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  
•       •       •

15275 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 08:30:05 PM

CthulhuCalling: During discussion of the bill, co-author Rhonda Fields said that the question of extenders never came up. If their true goal was to limit the amount of ammunition a magazine can hold, they could have specifically called out extenders. This means that the bill authors are either devastatingly incompetent or actually trying to backdoor some extremely strict gun control.

When informed that her bill was poorly written and managed to ban just about every magazine on the state, Fields said "I'm not envisions changing that because of a little plate that you can pull out, she said.  "I'm hoping that people will just comply with the law."

[emphasis mine]

Oh yes that discussion did come up: behind closed doors with the lawyers who wrote the law.  Everyone here would be a complete idiot to think that the gun-grabbers in legislatures across the USA don't have standard tactics that they employ, and one of those in the bag of tricks is writing back-door bans into laws.  It was almost certainly brought to lawyers hired just for the task, and the people in power asked "How can we ban as many magazines as possible while appearing that we're not doing exactly that?"

Gun control via bans and confiscation is a LONG game.  You have to incrementally ban things and wait for them to wear out in time (or be confiscated at some point) when they can't be replaced.
 
2013-03-17 08:30:59 PM

TV's Vinnie: At the rate the right wing is degenerating, it's only a matter of time before some Sheriff puts out a press release saying "And we'll lynch any n*gger that we catch trying to be uppity!"


It's really funny that the left wing wants to make it so expensive to own a gun, that only rich white people will be able to!

jcadam: So, I recently moved from Colorado to Virginia.  I took my AR-15 (among other things) with me, along with a pile of 30-round magazines (which I had purchased in CO).... Question is, if I ever move back home, can I take my mags with me?


Last time I looked at the proposed CO law, it grandfathered mags already owned. It would probably be up to you to prove that you owned them prior to the cut off date if you ran across LE who arrested you for possession of contraband mags.
 
2013-03-17 08:31:07 PM

pedrop357: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Prove he's not enforcing it.


Easy, just ask him. He's already incriminated himself. He seems very proud that he's not enforcing the law. His own public statements would be enough to get him arrested and then later convicted when he can't demonstrate in court that his public statements were false.
 
2013-03-17 08:31:35 PM

Karac: Because in my mind, the only non-absurdable number of background checks would be some value other than 100% of all purchases.


Colorado does not have a gun show loophole. All gun purchases require a background check.

This law creates a redundant background check and gun registry that does nothing but lay the groundwork for future seizures. If they didn't have that in mind the current background checks are perfectly sufficient.
 
2013-03-17 08:31:48 PM

jaytkay: super_grass: WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?

It prevents poor people and minorities for exercising their right because of the money, time, and travel required.

It discourages voting too.

You conservatives are always concerned about the rights of poor people and minorities.

Always very, very concerned.

Yes, you are.


Rednecks are poor, and they're a minority.

QED
 
2013-03-17 08:31:52 PM

fknra: my beloved AR-15


dl.dropbox.com
 
2013-03-17 08:32:08 PM
Don't worry, the anti-gunners will do citizens arrests.

They'll form their own version of the Minute Men. They'll call it the "Lucky If they Survive a Minute, Man".
 
2013-03-17 08:32:14 PM

Deep Contact: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

That would be the start of a civil war. I'm on the sheriffs side. Lets get it over with.


Fine. I'm all for watching people like you going to prison.
 
Rat
2013-03-17 08:32:48 PM
Why are there so many people that don't like guns?

© don't answer that, it was rhetorical
 
2013-03-17 08:34:05 PM

WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?


Background checks are not the issue. Most of us that own guns support them. At least I do. Universal background checks, however, are a problem. What universal background checks are, as the term implies and is often bandied about, are checks on everyone--regardless of permit status, etc.

What most people mean when they say universal checks is closing the gun show loophole... that I have no problem with and fully support.

What ends up being written into law as universal checks is something else entirely, and because the term has come to mean only gun show checks, it slides under the radar. As I said before, if my mother wanted to give me my father's revolver as an inheritance, we'd have to go do a background check because my concealed carry license isn't reciprocated by the state in which my father lived when he died. If I wanted to sell my pistol to my roommate--who has already passed numerous background checks--it wouldn't matter that she has already passed several checks, we'd have to do another for the private sale between two private citizens of a gun that is already in our home.

