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 10:44:09 PM

ChuDogg: Serious question: how is this "nobody is going to ban your guns" still a talking point?


 Tell me how a gun-free America is imminent. Is the UN going to confiscate your weapons soon?
 
2013-03-17 10:45:58 PM

jaytkay: ChuDogg: Serious question: how is this "nobody is going to ban your guns" still a talking point?

 Tell me how a gun-free America is imminent. Is the UN going to confiscate your weapons soon?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
 
2013-03-17 10:46:09 PM

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: It was an NFA item

It's not my fault you got all righteous before you realized that it was removed before I was born.

You still need a ffl 03 to own it.


If you had read the rest of my posts you'd notice that my grandfather has a large collection of C&R pistols.
 
2013-03-17 10:46:24 PM

pciszek: 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.

And what if the people of Weld county are in complete agreement with him on this?  (They are.)


It's another case of OMG how can Sheriff Joe get re-elected time and time again when I, someone who lives in NY or CA or wherever does not agree with him.

I'll have to look it up, I don't remember if it was Feinsteins or some other testimony hearing in regards to gun control where they aseked a Sheriff why he opposed the law yet all these chiefs of police agreed with the law.

The Sheriff responded...well the difference is they are appointed as a political favor by the mayor and I am elected by the people..
 
2013-03-17 10:52:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: It was an NFA item

It's not my fault you got all righteous before you realized that it was removed before I was born.

You still need a ffl 03 to own it.

If you had read the rest of my posts you'd notice that my grandfather has a large collection of C&R pistols.


Sorry kiddo but it's not worth the time to keep clicking the show posts from ignored users button.
 
2013-03-17 10:52:50 PM

tjfly: This reminds me of the piss poor enforcement by the federal government to enforce illegal immigration laws...


that neither party has ever done anything to actually enforce?
LOL
 
2013-03-17 10:54:05 PM

ChuDogg: jaytkay: ChuDogg: Serious question: how is this "nobody is going to ban your guns" still a talking point?

 Tell me how a gun-free America is imminent. Is the UN going to confiscate your weapons soon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum


Well OK, then.

Regale us with your stories of gun confiscation and how Obama's jack-booted thugs have robbed you of your 2nd amendment rights.

Please.

/ Kidding, I've been hearing these paranoid fantasies for 20 years, I know you're just overly emotional
 
2013-03-17 10:59:26 PM

jaytkay: ChuDogg: jaytkay: ChuDogg: Serious question: how is this "nobody is going to ban your guns" still a talking point?

/ Kidding, I've been hearing these paranoid fantasies for 20 years, I know you're just overly emotional


Calling the dude who just applied logic "emotional". classy.

I don't know if you've heard, but there are number of laws that would restrict purchasing the most popular selling rifles (along with shotguns and many handguns).  A long serving member of Congress has a full text available for your reading.  http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Cut the jabs for a moment and think about what you're saying.
 
2013-03-17 11:00:57 PM

ChuDogg: jaytkay: ChuDogg: jaytkay: ChuDogg: Serious question: how is this "nobody is going to ban your guns" still a talking point?

/ Kidding, I've been hearing these paranoid fantasies for 20 years, I know you're just overly emotional

Calling the dude who just applied logic "emotional". classy.

I don't know if you've heard, but there are number of laws that would restrict purchasing the most popular selling rifles (along with shotguns and many handguns).  A long serving member of Congress has a full text available for your reading.  http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Cut the jabs for a moment and think about what you're saying.


You also can't transfer them after the original owner dies. You have to destroy them or give them up to authorities. I feel like there is a word for that.
 
2013-03-17 11:13:30 PM

ChuDogg: Cut the jabs for a moment and think about what you're saying.


I'm saying if you can own a pistol and a rifle and a shotgun  today, and you don't have a future felony or mental problem, you will be able to own a pistol and a rifle and a shotgun in five years.

Your paranoid fears are nothing new. I have been hearing the same shiat for decades, and it always ramps up after a Democrat is elected President. Like clockwork.

The NRA and gun and ammo sellers count on it. The rubes deliver every time.
 
2013-03-17 11:15:54 PM

redmid17: You also can't transfer them after the original owner dies. You have to destroy them or give them up to authorities. I feel like there is a word for that.


