If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Colorado sheriff announces that he will no longer enforce laws he doesn't like   (foxnews.com) divider line 462
    More: Dumbass, Colorado, Weld County, John Hickenlooper, Colorado sheriff, El Paso County, undue burden, gun laws, Columbine High School  
•       •       •

15278 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Mar 2013 at 5:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



462 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-17 03:06:28 PM  
No; he said he couldn't enforce this particular law if he wanted to. And he's right. All five of the gun bills are knee-jerk feel-good laws that can't be enforced and wouldn't do any good if they could.
 
2013-03-17 03:12:38 PM  
I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."
 
2013-03-17 03:15:59 PM  
I believe lawmen are supposed to swear to uphold the laws and constitution of the state.

How exactly does one negotiate which conflicts with which?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-17 03:19:43 PM  
I want to see him try to interfere with the ATF or FBI if they arrest someone.  I'll bet his cell mates will like his purdy mouth.
 
2013-03-17 03:22:03 PM  

Sensei Can You See: No; he said he couldn't enforce this particular law if he wanted to. And he's right. All five of the gun bills are knee-jerk feel-good laws that can't be enforced and wouldn't do any good if they could.


I wonder if Subby read the same article we did?
 
2013-03-17 03:22:14 PM  

Sensei Can You See: No; he said he couldn't enforce this particular law if he wanted to. And he's right. All five of the gun bills are knee-jerk feel-good laws that can't be enforced and wouldn't do any good if they could.


How, exactly, is it impossible to enforce background checks and magazine restrictions? We appear to do it just fine in New York State. A guy was arrested last week for knowingly attempting to sell a banned rifle.
 
2013-03-17 03:23:48 PM  
A lawman who doesn't follow the law. Well that's ... not so unusual is it.
 
2013-03-17 03:25:36 PM  

cman: How exactly does one negotiate which conflicts with which?


They usually let the courts that have proper jurisdiction decide instead of making up whatever shiat they want
 
2013-03-17 03:36:29 PM  
Somewhat related to this was a speech I saw on the Colorado version of CSPAN.

The ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds also (allegedly) includes wording which says something to the effect of "or could easily be converted to hold more than 15 rounds".

The guy pulls a 10-round clip out of his pocket and then pulls out a plastic extender magazine which slid right into it.

If he's right and that language was included in the final version it sounds like that particular law is a bunch of farking bullshiat.

I'm actually tempted to go buy a gun (along with accessories) while I still can. Then again, I suppose I could always drive down to Texas and get one if/when I ever really want/need one.

Or if such laws are passed nationwide, I could always seek out the black market.
 
2013-03-17 03:38:30 PM  
Oh, and about Weld County.

WTF do you expect from them?

I believe they already passed legislation banning recreational marijuana sales - and it's a fairly large (geographically speaking) chunk of Colorado.

And it smells like shiat there (literally...lots of feed lots for cattle standing in their own shiat)
 
2013-03-17 03:40:08 PM  

edmo: A lawman who doesn't follow the law. Well that's ... not so unusual is it.


I was going to ask, since when do they ever enforce laws which they dont like?
Has a LEO ever written himself a speeding ticket? rolling stop? illegal U-turn? Drunk driving? Arrest themselves for domestic abuse?

bah....
 
2013-03-17 03:40:35 PM  
I like it when local officials suddenly decide they get to pick and choose what is right and wrong and what they enforce.

Your job as sheriff is to serve the people, not serve your own politics.
 
2013-03-17 03:47:02 PM  

GAT_00: I like it when local officials suddenly decide they get to pick and choose what is right and wrong and what they enforce.

Your job as sheriff is to serve the people, not serve your own politics.


could you citizen arrest the sheriff for not doing his job? you would assume that his oath of office would make it illegal to not do his job, right?
LOL
 
2013-03-17 03:51:02 PM  
Meh, law enforcement has always had wide latitude as to how and when then they enforce. Speeding laws for instance how often are they rigidly enforced?
 