If I know damn good and well that the person I wish to sell a weapon to is not a felon, does not have any ROs on them, has no mental health issues or any other valid reason prohibiting them from having access to firearms, the 2nd Amendment is very clear--shall not be infringed means just that. The government may not limit (see my above post explaining that) my right or the right of another sane non-felon to do with our firearms as we wish.
 
2013-03-17 08:35:20 PM

cameroncrazy1984: He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96


Does he have a tax stamp for the NFA item?
 
2013-03-17 08:35:23 PM

CruJones: 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."

The local sheriff in San Antonio said he didn't want to arrest people for pot any more.  They may just start writing tickets.


Last election, the Flint police put a proposal on the ballot to officially allow them to not arrest folks for pot possession if they didn't have a medical pot card.  The measure was put down, but that doesn't mean they don't unofficially still let folks off.  With pot it is simple, they have pot and no card then they should not have pot.

I do agree with the sheriff, he makes a point about the difficulty of enforcing those laws.  If they have a gun, how much resources would be spent proving that a background check was done.  Imagine how annoying it would be if they took the time to count the bullets every time they came across someone with a mag.

/cops choosing what they enforce is nothing new
//if the folks in his county don't like it, he is an elected official
 
2013-03-17 08:35:30 PM

super_grass: Rednecks are poor, and they're a minority.


So you are fighting for the oppressed white people in the US.

The terribly, terribly oppressed white people.
 
2013-03-17 08:35:37 PM

Cheviot: pedrop357: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Prove he's not enforcing it.

Easy, just ask him. He's already incriminated himself. He seems very proud that he's not enforcing the law. His own public statements would be enough to get him arrested and then later convicted when he can't demonstrate in court that his public statements were false.


"I tried enforcing the law, but with no records requirement the law relied entirely on the word of the participants. We've had a few cases where it could have been successful, but the lack  of evidence did it in."

Do you seriously think that anyone could prosecute these sheriffs?
 
2013-03-17 08:35:47 PM

Cheviot: pedrop357: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Prove he's not enforcing it.

Easy, just ask him. He's already incriminated himself. He seems very proud that he's not enforcing the law. His own public statements would be enough to get him arrested and then later convicted when he can't demonstrate in court that his public statements were false.


Are you intentionally being completely ignorant of the law?  I really can't tell.  You're so far off base that it's both laughable and sad.
 
2013-03-17 08:36:09 PM

kellyclan: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Uh, no. They can't. In most jurisdictions with elected sheriff's, he/she is the only recognized law enforcement authority in that district and any other agency be it state or federal may only act with his permission.


This is straight out not true. Regardless of what the locals believe, the FBI can and will come in and arrest people for violation of federal law. The local jurisdiction has little to no say over the matter. Likewise, state police can and do arrest people anywhere in their state for violation of state laws. The local jurisdiction again has little to no say over the matter. Even if this was not true at the state level, it would be a simple matter of state law to change the situation. State law trumps local law. Federal law trumps state.
 
2013-03-17 08:37:08 PM

TsukasaK: 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.

You don't think they do that on a daily basis?



White house tours cost 20k per week which is too much money......Obamas gonna go golfing and cost taxpayers 3 million dollars in security expenses instead.
 
2013-03-17 08:37:28 PM

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96

Does he have a tax stamp for the NFA item?


I thought Mausers 96s were semi-auto
 
2013-03-17 08:37:37 PM

jaytkay: super_grass: Rednecks are poor, and they're a minority.

So you are fighting for the oppressed white people in the US.

The terribly, terribly oppressed white people.


I'm being sarcastic.

Everyone knows that white people cannot experience hardship or racism.
 
2013-03-17 08:38:06 PM

jaytkay: fknra: my beloved AR-15

[dl.dropbox.com image 179x281]


I'm a shooting enthusiast. Sure I like a gun thread. But this isn't a gun thread. This is a constitutional rights being supported by sheriffs thread. (is there a gif for that?)
 