Even if he wants to dwell on a grandfather clause, it ignores several things:

1. My post was in reference to other people's comments.  Not the actual laws being implemented
2. Many of the proposed State level laws have no grandfather clause.
3. The very fact that a grandfather clause is the only option to legally own a firearm is the very incentive driving many people to panic buy arms and ammunition.

My only point is this "heya nobody wants to ban your guns" talking point is so ludicrously stale and absurd, as there are plenty of well-funded lobbying groups, politicians, and media enterprises that are flatly stating that as a desired objective.  And they seem to have plenty of support in forums like this.

I mean, if that's what you want, go ahead and say that. It's OK.  I haven't even made any arguments in this thread on the efficacy of gun bans.  If that's what floats your boat, wear it proudly.
You don't have to hide it under some banner of juvenile snark and weird allusions to the NRA being their driving force.
 
2013-03-17 11:19:36 PM

ChuDogg: weird allusions to the NRA being their driving force


Cuz the NRA isn't whipping up hysteria at all. Nope. Why would anyone think that?

/ I subscribe to the NRA emails
// For laughs
 
2013-03-17 11:19:47 PM

jaytkay: I'm saying if you can own a pistol and a rifle and a shotgun today, and you don't have a future felony or mental problem, you will be able to own a pistol and a rifle and a shotgun in five years.


This sentence is not logically congruent.


I can own a pistol rifle and shotgun today. I don't, however.

Are you saying, that in 5 years I will be able to legally purchase a pistol, rifle, and shotgun with no restrictions, as long as I can pass a felony or mental health background check? Is that the full text of Feinstein's proposed legislation? Because that goes counter to everything I've heard of it, including from Senator Feinstein herself.

Please enlighten me.
 
m00
2013-03-17 11:29:08 PM
Part of our checks and balances is that the Executive has wide powers over enforcement. If legislature makes a bad law, cops don't have to enforce it. If cops enforce a bad law, the judiciary doesn't have to apply a penalty (although, mandatory minimum sentences have weakened this).
 
2013-03-17 11:37:49 PM

ChuDogg: Are you saying blah blah blah


No, I am saying you are fearful and obtuse.

You claim you can own a pistol rifle and shotgun today.

Nobody is taking that away from you. You can own a pistol rifle and shotgun tomorrow. And next year. And the year after that.

Sorry to wreck your paranoid fantasy, but you are not a bedraggled rebel, hiding your contraband weapons from the Evil Empire.
 
2013-03-17 11:41:31 PM

m00: , mandatory minimum sentences have weakened this


Not quite.

The judge can dismiss charges.

Cops: He's guilty of this.
Judge: That's not a crime. Dismissed.
 
2013-03-17 11:46:19 PM

jaytkay: You can own a pistol rifle and shotgun tomorrow. And next year. And the year after that.


Thanks for sharing this.  This is revolutionary and groundbreaking information that literally goes against everything the media and politicians them-self are reporting. So you're saying if Senator Feinsteins law passes, and the Connecticut proposed legislation. I will be able to walk into any gun store and purchase the popular selling AR-15 style rifle?
 
2013-03-18 12:16:52 AM

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.




Oh, so we ramp up the vice squad.
 
2013-03-18 12:19:14 AM

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: It was an NFA item

It's not my fault you got all righteous before you realized that it was removed before I was born.

You still need a ffl 03 to own it.

If you had read the rest of my posts you'd notice that my grandfather has a large collection of C&R pistols.

Sorry kiddo but it's not worth the time to keep clicking the show posts from ignored users button.


What the fark are you doing on Fark?

STFU and GBTW.
 
2013-03-18 12:20:26 AM
Federal agents have been ignoring immigration laws for years and you libs all of a sudden have a problem with this concept??  Typical.
 
2013-03-18 12:23:20 AM

garron: Federal agents have been ignoring immigration laws for years and you libs all of a sudden have a problem with this concept?? Typical.


So, care to explain why deportations of illegal immigrants are up over the last four years if no one is enforcing the law?
 
2013-03-18 12:32:17 AM

WhyteRaven74: garron: Federal agents have been ignoring immigration laws for years and you libs all of a sudden have a problem with this concept?? Typical.

So, care to explain why deportations of illegal immigrants are up over the last four years if no one is enforcing the law?


