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 60
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-17 03:06:28 PM  
8 votes:
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 03:40:35 PM  
5 votes:
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 03:12:38 PM  
5 votes:
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 05:55:55 PM  
4 votes:
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

It must suck to be a flaming marxist in a free nation, but you can always fix that by moving to North Korea.
2013-03-17 05:55:17 PM  
4 votes:

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.
2013-03-17 05:51:05 PM  
4 votes:

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 05:31:43 PM  
4 votes:

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 03:22:14 PM  
4 votes:

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 05:52:16 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:36:29 PM  
3 votes:
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 06:26:38 PM  
2 votes:
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?
2013-03-17 06:15:29 PM  
2 votes:

GoSurfing: Point being gun control legislation DOES NOT EQUAL mental health legislation. If it is nutjobs that are committing mass shootings...why don't we try to deal with NUTJOBS FIRST


Why can't we do both? My ENTIRE POINT is that the SAFE act did both. Jesus, do you even know about the gun legislation you are entirely against?
2013-03-17 06:14:02 PM  
2 votes:

WhoopAssWayne: Princess Ryans Knickers: You sound like a hippie! No respect for law and order! Back in my day we'd whip you whippersnappers and teach you respect!

All the hippies rolled up their anti-war, anti-gitmo, and anti-illegal-wiretapping banners and went home the day Obama was sworn in.


You are aware that Code Pink is still active, right?

Oh no wait, of course you aren't.
2013-03-17 05:53:28 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:51:22 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:51:02 PM  
2 votes:
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?
2013-03-18 07:55:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:20:26 AM  
1 votes:
Federal agents have been ignoring immigration laws for years and you libs all of a sudden have a problem with this concept??  Typical.
2013-03-17 10:41:03 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: A) It's not full-auto and

There is more to the NFA than an item being full auto.......smooth bore pistols for instance.

The C96 ain't smoothbore either.


Its a short barreled rifle when paired with the original holster/stock, also can qualify as Curio & relic (hence a few legal exemptions).

dl.dropbox.com

If I recall there was also full auto model.

As time marches on and technology delivers terrible new weapons to our streets, I think we'll look back one day and wonder what all the fuss was about.
The NFA only passed muster because so few people had interest in expensive and mechanically troublesome guns.  The Hughes amendment banning new sales was thoroughly pointless since it affected only a minority of gun owners.

But that is the nature of infringements.  You start with the smallest group and keep working to expand it.
They weren't content with obstructing the sale of military hardware.  They want the look-alikes too.

The problem being: what was a small group of AR owners in 94 is now the mainstream.
Democrats stuffed their hand in the cookie jar again, but it turned out to be a monkey trap.
2013-03-17 08:29:24 PM  
1 votes:
The administration chooses which laws it wants to enforce as well.  It's apparently a common practice.
2013-03-17 08:28:26 PM  
1 votes:
"I am well regulated. I not only pass a background check with every firearm I buy, I maintain my proficiency in marksmanship to military standards, maintain my equipment to ensure that it is well functioning, ensuring they can accept ammunition from local law enforcement or military in times of emergency civilian mobilization, keep myself informed of current firearms law, both in ROE and ownership, and keep them secured against theft. How much more regulated would you like me to be?"

A gun should never be the first choice for self defense. It should be the last. And the majority of law abiding gun owners understand that.

I totally respect your choice to not own a firearm. However I strongly disagree with anyone telling me that I shouldn't. Having been the target of assault, mugging, robbery, and attempted murder, (south phoenix is a rough place) I can confidently state that I wouldn't be here today without my pistol. The felon that decided to shoot up the club I was working at didn't care that it was illegal for him to 1: posses a firearm 2: that was stolen 3: to shoot from his car 4: at me, while I was checking wristbands at the side door. Predators prefer unarmed victims, proven by the point that when I drew my own legally purchased and carried weapon to return fire he and his buddy hauled ass as quick as their freshly ventilated clunker could go. The man that tried to rob me thought that I looked an easy target as a well dressed white kid in a run down neighborhood. The 2 punks that tried to mug me in a rest stop bathroom. The guy that pulled a knife after I stopped him from trying to beat a female friend. They all went from thug to running away in the time it took to draw.