2013-03-17 08:38:24 PM
It is the duty of the constitution officer (otherwise known as a sheriff) to not violate the constitutional rights of the citizens. If the legislature passes a law that the constitution officer thinks violates the constitutional rights of citizens it is not only his right to refuse to enforce that law, it is his duty not to enforce it until the SCOTUS has ruled on the new law.
 
2013-03-17 08:43:50 PM

fknra: jaytkay: fknra: my beloved AR-15

[dl.dropbox.com image 179x281]

I'm a shooting enthusiast. Sure I like a gun thread. But this isn't a gun thread. This is a constitutional rights being supported by sheriffs thread. (is there a gif for that?)


I dunno, Google it,

But we know the long hard shaft of your AR-15 pleases you, and you love it.
 
2013-03-17 08:44:17 PM

super_grass: cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: Clearly, your hunting trips in northern New England makes you an authority in defending yourself against animal attacks in Colorado.

Because there are no animals in Vermont at all.

I understand your point.

As a shark attack survival expert, I can attest to your feelings of frustration whenever people try to dismiss my expertise when I tell them that I gained my expertise from that one time when I went bass fishing.


Sending you the bill for my new keyboard. Just as soon as I clean all the coffee off my monitor. Holy shiat that was awesome.
 
2013-03-17 08:44:45 PM
Aigoo:

If I know damn good and well that the person I wish to sell a weapon to is not a felon, does not have any ROs on them, has no mental health issues or any other valid reason prohibiting them from having access to firearms, the 2nd Amendment is very clear--shall not be infringed means just that. The government may not limit (see my above post explaining that) my right or the right of another sane non-felon to do with our firearms as we wish.

Not true under the law now. Not true in the past. Both the law and Supreme Court are against you. Comply with the law or go to prison. Your choice.
 
2013-03-17 08:45:36 PM

Cheviot: kellyclan: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Uh, no. They can't. In most jurisdictions with elected sheriff's, he/she is the only recognized law enforcement authority in that district and any other agency be it state or federal may only act with his permission.

This is straight out not true. Regardless of what the locals believe, the FBI can and will come in and arrest people for violation of federal law. The local jurisdiction has little to no say over the matter. Likewise, state police can and do arrest people anywhere in their state for violation of state laws. The local jurisdiction again has little to no say over the matter. Even if this was not true at the state level, it would be a simple matter of state law to change the situation. State law trumps local law. Federal law trumps state.


However, who will arrest the state officers that don't always enforce the state laws?  Is it not every time a cop gives you a warning for a traffic violation, it is that officer's choice to not enforce the law?  You act like this sheriff is the only law official that has chosen to not enforce a law.  Cops are judge and jury when they deem enforcement not necessary, but sometimes non-enforcement does makes sense.  Get over your outrage.
 
2013-03-17 08:45:50 PM

jaytkay: fknra: jaytkay: fknra: my beloved AR-15

[dl.dropbox.com image 179x281]

I'm a shooting enthusiast. Sure I like a gun thread. But this isn't a gun thread. This is a constitutional rights being supported by sheriffs thread. (is there a gif for that?)

I dunno, Google it,

But we know the long hard shaft of your AR-15 pleases you, and you love it.


Not all of us own AR-15s. Hell I'd bet most people who are against the new AWB and its similar  bills in state legislatures do not own such a weapon. I do not.
 
2013-03-17 08:47:08 PM
I guess I'll just start picking and choosing which laws I'm going to abide by.

Fark Colorado.
 
2013-03-17 08:47:49 PM

redmid17: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96

Does he have a tax stamp for the NFA item?

I thought Mausers 96s were semi-auto


Actually they removed it from the NFA list. It used to be that you needed a stamp to own the pistol and shoulder stock pre 81.

If he aquired it pre 81 he would have needed a stamp....if he aquired it after 81 he would need a ffl03 for collector items.

Possibly a felony depending on how and when he aquired it.
 
2013-03-17 08:49:01 PM

Giltric: redmid17: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96

Does he have a tax stamp for the NFA item?

I thought Mausers 96s were semi-auto

Actually they removed it from the NFA list. It used to be that you needed a stamp to own the pistol and shoulder stock pre 81.

If he aquired it pre 81 he would have needed a stamp....if he aquired it after 81 he would need a ffl03 for collector items.

Possibly a felony depending on how and when he aquired it.