The same reason why the Bush tax cuts made taxes too low even though we had record revenues under it.
 
2013-03-18 12:38:29 AM

iheartscotch: cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Muzzle climb? In an Ar-15? Have you ever fired a Ar-15? Yes it has some;

You know what doesn't have a problem with muzzle climb? A Winchester .303 bolt-action. Accurate out to a longer range, too. And you're more likely to hit what you're shooting at. And drop it on the first shot.

It's still a rifle designed for a military; and as such, it's a super baby/puppy killer.

I agree, big bolt action rifles are more accurate and more likely to drop a wild animal on the first shot; but, most (especially .303) were designed for one military or another.

/ My 76 year old mosin could be considered a military assault weapon because it came with a bayonet.


Just wanted to point out that the Winchester .303 wasn't a bolt-action rifle.  Aside from that technical inaccuracy, the two of you have both made some of the dumbest arguments I've seen on Fark in a long time.
 
2013-03-18 12:46:32 AM

WhyteRaven74: garron: Federal agents have been ignoring immigration laws for years and you libs all of a sudden have a problem with this concept?? Typical.

So, care to explain why deportations of illegal immigrants are up over the last four years if no one is enforcing the law?


Immigrants are voting for tougher enforcement to protect their jobs using fake IDs. Duh.
 
2013-03-18 01:21:25 AM

NephilimNexus: Do the cops still use Glock 17s?  That's pretty rare these days.

9mm isn't being used in law enforcement much anymore.

Why is called a Glock 17?It's a model number. The fact that the factory magazine holds 17 rounds is a coincidence.
 
2013-03-18 02:07:02 AM

Yes this is dog: NephilimNexus: Do the cops still use Glock 17s?  That's pretty rare these days. 9mm isn't being used in law enforcement much anymore.

Why is called a Glock 17?It's a model number. The fact that the factory magazine holds 17 rounds is a coincidence.


I'm betting an "engineered" coincidence.
 
2013-03-18 02:31:56 AM

jaybeezey: 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."

I bet all of the anti-gun nuts who decry this would be call for the use of the hero tag if he said," You know, I don't think I'm going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

Yes, different people have different priorities. Welcome to the planet and species.


As a libertarian, I believe what you do in the privacy of your home is your business. If you're a responsible adult and you're not harming others with your actions, toke up. If you want to own guns, are a responsible law abiding adult, and treat them with care ie: store them safely, shoot them responsibly, blast away.

And the inverse also applies. if you show propensity to act irresponsibly by acting violently, harming others, or are deemed a mentally adjudicated as a risk to yourself or others, no guns for you. If you cannot hold down a job due to drug abuse, no unemployment or welfare for you.

The idea that the government can legislate us into a perfect safe society is laughable IMNSHO. Teaching children to compete, take personal responsibility, self discipline, respect for the life of their fellow man, and how to safely deal with dangerous things, and that an oath is something not taken lightly, will prepare them far better for life, and do far more for our society, than instilling them with the idea that the government will take care of them every time they fail or something dangerous comes their way.

Good on these sheriffs for upholding the constitutional principals that they swear to defend upon entry into office. If the people in their districts disagree with their actions, they won't be re-elected next time round. The process of nullification by state and local government is societys way of saying enough is enough to the bloated, over centralized federal government.

If the gun grabbers want to ban guns in a legal constitutional way, all it would take is getting 37 states to ratify a 28th amendment stating that the 2nd is no longer valid. But the numbers just aren't there. Until that happens these sheriffs will receive my full support. I swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution when I was younger. It didn't have an expiration. And if the supreme law of the land, the constitutional process, is followed, I will respect the decisions of the citizens of this nation. But the current legislation is not following that process. So it will get my vocal opposition.
 
2013-03-18 02:37:13 AM

fknra: jaybeezey: 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."

I bet all of the anti-gun nuts who decry this would be call for the use of the hero tag if he said," You know, I don't think I'm going to arrest people for possessing pot anymore."

Yes, different people have different priorities. Welcome to the planet and species.

As a libertarian, I believe what you do in the privacy of your home is your business. If you're a responsible adult and you're not harming others with your actions, toke up. If you want to own guns, are a responsible law abiding adult, and treat them with care ie: store them safely, shoot them responsibly, blast away.