2013-03-17 03:53:05 PM  

EvilEgg: Meh, law enforcement has always had wide latitude as to how and when then they enforce. Speeding laws for instance how often are they rigidly enforced?


This isn't the same thing as a speeding law.
 
2013-03-17 04:06:23 PM  

Happy Hours: Somewhat related to this was a speech I saw on the Colorado version of CSPAN.

The ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds also (allegedly) includes wording which says something to the effect of "or could easily be converted to hold more than 15 rounds".

The guy pulls a 10-round clip out of his pocket and then pulls out a plastic extender magazine which slid right into it.

If he's right and that language was included in the final version it sounds like that particular law is a bunch of farking bullshiat.

I'm actually tempted to go buy a gun (along with accessories) while I still can. Then again, I suppose I could always drive down to Texas and get one if/when I ever really want/need one.

Or if such laws are passed nationwide, I could always seek out the black market.




The idea of the law is to limit the amount of ammunition. Thus outlawing the extenders makes sense to me.

Why you feel this is unenforcible is beyond me.
 
2013-03-17 04:10:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: EvilEgg: Meh, law enforcement has always had wide latitude as to how and when then they enforce. Speeding laws for instance how often are they rigidly enforced?

This isn't the same thing as a speeding law.


Because nobody ever dies from traffic accidents?
 
2013-03-17 04:11:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: EvilEgg: Meh, law enforcement has always had wide latitude as to how and when then they enforce. Speeding laws for instance how often are they rigidly enforced?

This isn't the same thing as a speeding law.


How is this NOT exactly the same thing as not enforcing a speeding law?
Are you actually ok with cops deciding which laws to enforce? With cops playing judge and legislator?
I am not.

This same mind set allows cops to decide who to selectively pull over to enforce minor traffic violations.
Unless you are ok with DWB.
 
2013-03-17 04:16:20 PM  

namatad: Are you actually ok with cops deciding which laws to enforce? With cops playing judge and legislator?
I am not.


No, I'm not. But there's a difference between having the discretion to allow someone 5 mph over the speed limit and looking the other way when someone has a 30 round mag when 10 is the limit.
 
2013-03-17 04:36:16 PM  

EvilEgg: Meh, law enforcement has always had wide latitude as to how and when then they enforce. Speeding laws for instance how often are they rigidly enforced?


On a practical level, I agree. Police make decisions all the time on what they are going to prioritize busting people for or not. However, given that the Sheriff decided to air his disagreement publicly means he's playing politics, not grumbling about BS from the legislature behind closed doors, like I'm sure he does about ticketing quotas and pot busts.

"Don't ever take sides with anyone against the Family." The cop can yell behind closed doors all he wants about how the law is unenforceable, a waste of resources, etc. but his job is to publicly uphold the laws passed by the legislature, and his public statements undermine the authority of the legislature, which is entirely unacceptable for a man in his position.
 
2013-03-17 05:31:43 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: The idea of the law is to limit the amount of ammunition. Thus outlawing the extenders makes sense to me.

Why you feel this is unenforcible is beyond me.


First of all, the law - at least as explained by one guy speaking in the Colorado legislature (sorry, I missed his name) - not only outlaws extenders, but it ALSO outlaws clips which could easily be extended.

Thus that 10-round magazine is also illegal under this law. Perhaps I didn't explain it very well.

I'm no expert on guns and he didn't say it explicitly but he hinted that as a result, the gun it fit in would still be legal but you would never be able to fire it because none of the magazines that fit it would be legal.

Secondly, I'm NOT the one who said this was unenforceable. In fact, if you re-read my post you should be able to detect a slight bias on my part against all things related to Weld County.

I do hope you realize though, that it is pretty much unenforceable until someone gets caught with an illegal magazine and by then it's probably going to be too late. Do any of the states bordering Colorado have a similar limit? Are they even considering it? It would take me about an hour to get to Wyoming and last time I crossed the state line into Wyoming I don't remember seeing any border guards.
 
2013-03-17 05:42:44 PM  
So they passed gun legislation AND created a job.
 