As for automatic weapons, they are some of the most tightly regulated items in the country. Without a lengthy background check run by the ATF it's a felony to posses one, and it cannot have been manufactured after 198(6?). The price of a fully automatic M16 on the legal market is around 20,000 dollars last time I checked. Not something a legal buyer is going to use in the commission of a crime.

As for my beloved AR-15, I encourage you to look at this page:http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime -in-th e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Look at the rifle deaths. That includes hunting and sporting rifles along with "assault" rifles. But lets put all the blame on the AR-15 just for the purpose of discussion. There are over 3,000,000 million AR-15 variant rifles currently in circulation. Of those lets just say they cause 400 deaths a year in criminal hands. Now we divide 400 by 3000000 and get .013~ % if one person uses one rifle to kill one person. The rifle is obviously not the cause of the problem or there would be dead bodies everywhere. We don't have a gun problem, we have a lack of respect for life by psychopaths problem.

I'm all for tougher enforcement of current laws forbidding felons, violent offenders, and the mentally adjudicated from owning weapons. I'm OK with tougher punishment for using a weapon in the commission of a crime. Rob someone with a gun? 20 years no parole. Shoot someone during the commission of a crime? life, with the possibility of parole in 20 years. No Less. But I take issue with the whittling away of MY second amendment rights guaranteed in our nations charter and repeatedly upheld by the supreme court over the last century. If you don't want to exercise your right that's fine, but I ask that you not support people that would take away MY right, as my ability to fight off an attacker physically ain't quite what it used to be.
2013-03-17 08:20:02 PM  
1 votes:
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!"
2013-03-17 07:29:30 PM  
1 votes:
"Maketa said his office keeps records of every concealed carry permit holder in the county as required by law, but he would never share it.

He said he would destroy the database if anyone tried to get their hands on it and would intervene if government agents started arresting county residents for exercising their constitutional rights."



The guy is making the right stand, and is willing to pay the price for it.
2013-03-17 07:11:14 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: heypete: For example, the Colorado proposal about magazines prohibits the transfer of such magazines, even after the death of the owner. They would have to be turned in and destroyed. Same thing with restrictions on certain types of firearms: sure, you can keep what you own but as soon as you die the gun has to be destroyed as it cannot be legally transferred.

So the dead guy should keep his gun? Why does he need it? He's dead. He's not having anything confiscated.


His heirs are though.

What other property are you in favor of reverting to the state upon a person's a death?
2013-03-17 07:09:20 PM  
1 votes:

ThisIsntMe: What's the big deal? Get 3 10 round mags.


Even better, since it apparently isn't a "big deal" either way, just keep your 30 round magazine and ignore a foolish law.

I think many people need to be reminded that, in the absence of tyranny, rights are granted by the people to their government rather than vice-versa; this includes the right to use defensive force, which originates with the people and is delegated by them to the police, military, etc. Since the right to self- defence originates with the people -- and is really one of the most basic human rights there is, being vital to the continuity of an individual's existence -- civilian gun ownership is the hallmark of a free people; and this is especially the case since the government cannot or will not protect individuals in every situation.
2013-03-17 07:08:09 PM  
1 votes:

jaytkay: People are taking guns from you? That sounds terrible! When? Who?


While I admit that there's no real proposals to physically come and take guns from people, several laws that have been proposed or enacted by some states would have that effect eventually.

For example, the Colorado proposal about magazines prohibits the transfer of such magazines, even after the death of the owner. They would have to be turned in and destroyed. Same thing with restrictions on certain types of firearms: sure, you can keep what you own but as soon as you die the gun has to be destroyed as it cannot be legally transferred.

Not even privately-owned machine guns, which are extremely tightly regulated, have such provisions.
2013-03-17 07:07:38 PM  
1 votes:

iheartscotch: Colorado is ignoring federal law with its pot laws. It gives precident. Also, he said he couldn't enforce it if he wanted to.