And the inverse also applies. if you show propensity to act irresponsibly by acting violently, harming others, or are deemed a mentally adjudicated as a risk to yourself or others, no guns for you. If you cannot hold down a job due to drug abuse, no unemployment or welfare for you.

The idea that the government can legislate us into a perfect safe society is laughable IMNSHO. Teaching children to compete, take personal responsibility, self discipline, respect for the life of their fellow man, and how to safely deal with dangerous things, and that an oath is something not taken lightly, will prepare them far better for life, and do far more for our society, than instilling them with the idea that the government will take care of them every time they fail or something dangerous comes their way.

Good on these sheriffs for upholding the constitutional principals that they swear to defend upon entry into office. If the people in their districts disagree with their actions, they won't be re-elected next time round. The process of nullification by state and local government is societys way of saying enough is enough to the bloated, over centralized federal government.

If the gun grabbers want to ban guns in a le ...


It was the 17th patent held by the company.
 
2013-03-18 02:46:44 AM

fknra: And the inverse also applies. if you show propensity to act irresponsibly by acting violently, harming others, or are deemed a mentally adjudicated as a risk to yourself or others, no guns for you.


This scares old people. The point at which they most need a tool to defend themselves they will be deprived of it. It's easy to think you can always run away and call the cops when you are young but that's not reality for the elderly. shiat, just one punch can destroy thousands of dollars of dental work in a split second.

Oh, and old people vote.
 
2013-03-18 02:47:01 AM

jaytkay: ChuDogg: Cut the jabs for a moment and think about what you're saying.

I'm saying if you can own a pistol and a rifle and a shotgun  today, and you don't have a future felony or mental problem, you will be able to own a pistol and a rifle and a shotgun in five years.

Your paranoid fears are nothing new. I have been hearing the same shiat for decades, and it always ramps up after a Democrat is elected President. Like clockwork.

The NRA and gun and ammo sellers count on it. The rubes deliver every time.


What kind of rifle, pistol, and shotgun?
He's not paranoid. The way it works is like this

1. you can have a rifle, but it can't be an ar15 or ak47.
2. you can have a rifle, but it can't have a pistol grip, detachable magazine, or collaspsible stock
3. you can have a rifle, but you can't have magazines over 10 rounds
4. you can have a rifle, but you can't have detachable magazines
5. you can have a rifle, but you can only have 10 rounds in your non detachable magazine.
6. you now cannot have any of this list of 700 rifles.
7. any new rifle coming into the state must be on a list of approved rifles. we call it the "safe rifle list" so we all feel better.
8. getting on the safe rifle list requires an $8000 "fee" to the state gov't. for each configuration. oh, are you a small manufacturer? can't pay? sorry, can't sell in this state.
9. we no longer accept applications for the safe rifle list.
10. when a rifle owner dies, the rifle must be turned into to the police, or rendered inoperable.
11. no more than one box of rifle ammunition may be purchased every month.
12. the Bureau of Land Management now revokes the lease for every outdoor shooting range.

think I'm paranoid and making stuff up? Try to figure out which ones of have already come true for the state of California. then figure out which ones are in the latest legislation.
 
2013-03-18 02:55:14 AM

fknra: If the gun grabbers want to ban guns in a le ...


very well said. if i could buy you a beer I would.
what is being done is  erosion of our rights. if they'd repeal the 2nd, I'd give up my guns. but this back door kind of nickle and diming makes a mockery of the values we ostensibly hold dear.
 
2013-03-18 03:43:05 AM

cameroncrazy1984: IlGreven: ..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

What part of that was idiotic? Do the rights of citizens extend to breaking laws judged to be Constitutional or not?


...if you hadn't cut off the rest of my post, you'd've had your answer.  Yes, civil disobedience is a necessary check. Too bad the only people with the courage to actually use it in the past 50 years are dumbasses like this cop.
 
2013-03-18 03:59:32 AM
I'm thankful for the sheriff's standing by the citizens and the constitution on this one.

These laws Make it a shady legal area to even own some guns.

I travel for work, by this new law if I travel for over 72 hours I must "gift" my guns to my wife. (or perform a $10 background check on each one to transfer them to her).  I must take any magazine that is 15+ rounds OR easily converted to more than 15 rounds with me, as there is no transfer of possession of magazines allowed once this law is enacted.