Preferably off a dead Nazi, though I can't imagine any German solider carrying that gun except in desperation.
 
2013-03-17 08:49:40 PM
Lots of CO dems facing recall elections/petitions over the proposed legislation.


Bill Clinton warned them though, so they have nobody to blame but themselves.
 
2013-03-17 08:51:10 PM

redmid17: Not all of us own AR-15s. Hell I'd bet most people who are against the new AWB and its similar bills in state legislatures do not own such a weapon. I do not.


So maybe you are not the one in this thread who wrote about "my beloved AR-15".'

But I'm not sure. Maybe this is all about you. Did you write that in this thread? Can you check for me?

Let me know. Get back to me ASAP. Thanks.
 
2013-03-17 08:51:53 PM

cman: 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?



Isn't the President of the United States supposed to uphold the laws of the Nation as well?  Shoe fits, etc, etc, etc
 
2013-03-17 08:52:39 PM

namatad: EvilRacistNaziFascist: Crewmannumber6: Why can't they decide to not enforce the weed laws

Because there's no right to smoke pot in the Constitution? Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but gun ownership is a far more fundamental right for Americans (as it should be).

um actually the right to smoke pot IS in the constitution

9th The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

see right there
just because it does not SAY "it is legal to smoke pot", does not make illegal to smoke pot

better yet,

10th The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

the right to smoke pot is retained by the people
unless the states ban it ...


HOW do we know this? well the feds had to amend the constitution to ban alcohol.
THEY should have had to amend it to ban pot, but they weaseled their way around the constitution by abusing the commerce clause.

this same weaseling makes it illegal for farmers to grow wheat for home use.
insane but true


Thankk you Namatad!

Additionally, around the end of the 19th century there was a big push by anti-smokers to outlaw tobacco. In fact, some cities and states did enact laws against it. The anti-smokers even went to Congress and a Senate committee actually told them that it wasn't within their authority to do that. They told them to get the states to ban it.

Wickard v. Filburn was a travesty IMO (if anyone is not familiar with it, basically it ruled that a farmer could not grow his own wheat to feed his own family because even though he never sold that wheat it affected interstate commerce because it meant he was not buying wheat that might cross state lines).

By the same reasoning that marijuana is illegal under federal law, alcohol could be made illegal again, but this time without an amendment to the Constitution. I don't think alcohol should be illegal and I don't think anyone (outside of a few lunatics) wants it to be, but just because someone might buy a drink in one state ad walk across a state line does not mean the interstate commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate it.

Note, that this is just like my opinion man and the Supreme Court apparently disagrees with me
 
2013-03-17 08:53:08 PM

jaytkay: redmid17: Not all of us own AR-15s. Hell I'd bet most people who are against the new AWB and its similar bills in state legislatures do not own such a weapon. I do not.

So maybe you are not the one in this thread who wrote about "my beloved AR-15".'

But I'm not sure. Maybe this is all about you. Did you write that in this thread? Can you check for me?

Let me know. Get back to me ASAP. Thanks.


1) I am not
2) You apparently don't understand context or sarcasm
3) The things you've been writing in this thread have generally been underdeveloped and poorly supported
 
2013-03-17 08:53:43 PM
I think we are all aware that this kind of thing happens - there are plenty of places where cops don't bother to enforce pot laws, and so forth. I have some serious doubts about announcing it publicly, though - that might not have been a good idea.
 
2013-03-17 08:53:58 PM
So let me get this straight, some of the very folks who cheered various municipalities and law enforcement officials who refused to uphold immigration and drug laws, but there is somehow a difference when it comes to the 2nd amendment?

While I do agree with his opinion, I cannot agree or support his decision not to uphold the law he was sworn to uphold.  Society cannot function when laws and standards are not upheld, or treated like going through a buffet line (I'll have this, but pass on that...)

If you don't like the law, you work to overturn it and if the people at the capitol are using their ears, change the faces.,
 
2013-03-17 08:55:21 PM

Z1P2: It is the duty of the constitution officer (otherwise known as a sheriff) to not violate the constitutional rights of the citizens. If the legislature passes a law that the constitution officer thinks violates the constitutional rights of citizens it is not only his right to refuse to enforce that law, it is his duty not to enforce it until the SCOTUS has ruled on the new law.


