Do you have adblock enabled?
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
 
2013-03-18 01:46:30 PM  

kellyclan: Wait..no.


Ahh, the constitutional scholar who ignores supreme court decisions they don't like. Every word in the constitution only means what the scholar interprets them to mean, and the interpretations of the supreme court don't count.  How amusing.
 
2013-03-18 01:53:49 PM  

fknra: 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


Not that I disagree with your position, but there's enough case law outside of Wickard v. Filburn to make this a very contentious point that I don't know if the states can win. United States v. Stewart was a 9th circuit court decision for the defendant regarding homemade automatic weapons and interstate vs intrastate commerce. SCOTUS told them to revisit the decision after Gonzales v Raich (med marijiana decision) and they reversed their decision because apparently a felon who cannot own firearms making his own automatic weapons somehow affects interstate commerce of automatic weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart_(2003)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
 
2013-03-18 02:05:48 PM  

fknra: 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


Look, we all want this to be true.  We all want things to function like they're supposed to.  But Wickard took that away.  Please do what you can to bring it back to sanity.  That includes acknowledging the problem.
 
2013-03-18 02:56:24 PM  

jaytkay: 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.


Colorado resident here. I can buy certain rifles and types of magazines today.

Next year I won't be able to buy them.

You were saying?
 
2013-03-18 03:37:21 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.


Hypothetically, how many guns do I have?  How many have I sold?  What magazines do I have?  Which ones are legal and how would you ever know?

Not hypothetically, I have several firearms that do not have serial numbers, because they either predate serial numbers, come from places that don't like tracking, or were made at home.  How do you propose to enforce the laws that have recently passed?  I assure you, you can not enter my home and inspect my arsenal.  (well, you can't, the cops can if they send someone with a warrant, but they have no legal grounds for that)

Can you catch someone, once in a while and make headlines?  Oh hell yes.  Can you enforce the law evenly and fully?  No farking way.
 
2013-03-18 04:04:26 PM  

Smackledorfer: kellyclan: Wait..no.

Ahh, the constitutional scholar who ignores supreme court decisions they don't like. Every word in the constitution only means what the scholar interprets them to mean, and the interpretations of the supreme court don't count.  How amusing.


So you would posit that the Bill of Rights would explicitly grant authority for judicial interpretation in regards to some rights and for those it does not, we just assume authority is implied?
 
2013-03-18 04:30:03 PM  

kellyclan: Smackledorfer: kellyclan: Wait..no.

Ahh, the constitutional scholar who ignores supreme court decisions they don't like. Every word in the constitution only means what the scholar interprets them to mean, and the interpretations of the supreme court don't count.  How amusing.

So you would posit that the Bill of Rights would explicitly grant authority for judicial interpretation in regards to some rights and for those it does not, we just assume authority is implied?


The Constitution limits government.
 
2013-03-18 05:21:04 PM  

jaytkay: najay1: Gun control is the knee jerk emotional reaction of people that fear their own shadow

The guys in the suburbs who "need" a gun to drive to the 7-11 for a Slurpee are the frightened emotional ones.


Hate to break this to you, but bad things sometimes happen at the 7-11
 
2013-03-18 05:25:58 PM  

knobmaker: jaytkay: najay1: Gun control is the knee jerk emotional reaction of people that fear their own shadow

The guys in the suburbs who "need" a gun to drive to the 7-11 for a Slurpee are the frightened emotional ones.

Hate to break this to you, but bad things sometimes happen at the 7-11


Like this weekend:  http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=9030309">http: //abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=9030309
 
2013-03-18 05:53:22 PM  

Giltric: it is hard to get a firearm back after confiscation even if you prove to be in the right for owning it.


True story.  I had my EDC confiscated pending outcome of a trial where the university/state tried to prosecute me for violation of pistol free areas.  Even after the case was dismissed with extreme prejudice, the police couldn't give it back  because it was at the state lab, the state lab couldn't give it back because they don't deal with people, and nobody cared to get me my property back... It took a judge's order (judge was shocked they didn't rush to give me my gun back) demanding the police to go retrieve it from the state lab and give it back to me before i got to have it back.  If the state wasn't so busy handling priority Detroit crime stuff, my gun would have been profiled and destroyed looong before that letter came.
 
2013-03-19 11:52:15 AM  

Cheviot: 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.


No, they can't, because every time that the sheriff let a jaywalker slide he would be criminally liable.
 
2013-03-19 12:51:09 PM  

Silly Jesus: Cheviot:

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.

No, they can't, because every time that the sheriff let a jaywalker slide he would be criminally liable.


Oh please, no slippery slope arguments. It's certainly possible to craft a law that would still allow law enforcement discretion while still requiring investigation of crimes. The state wouldn't put up with a sheriff that refused to enforce the law against murder or drunk driving, especially after a public statement to that effect. It's just a question of phrasing the law correctly.
 
Displayed 12 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report