I have a friend who leaves a pistol at my house so he doesn't have to fly with it when he comes to visit.  If it's at my house past July 1 I can't give it back to him without a background check, and I can't give him his magazines legally.

It's not enforceable because old mags are grandfathered in.  Prove that I bought it after the ban date without a receipt....


Farkers should stand together for freedom, not a police state.
 
2013-03-18 05:01:15 AM
Fire his ass.  In case he's forgotten, he works for the people, and in our form of government here in the USA, the people elect their representatives.  I am completely against any "assault weapons" ban, but I even more against people that have guns and don't obey the law.
 
2013-03-18 05:04:19 AM

cameroncrazy1984: GoldenEggs: I applaud the sheriff for standing up for the Bill of Rights particularly the 2ND Amendment.  What part of "Shall NOT not be infringed" can't the demoshiats (with their globalist agendas) not understand?

The part where there are such things as "reasonable restrictions."


Weird. I can't find "reasonable restrictions" anywhere in the Bill of Rights.
 
2013-03-18 05:24:07 AM

Cheviot: 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.


You seem to be under the false impression that law enforcement officials are under some sort of obligation to enforce all laws on the books at all times otherwise they are breaking the law.  That was my main concern, because that is extremely far from the truth.
 
2013-03-18 05:56:22 AM

StoPPeRmobile: fknra: And the inverse also applies. if you show propensity to act irresponsibly by acting violently, harming others, or are deemed a mentally adjudicated as a risk to yourself or others, no guns for you.

This scares old people. The point at which they most need a tool to defend themselves they will be deprived of it. It's easy to think you can always run away and call the cops when you are young but that's not reality for the elderly. shiat, just one punch can destroy thousands of dollars of dental work in a split second.

Oh, and old people vote.


I'm very confused by this response. What does being old have to do with being mentally competent? I do not and would not even consider age a factor in being a violent offender/ danger to self or others. I know plenty of competent 80+ year olds that I would better trust with guns than most 20 year olds. If a senior citizen can pass a background check and doesn't have advanced dementia or Alzheimer's I see no reason to prohibit them from buying anything currently available on the market.

And I totally get the whole not being able to run. It's one of the reasons I'm a supporter of firearms ownership. I wrecked a motorcycle 9 years ago and am confined to a wheelchair. I simply do not have the option of running and hiding. (not that it would be my first choice anyway) I'm a firm believer in that if if someone uses violence or the threat of violence to take from or harm an innocent, any high velocity lead poisoning they receive in the process is their own damn fault.
 
2013-03-18 06:34:05 AM
Silly Jesus:
You seem to be under the false impression that law enforcement officials are under some sort of obligation to enforce all laws on the books at all times otherwise they are breaking the law.  That was my main concern, because that is extremely far from the truth.

This was part of a long discussion regarding whether the state legislature could force the issue with this sheriff by criminalizing refusing to enforce the law.
 
2013-03-18 07:55:05 AM

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."


My state publicly flaunts immigration law. big hearing at the statehouse where illegal aliens, speaking Spanish, were biatching because they don't get drivers' licenses. Liberals always choose to not enforce laws when it suits them. This guy won't enforce because it actually violates the Constitution. Who is the bigger ass?

You want Americans to be punished, but illegal aliens to have rights. Farking liberals.
 
2013-03-18 10:04:15 AM

fknra: If the gun grabbers want to ban guns in a legal constitutional way, all it would take is getting 37 states to ratify a 28th amendment stating that the 2nd is no longer valid.


The 2nd Amendment cannot be repealed.  Unless an Amendment specifically creates a right, voiding that amendment does nothing.  The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, does not create any rights: they state naturally existing rights that individuals have merely by their existence.
 
2013-03-18 10:41:26 AM

mrmopar5287: fknra: If the gun grabbers want to ban guns in a legal constitutional way, all it would take is getting 37 states to ratify a 28th amendment stating that the 2nd is no longer valid.

The 2nd Amendment cannot be repealed.  Unless an Amendment specifically creates a right, voiding that amendment does nothing.  The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, does not create any rights: they state naturally existing rights that individuals have merely by their existence.