Untrue. The sheriff is obligated to enforce the law until the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional. More to the point, however, the Supreme Court has already found that both registration of and background checks being required to obtain automatic weapons is constitutional. As the constitution makes no distinction between automatic and non-automatic weapons it would be a a very hard argument to win that what is constitutional for automatic weapons in unconstitutional for non-automatics.
 
2013-03-17 08:56:26 PM

heypete: While I admit that there's no real proposals to physically come and take guns from people

 
2013-03-17 08:57:33 PM
super_grass:

I get what you're talking about.  I lived indoors all my life and never felt the need once to carry a fire extinguisher on my person. To be honest, I think these fire extinguishers are just a nuisance because people tend to misuse them so much.

I'm not afraid of fire, nor have I encountered one burning in my kitchen  and I look down on those cowards who do feel the need to get so called 'fire protection'. The same can be said about vaccinations, but that's for another thread.


Hammer, don't hurt 'em.
 
2013-03-17 09:00:58 PM

kellyclan: special20: cman: 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?

Exactly - don't the citizens have every right to find a sheriff that they can entrust to enforce the laws? They should throw the bum out of office. I'm sure it the law was a right-wing knee-jerk reaction about banning homosexual activity, he'd be all over it with an immediate glory hole stake-out at his favorite leather bar.

It would seem he is banking on the assumption that most of the people who elected him expect him place his oath to uphold a fundamental right of all people above enforcing state law.


And he is the ultimate authority on what all people want. Got it. That makes him an even bigger nob.
 
2013-03-17 09:01:02 PM

redmid17: Cheviot: pedrop357: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Prove he's not enforcing it.

Easy, just ask him. He's already incriminated himself. He seems very proud that he's not enforcing the law. His own public statements would be enough to get him arrested and then later convicted when he can't demonstrate in court that his public statements were false.

"I tried enforcing the law, but with no records requirement the law relied entirely on the word of the participants. We've had a few cases where it could have been successful, but the lack  of evidence did it in."

Do you seriously think that anyone could prosecute these sheriffs?


So you're saying the sheriff would commit perjury to avoid conviction? Do we really want people who would commit perjury to be sheriffs? Do you?

Why wouldn't the state prosecute a sheriff that refused to enforce the law?  And yes, the sheriff could say the things you suggest. Then the prosecution would ask about his public statements with regards to refusing to enforce the law. Then they would ask for any and all records for the cases he claimed to have investigated but dropped for lack of evidence.  The sheriff, of course, would have no records, as he's not enforcing the law. He'd be toast and you know it.
 
2013-03-17 09:01:10 PM

Aigoo: I would have to march down to the police station, pay them, and submit to yet another background check because he lived in a state that did not reciprocate with the state that my concealed carry license was issued in. If I wished to sell my .40 pistol to my roommate, who has passed as many background checks as I--if not more--we would have to march down to the police station, pay the fee, and wait for the check to come back before I could sell her the pistol.


Good!
 
2013-03-17 09:03:33 PM

Cheviot: Z1P2: It is the duty of the constitution officer (otherwise known as a sheriff) to not violate the constitutional rights of the citizens. If the legislature passes a law that the constitution officer thinks violates the constitutional rights of citizens it is not only his right to refuse to enforce that law, it is his duty not to enforce it until the SCOTUS has ruled on the new law.

Untrue. The sheriff is obligated to enforce the law until the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional. More to the point, however, the Supreme Court has already found that both registration of and background checks being required to obtain automatic weapons is constitutional. As the constitution makes no distinction between automatic and non-automatic weapons it would be a a very hard argument to win that what is constitutional for automatic weapons in unconstitutional for non-automatics.


Existing case law makes a distinction between the two as NFA weapons (automatic in your parlance) are not in common use. Semi-automatic rifles and handguns are definitely in common use.
 
2013-03-17 09:04:50 PM

Giltric: redmid17: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: He has some great historical pieces including a broom-handle Mauser 96

Does he have a tax stamp for the NFA item?

I thought Mausers 96s were semi-auto

Actually they removed it from the NFA list. It used to be that you needed a stamp to own the pistol and shoulder stock pre 81.

