not appropriate government funds for capital construction of building space and purchase of storage systems to store weapons seized pursuant to the authority and requirements set forth” if the “red flag” bill is passed.
“The principal of due process is at the very core of this issue,” Commissioner Sean Conway said. “What this bill does is create a system where a person must defend/prove their innocence against an action that hasn’t even been taken.”
Added Commissioner Steve Moreno: “This bill is nothing more than a feel-good measure that will not stop the actions it is aiming to prevent. There are other solutions that must be seriously considered when talking about mental health issues in this country. This bill is not it.”
Reams said the “red flag” bill would put deputies in greater danger.
“The way the bill is written is asking me or my agency to go out and affect one of these gun grabs, if you will, without any notification to person that we’re coming,” he said. “I think that puts my agency at undo risk.”
Not all Colorado sheriffs agree with Reams. Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock has testified in favor of the “red flag” gun bill after one of his deputies, Zackari Parrish, was shot and killed by a man in the midst of a mental health crisis.
Mental Health Colorado said the bill is vital.
“Elected officials in Weld, Fremont, and Montezuma Counties have stated they will not implement a life-saving extreme risk protection order if House Bill 1177 passes,” Mental Health Colorado said in a statement.
“We are disheartened about the decision of these county commissioners. More than half of all suicides in Colorado involve a firearm. We believe everyone should have access to this life-saving protection order no matter where you live. Saving lives should not be a partisan issue.”
But Reams said if a judge grans an extreme risk protection order, his deputies would ignore it. Instead, each situation would be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Will they reinstate the Drone Hunting Licenses too?
Due process. That’s a phrase that really seems to give indigestion to liberals.
Well, states via the people of the sates are sovereign and can with a few constitutional exceptions do what they want.
The Constitution and its first ten amendments are aimed DIRECTLY AT THE FEDS!!!
Read and re-read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, Boys and Girls.
Our Free Constitutional Republic is not perfect but it is way ahead of whatever’s in second place.
And throwing out or amending by fiat the Constitution is like jumping into a furnace. The Constitution as written a originally understood and intended is out ONLY bulwark of freedom against the tyranny of the feds who would if they could take not just your guns, but your freedom and your lives.
As Trump said, they’re not coming after him - they coming after US. States are not the probelm. The $4 trillion mostly unconstitutional federal government is poised to rip our freedoms and our lives apart.
DON’T LET THEM. The Constitution is our legal weapon against federal tyranny.
If we truly adhered to the Constitution, we would have a fraction of the problems that we’re having now. Even NY and CA would be rich.
This was a terrible tragedy of an officer being murdered while answering the umpteenth call on a guy with known mental health issues.
But I respectfully submit Sheriff Spurlock is acting out of emotion. How can he reasonably think that if Officer Parrish went to the house to take the guys guns instead of responding to a disturbance call the outcome would have been any different?
That’s a very good point.
Colorado revolt: 55 of 62 sheriffs refuse to enforce new gun laws December 16, 2013
Gun control don't go 'round here, law dogs!
The deputy’s full name, as listed on the Officer Down Memorial Page is Zackari Spurlock Parrish, III. I do, as an aside, wonder if he was kin to the sheriff.
Sounds like Sheriff Spurlock needs to have his guns seized with a red flag order, if he has emotional issues.
California sheriffs revolted against the AW ban law back in 1989. wonder if they still refuse to enforce Cali’s anti-gun laws.
Colorado Ping ( Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
The USA got along just fine from the 1780s till around 1840, before the “Peelers” (police) were formed, using only the Sheriff and the called out militias for law enforcement. This alone should be proof that citizens have the rights to own the best weapons available for law enforcement.
Good question. I’ll bet no one keeps any statistics to prove that one way or the other. I’m sure the state bookkeepers are libs and wouldn’t want to document their failures.
Good
Hopefully more and more counties will go this way.
The resistance is forming.
The high-minded justifications are a smoke screen to distract opponents.
Democrats are firmly in control of Colorado right now and they are going to pass these laws no matter what arguments are made against the measures. Then they will try to enforce them.
Things will not go as planned.
What this does is rely on those who red-flag someone as if they were a mental health professional. So a person with no knowledge of mental health at all can make a report and based on that the person being reported has their constitutional right to bear arms taken away without due process. The only due process comes after the firearms are taken.
These laws are giving a lot of people who are not mental health professionals the power to deprive people of their constitutional rights based on their mental health.
Some of these laws are worded in a way that if you go on one date with someone they can report you as a possible danger and your firearms are to be taken by law enforcement. Then the burden is on you to defend against the claim after your civil rights have been violated.
So many things wrong with this- lets face it if a person truly is a danger to others or themselves their firearms are not the only weapon they have readily available. Taking firearms does not keep someone from using a knife, car,rope, drugs, ETC to harm another or themselves. So the smart thing to do would be to put the person that is a danger to themselves and others in a place where they cannot access weapons while their mental health is evaluated/treated. Possibly an inpatient mental health facility?
The laws about putting a person in a mental institution against their will don’t allow various people in your life to make a call to have you immediately locked up. Even an LEO cannot get you placed in a mental health facility for a hold against your will unless you meet the criteria of mental health professionals as being a danger to yourself or others. Why not? Because it would be a violation of your constitutional rights!
Exactly! How many anti-firearms people now shriek that anyone that owns a firearm is a dangerous/unbalanced person? How many anti-Trumpers think those that support Trump are dangerous and unbalanced? Not hard to see that slippery slope.
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.