I agree with you in principal and spirit. However according to constitutional law the only way to properly change the bill of rights is with an additional amendment. which is why when prohibition (the 18th amendment) was ended, they didn't simply strike it out, they had to pass the 21st. So according to constitutional precedent, the only legal way to change the second would be to add another, either nullifying it or replacing it.

I agree with the idea that the right to self defense and security through armed citizenry is innate, and will actively support and defend the peoples right to do so, I'm simply stating that the only possible legal way to effect the laws and bans that are being proposed would be through the constitutional law process.

I also believe that the federal government has no business regulating firearms at all. The 10th amendment states that the federal government has no other powers than those specifically dictated to it by the constitution and that all other powers are to be retained by the states or the people. If states want to pass their own local laws they are free to do so as long as they are the will of the people in that state and do not violate the constitution. people to often forget that the country was designed as group of individual entities bound together in trade and mutual defense. That way if you wanted to live in a state with more regulations regarding firearms you were free to do so, but if you didn't you moved to a state that better suited your ideals.
 
2013-03-18 11:09:10 AM

TerminalEchoes: cameroncrazy1984: GoldenEggs: I applaud the sheriff for standing up for the Bill of Rights particularly the 2ND Amendment.  What part of "Shall NOT not be infringed" can't the demoshiats (with their globalist agendas) not understand?

The part where there are such things as "reasonable restrictions."

Weird. I can't find "reasonable restrictions" anywhere in the Bill of Rights.


When reasonable restrictions are called for several times in the BIll of Rights. For example, the 4th Amd does not say you are free from ALL search and seizure. Just unreasonable search and seizure. This grants the judiciary authority to define reasonable for the 4th Amd.

The 3rd Amd does not say you can NEVER be compelled to house a soldier. It says that you cannot be forced to do so during a time of peace, and if there is a war on, laws must be enacted to govern such forced housing.

The 8th Amd does not say you are free from ALL punishment or bail, just "cruel and unusual" and "excessive". Again, language for a judge to interpret what defines cruel and unusual or excessive given a particular circumstance.

The 2nd Amd says "the right of the People to keep and bear reasonable arms for hunting shall not be infringed too much".

Wait..no.
 
2013-03-18 11:20:37 AM

fknra: mrmopar5287: fknra: If the gun grabbers want to ban guns in a legal constitutional way, all it would take is getting 37 states to ratify a 28th amendment stating that the 2nd is no longer valid.

The 2nd Amendment cannot be repealed.  Unless an Amendment specifically creates a right, voiding that amendment does nothing.  The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, does not create any rights: they state naturally existing rights that individuals have merely by their existence.

I agree with you in principal and spirit. However according to constitutional law the only way to properly change the bill of rights is with an additional amendment. which is why when prohibition (the 18th amendment) was ended, they didn't simply strike it out, they had to pass the 21st. So according to constitutional precedent, the only legal way to change the second would be to add another, either nullifying it or replacing it.

I agree with the idea that the right to self defense and security through armed citizenry is innate, and will actively support and defend the peoples right to do so, I'm simply stating that the only possible legal way to effect the laws and bans that are being proposed would be through the constitutional law process.

I also believe that the federal government has no business regulating firearms at all. The 10th amendment states that the federal government has no other powers than those specifically dictated to it by the constitution and that all other powers are to be retained by the states or the people. If states want to pass their own local laws they are free to do so as long as they are the will of the people in that state and do not violate the constitution. people to often forget that the country was designed as group of individual entities bound together in trade and mutual defense. That way if you wanted to live in a state with more regulations regarding firearms you were free to do so, but if you didn't you moved to a state that better suited your ideals.


Commerce Clause.
 
2013-03-18 11:26:51 AM
StoPPeRmobile:
Commerce Clause.

only if you sell them across state lines
 
2013-03-18 11:37:18 AM

Bucky Katt: iheartscotch: 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.

The feds have no jurisdiction over purely in-state commerce.  The feds have the authority to regulate interstate not intra state commerce.


That was before an FDR court decided Wickard.
 
2013-03-18 12:04:28 PM

fknra: StoPPeRmobile:
Commerce Clause.

only if you sell them across state lines


Wrong. Wickard vs. Filburn. First case to test your assumption. SCOTUS held that "Congress may regulate any activity that has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.
 