If he aquired it pre 81 he would have needed a stamp....if he aquired it after 81 he would need a ffl03 for collector items.

Possibly a felony depending on how and when he aquired it.


A) It's not full-auto and B) It doesn't have the shoulder stock. Maybe you played too much Day of Defeat back in the day.
 
2013-03-17 09:06:42 PM

jpo2269: If you don't like the law, you work to overturn it and if the people at the capitol are using their ears, change the faces.,


This is the main point, the sheriff is an elected official.  Pay attention to what your elected officials do and if you don't like it, vote for the other person.

 Society cannot function when laws and standards are not upheld, or treated like going through a buffet line (I'll have this, but pass on that...)

I agree, however those standards are determined by those we elected and those hired by the elected.

/vote
//complain when things go wrong with the guy you didn't vote for,OR shut up when things go wrong with the guy you did vote for
///rinse and repeat
////captain obvious away!
 
2013-03-17 09:07:52 PM

Silly Jesus: Cheviot: pedrop357: Cheviot: There is fairly easy to fix. The legislature can make it a felony to refuse to enforce state law. If a local sheriff still refuses, send in the state police and arrest them.

Prove he's not enforcing it.

Easy, just ask him. He's already incriminated himself. He seems very proud that he's not enforcing the law. His own public statements would be enough to get him arrested and then later convicted when he can't demonstrate in court that his public statements were false.

Are you intentionally being completely ignorant of the law?  I really can't tell.  You're so far off base that it's both laughable and sad.


The man is proud he's refusing to enforce the law. He's more than likely to admit it again, and if not he would need a defense against the evidence he failed to enforce the law. A defense he already shot in the foot by publicly stating he wouldn't enforce the law. Now, if he could prove he was enforcing the law, he'd be in good shape... But then next election, who will vote for the lying sheriff.

But let's get to the nitty gritty here. This is the sheriff making a dog and pony show out of nothing. Did you bother reading the law in question? I did. There's no provision requiring the sheriffs to do anything. At all. Nothing. There is literally nothing for the sheriff to enforce. This sheriff wanted to sound like a big tough guy telling the state where to stick their law without ever having to do anything.
 
2013-03-17 09:08:07 PM
A few comments to the trolls, gun nuts, and crazy people.
The law is short sited and could be improved, something the Republicans should have concentrated on instead of trying to find a way to sneakily sink it.

If the Sheriff thinks the law is unconstitutional, he or the county should challenge it in court.  It's not up to him to decide.

Now, it's legal / all right for a sheriff to prioritize enforcement based on resources.  That happens all the time.  He can safely say "I only have 400 man hours available per week due to current staffing and budget and based on the current crime levels here these won't be my top enforcement effort."   He can't just say "Derrrr, I now lawyer and think these laws are dumb and won't enforce them."
 
2013-03-17 09:13:01 PM

super_grass: It prevents poor people and minorities for exercising their right because of the money, time, and travel required.


Abortion is still legal, dammit! It's just waaaaaay over there, on every 7th tuesday. After the rape-o-sound. And the other rape-o-sound. Which you have to pay for.

Fair's fair.
 
2013-03-17 09:13:10 PM
lack of warmth:

However, who will arrest the state officers that don't always enforce the state laws?  Is it not every time a cop gives you a warning for a traffic violation, it is that officer's choice to not enforce the law?  You act like this sheriff is the only law official that has chosen to not enforce a law.  Cops are judge and jury when they deem enforcement not necessary, but sometimes non-enforcement does makes sense.  Get over your outrage.

Straw man. No one is arguing police shouldn't be able to exercise judgement in individual cases while still, in most cases, enforcing the law.

Imagine if you had a police officer that decided he wouldn't enforce speed limits on roads because he decided personally it was against his beliefs. What if the sheriff decided anti-prostitution laws should never be enforced.

These are not decisions that the police get to make. Their job is to enforce the law, like it or not.
 
2013-03-17 09:15:52 PM

WhyteRaven74: sooo can someone explain to me what's so horrible about background checks?


GUBERMINT!
WHARGHLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

no really
that is the only "problem"

of course, I wonder how many of these same "people" also think that gambling, prostitution and drugs should be illegal. How can you be for 1 freedom and not for all freedoms?
 
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