2013-03-17 05:43:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Sensei Can You See: No; he said he couldn't enforce this particular law if he wanted to. And he's right. All five of the gun bills are knee-jerk feel-good laws that can't be enforced and wouldn't do any good if they could.

How, exactly, is it impossible to enforce background checks and magazine restrictions? We appear to do it just fine in New York State. A guy was arrested last week for knowingly attempting to sell a banned rifle.


A guy, singular.
 
2013-03-17 05:43:43 PM  
Colorado is ignoring federal law with its pot laws. It gives precident. Also, he said he couldn't enforce it if he wanted to.
 
2013-03-17 05:45:19 PM  

doglover: cameroncrazy1984: Sensei Can You See: No; he said he couldn't enforce this particular law if he wanted to. And he's right. All five of the gun bills are knee-jerk feel-good laws that can't be enforced and wouldn't do any good if they could.

How, exactly, is it impossible to enforce background checks and magazine restrictions? We appear to do it just fine in New York State. A guy was arrested last week for knowingly attempting to sell a banned rifle.

A guy, singular.


Yes. The law was enforced. Which pretty much means the law is not unenforceable, right?
 
2013-03-17 05:45:31 PM  
The law has several major issues
1. It is written in such a way as to make 95% of magazines that meet the capacity illegal since they can "easily be converted" this is vague and arbitrary

2. It is a taking, it makes magazines already lawfully purchased illegal thereby reducing their value to zero

Both are Constitutional and practical issues
 
2013-03-17 05:45:59 PM  
I fought the law and the law was indifferent
 
2013-03-17 05:46:15 PM  
Approves
images.wikia.com
 
2013-03-17 05:46:23 PM  
Assuming he is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, then this is a no-brainer, cut-and-dried case of where he has an obligation to take the more difficult path and uphold the rights of his fellow citizens over the whims of the totalitarian crackpots in congress.
 
2013-03-17 05:47:38 PM  
The law is as effective as any other law in that it will be enforced when evidence permits.
 
2013-03-17 05:47:41 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: Assuming he is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, then this is a no-brainer, cut-and-dried case of where he has an obligation to take the more difficult path and uphold the rights of his fellow citizens over the whims of the totalitarian crackpots in congress.


Yeah, no it's not. The rights of citizens do not extend to breaking a Constitutional law.
 
2013-03-17 05:49:51 PM  
I agree with the sheriff.

People should read whatever's magazines they want!
 
2013-03-17 05:50:01 PM  

Happy Hours: Somewhat related to this was a speech I saw on the Colorado version of CSPAN.

The ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds also (allegedly) includes wording which says something to the effect of "or could easily be converted to hold more than 15 rounds".


Don't go complaining about what is "allegedly" in a bill. Laws are public. It's not a secret. Look it up.

/ This is why we can't have nice things
 
2013-03-17 05:50:23 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: Assuming he is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, then this is a no-brainer, cut-and-dried case of where he has an obligation to take the more difficult path and uphold the rights of his fellow citizens over the whims of the totalitarian crackpots in congress.


Watch out, we got a badass constitutional law expert over here.
 
2013-03-17 05:51:05 PM  

jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."


Pot is legal in Colorado idiot.
 
2013-03-17 05:51:22 PM  
I like how everyone continues to dodge the obvious issue, mental illness. The reason is because there's not a damn thing anyone can actually do about it, logistically speaking. People will always be farked in the head, you just won't hear that, because it would scare you too much. So instead we have feel-good measures that don't actually solve anything.
 
2013-03-17 05:51:41 PM  
I want to be mad at about this...but damn, the moustache on that guy behind him is incredible

a57.foxnews.com
 
2013-03-17 05:52:15 PM  
What about being in this country ILLEGALLY is so hard for you to understand! It is against the LAW for them to be here! Look, I don't have a problem with immigrants who follow the law and get here legally. But the law is the law and it should be enforced.
 
2013-03-17 05:52:16 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: The idea of the law is to limit the amount of ammunition. Thus outlawing the extenders makes sense to me.