2013-03-18 12:05:07 PM

Big_Fat_Liar: Bucky Katt: iheartscotch: 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.

The feds have no jurisdiction over purely in-state commerce.  The feds have the authority to regulate interstate not intra state commerce.

That was before an FDR court decided Wickard.


*Shakes tiny fist*
 
2013-03-18 12:25:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: brerrabbit: Doktor_Zhivago: Clemkadidlefark: Hey, Subby ...

Upholding the Constitution is Job #1 for a Sheriff. Not standing aside to let the citizens of his County get it up the back hole from Libtards who claim to be writing them some laws.

[www.glennbeck.com image 296x300]

It must suck to be a flaming marxist in a free nation, but you can always fix that by moving to North Korea.

No, upholding state and county law is Job #1 for a sherriff.  Are you retarded?

Actually, no. They are an elected police force. Hint: They are often called peace officers. Their job #1 is to keep the peace.

Why do you think Sheriffs are called "law enforcement officers"?


I see the night train passed you by.
First there were sheriffs. Then there were deputies. Then Marshalls. (see any kind of  word-progression, here?) Then Police, then Peace Officers.  Then law-enforcement ...

A technocrat term invented by the same "law-writing" dickheads who took peace officers off their beat, reduced the number of men in blue and put them in cars to be the last guy on scene when trouble began.

A Peace Officer's charge was to  keep the Peace. Now all they're charged with is enforcing laws.

Big difference, sir. Big effing difference. Which you will discover as the ObamaNation continues to move towards a dictatorship.

But the night-train failing to pick you up at the Obvious Whistle Stop means you haven't understood that just because a bunch of elected knuckleheads voted themselves some "laws" ... that doesn't make it Law. It's Law if it's Constitutional and stands up to court challenges all the way to the Supreme Court.

Or, if you bow down and say meekly, yes yes. I'll be a good little boy and obey.

Is that you? The good little boy who meekly kneels down and says Uncle?

Is that you?

PS - gun control was settled in 1791.
 
2013-03-18 12:31:39 PM

Clemkadidlefark: cameroncrazy1984: brerrabbit: Doktor_Zhivago: Clemkadidlefark: Hey, Subby ...

Upholding the Constitution is Job #1 for a Sheriff. Not standing aside to let the citizens of his County get it up the back hole from Libtards who claim to be writing them some laws.

[www.glennbeck.com image 296x300]

It must suck to be a flaming marxist in a free nation, but you can always fix that by moving to North Korea.

No, upholding state and county law is Job #1 for a sherriff.  Are you retarded?

Actually, no. They are an elected police force. Hint: They are often called peace officers. Their job #1 is to keep the peace.

Why do you think Sheriffs are called "law enforcement officers"?

I see the night train passed you by.
First there were sheriffs. Then there were deputies. Then Marshalls. (see any kind of  word-progression, here?) Then Police, then Peace Officers.  Then law-enforcement ...

A technocrat term invented by the same "law-writing" dickheads who took peace officers off their beat, reduced the number of men in blue and put them in cars to be the last guy on scene when trouble began.

A Peace Officer's charge was to  keep the Peace. Now all they're charged with is enforcing laws.

Big difference, sir. Big effing difference. Which you will discover as the ObamaNation continues to move towards a dictatorship.

But the night-train failing to pick you up at the Obvious Whistle Stop means you haven't understood that just because a bunch of elected knuckleheads voted themselves some "laws" ... that doesn't make it Law. It's Law if it's Constitutional and stands up to court challenges all the way to the Supreme Court.

Or, if you bow down and say meekly, yes yes. I'll be a good little boy and obey.

Is that you? The good little boy who meekly kneels down and says Uncle?

Is that you?

PS - gun control was settled in 1791.


Just like The Romans and every other "democratic rebuplic" government has eventually failed the next step is to choose an Emporer as our savor.
 
2013-03-18 01:42:09 PM

StoPPeRmobile: fknra: StoPPeRmobile:
Commerce Clause.

only if you sell them across state lines

Wrong. Wickard vs. Filburn. First case to test your assumption. SCOTUS held that "Congress may regulate any activity that has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.


The feds have authority over intERstate commerce. (across state lines)

The feds do not have authority over intRAstate commerce (within state lines)

and there are just a couple states that agree with me...

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/state-by-state
 
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