How is Colorado "ignoring federal law with its pot laws"? (or more correctly its lack of laws making possession of small amounts illegal )

I don't think you quite understand how laws work. It is NOT illegal under Colorado law to possess small amounts of pot. So what? It's still illegal under federal law. If the feds want to come bust me for a half ounce of pot, let them. The city police, the county sheriff and the state police aren't going to give a shiat though.

Have at it feds! Come bust me. I'm an end user, not a grower or a distributor. What's that? I'm not worth your time? You expected local law enforcement to arrest me? Ha Ha!

For as long as I can remember, pot laws have been used as a means to bust people cops didn't like. I remember being pulled over in farking Texas one time for a broken headlight. I didn't even know the headlight was out and by the time I realized I hadn't closed the ashtray where I had a pipe in plain view I was talking to a cop through my driver's side window while another cop was shining his flashlight all over my car on the passenger side. I don't think the cops were blind. I'm sure they saw the pipe and I did have pot in the car. They didn't say a word about the paraphernalia, They didn't even write me a ticket for the headlight. They did run my license, saw I had no record and IGNORED state law.

Now, if I had been black with a criminal history, things might have been different.

It's a tool for them to selectively enforce laws to harass certain people.
2013-03-17 07:06:24 PM  
1 votes:

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
2013-03-17 07:06:14 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: I'm a gun nut's worst enemy: A gun-owning, gun-using liberal.


No, you're just a farking moron.
2013-03-17 06:53:10 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: machodonkeywrestler: This sentence also tells me you are lying about accepting constructive criticism. You should really take a look at your actions vs what you claim, and find out why you are motivated to act contrarily.

I'm motivated to act contrarily because it's fun to be when you are so brittle.


Not brittle, just doing this for your sake. You've got to be a miserable person to get off on your "perceived" angst you have caused for others.
2013-03-17 06:19:40 PM  
1 votes:

Karac: You arrest a guy, he's got a gun he shouldn't be able to buy.  You ask him where he got it, he gives you a name.  You send in a deputy with a fake ID that can't pass the check and see if the source of the gun will sell another one.


As I showed earlier, this has already happened in NYS under the SAFE law.
2013-03-17 06:19:01 PM  
1 votes:

GoSurfing: Because the former (gun control legislation) effects completely law abiding citizens,


If there's a constitutional law passed and they violate it, are they law-abiding citizens?
2013-03-17 06:18:41 PM  
1 votes:
How is it impossible to enforce a background check requirement.

You arrest a guy, he's got a gun he shouldn't be able to buy.  You ask him where he got it, he gives you a name.  You send in a deputy with a fake ID that can't pass the check and see if the source of the gun will sell another one.

If this is too complicated for the sheriff, he can just ask the local alcohol control board, since it's pretty damn much the exact thing they do to bust people serving liqour to minors.
2013-03-17 06:18:02 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: Point being gun control legislation DOES NOT EQUAL mental health legislation. If it is nutjobs that are committing mass shootings...why don't we try to deal with NUTJOBS FIRST

Why can't we do both? My ENTIRE POINT is that the SAFE act did both. Jesus, do you even know about the gun legislation you are entirely against?


Because the former (gun control legislation) effects completely law abiding citizens, with the 2nd amendment of our constitution protecting them, and the latter effects the mentally ill- the group generally blamed for mass shootings and psychotic events.

The problem is, the gun control folks don't have the balls to admit that, because they can't stir up and stigmatize the mentally ill community, and make them out to be scapegoats.
2013-03-17 06:17:41 PM  
1 votes:

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"?
2013-03-17 06:17:01 PM  
1 votes:

machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Funny thing; charging mountain lions are easier to hit if you have a 30 round magazine.

No they're not. Muzzle climb tends to mess with your aim.

You obviously know nothing about guns. You don't have to shoot all 30 rounds at <i> once</i>

Then why do you need 30 rounds to "defend against" charging mountain lions?