It outlaws magazines that can use the extenders, that means 95% of magazines are illegal, since the can all take extenders and thus they are "easily Converted"

I have +5 extenders for my Glock for use in competition, it takes me about 30 seconds to make a 15 rounder a 20 rounder, this also makes a large number of factory 9mm magazines illegal since they take 17 rounds
 
2013-03-17 05:52:56 PM  

Azlefty: 1. It is written in such a way as to make 95% of magazines that meet the capacity illegal since they can "easily be converted" this is vague and arbitrary


Say you have 15-round magazine in a 9mm pistol. How do you "easily" convert that to a larger magazine?
 
2013-03-17 05:53:03 PM  

GoSurfing: The reason is because there's not a damn thing anyone can actually do about it, logistically speaking.


Really? Because New York state actually just did something about it, logistically speaking, in the SAFE act.
 
2013-03-17 05:53:28 PM  

dukwbutter: jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

Pot is legal in Colorado idiot.


In violation of federal law. Federal law > State law. States nullifying laws led to the civil war.
 
2013-03-17 05:53:36 PM  

LarryDan43: What about being in this country ILLEGALLY is so hard for you to understand! It is against the LAW for them to be here! Look, I don't have a problem with immigrants who follow the law and get here legally. But the law is the law and it should be enforced.


Crap, sorry, thought this was about Mexicans.  Anyway, good for him, stupid laws shouldn't be enforced.
 
2013-03-17 05:54:01 PM  

LarryDan43: What about being in this country ILLEGALLY is so hard for you to understand! It is against the LAW for them to be here! Look, I don't have a problem with immigrants who follow the law and get here legally. But the law is the law and it should be enforced.


Uhh. What?
 
2013-03-17 05:54:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, no it's not. The rights of citizens do not extend to breaking a Constitutional law.


...okay, I approve of the law, and condemn the dumbass cop who's doing this, but this was the most idiotic thing I've seen yet on this thread, and the trolls have already been threadshiatting on it for a half hour.

/There was a whole group of people that thought the rights of citizens do extend to breaking laws if need be.
//They wrote a document about it that began "WHEN, in the course of human events..."
 
2013-03-17 05:54:24 PM  
This sheriff swore to uphold the constitution. There are hundreds of Sheriffs across the nation that are taking the same stand. Gun control is the knee jerk emotional reaction of people that fear their own shadow. These same people are the ones that allowed the TSA to become the monstrosity it is. I personally believe a child is safer with an armed presence than a child that is left in a 'Gun Free (kill) Zone'.

In response to the Feds coming in and taking a sheriff away - It ain't gonna happen. Sheriffs are the ultimate authority in their jurisdiction. It would be the feds that  would get locked up.
 
2013-03-17 05:54:37 PM  

LarryDan43: stupid laws shouldn't be enforced.


Unconstitutional laws. This isn't one of them.
 
2013-03-17 05:54:56 PM  

jake_lex: I bet the gun nuts who applaud this would call for him to go to jail if he said "You know, I think I'm just not going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."



Actually, he did just that. A coworker of mine is married to one of his employees.
 
2013-03-17 05:55:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: The reason is because there's not a damn thing anyone can actually do about it, logistically speaking.

Really? Because New York state actually just did something about it, logistically speaking, in the SAFE act.


Again dipshiat, all the LAWS in the world, don't solve someone from being mentally ill.
 
2013-03-17 05:55:17 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, no it's not. The rights of citizens do not extend to breaking a Constitutional law


"Just following orders" because some totalitarian crackpots in the Congress and White House signed off on them is not an excuse for throwing out our basic rights, and that's what the Sheriff here is standing up for. Unlike a lot of other contemporary issues, there's just not a lot of grey area here, and to protest an unconstitutional law, and no doubt paying the price for that disobedience, is a true sign of courage in my view.

And again, separate note, but with a username like that did you attend or graduate Duke or is it something altogether different, just curious.
 
Displayed 50 of 462 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report