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you should ridicule it.


Oh, I understand completely. You haven't explained where I'm incorrect.
2013-03-17 06:16:16 PM  
1 votes:

machodonkeywrestler: cameroncrazy1984: GoSurfing: re you aware that some people don't SEEK treatment when mentally ill? Are you aware that these people will continue to exist in society, barring some sort of thought crime technology? Are you aware that with the removal of all guns, these mentally ill people can/will act out with other weapons?

Are you aware that there are ways to reduce such events? Jesus, it's like if it can't be 100% stopped you don't want to try.

Ummm, you are making a pretty much identical assertion by going after the minority of gun owners that commit crimes.


I'm not sure I follow.
2013-03-17 06:14:07 PM  
1 votes:

LarryDan43: 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.


You do know that Obama is the most deportating-est president in history, don't you?  And not by a hair either, he's already deported twice as many people as Bush in half the time.
2013-03-17 06:12:14 PM  
1 votes:

jaytkay: Say you have 15-round magazine in a 9mm pistol. How do you "easily" convert that to a larger magazine?


You snap on an extender, which is readily available. Takes a few seconds.

See this video. Around 0:54 the news shows a guy who does it.
2013-03-17 06:11:16 PM  
1 votes:

Happy Hours: 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.


The shiatty wording in the laguage of the bill includes "readily converted". It was demonstrated how easily the floorplate of a magazine could be removed and an extender added, thereby making just about every magazine illegal. Mags commonly have removable floorplates to facilitate cleaning. 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 envisioning 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."

I don't want to sound like a right-wing gun-clinging nutjob, but seriously folks- this is the sort of due diligence and care that lawmakers are giving an enumerated right? New York rushed so fast to ban everything in sight, they forgot to put in exclusion in for their own mounting-EOTech-optics-backwards police force.
2013-03-17 06:10:10 PM  
1 votes:

jaytkay: iheartscotch: Due to bears and mountain lions; Coloradans actually need firearms. Giant mountain kitties think people are pretty tasty.

Totally just protecting himself against bears and mountain lions:
[static.ow.ly image 286x358]

These guys, too. Bears and mountains lions threatened them on a daily basis:
[trueslant.com image 286x275]


This guy used fertilizer. Want to ban that too?
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
2013-03-17 06:06:28 PM  
1 votes:

GoSurfing: re you aware that some people don't SEEK treatment when mentally ill? Are you aware that these people will continue to exist in society, barring some sort of thought crime technology? Are you aware that with the removal of all guns, these mentally ill people can/will act out with other weapons?


Are you aware that there are ways to reduce such events? Jesus, it's like if it can't be 100% stopped you don't want to try.
2013-03-17 06:06:12 PM  
1 votes:

LarryDan43: 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.


Also hypocrisy.
2013-03-17 06:05:31 PM  
1 votes:
Weld County Sheriff John Cooke won't enforce new state gun measures expected to be signed into law by Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, arguing the proposed firearms restrictions give a "false sense of security."

Lawmakers in Colorado on Friday approved a landmark expansion of background checks on firearm purchases. Earlier in the week, Colorado lawmakers approved a 15-round limit on ammunition magazines.


/Good for him. This is a retarded knee jerk response to a semi auto firing douche bag killing a bunch of kids. This new law is pointless, ineffective, and a huge waste of taxpayers money. If a guy is going to go bugshiat and start killing people, what is the difference between a 15 round mag and a 30? You would just carry more 15 round mags and reload more often. This is another stupid ass law that does nothing to address the real problem, which is not fixable. That being spotting someone with mental health issues that might go full retard at any second. Good luck with that. There is NO way to tell this will happen. Some people are farking full bore crazy, and you can't tell until they open fire. Changing a mag limit is like pissing into the wind to put out a 100 acre wildfire. Your pants will just get wet, and you'll look like an idiot.
2013-03-17 06:04:26 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Fun fact: The SAFE act has nothing to do with hunting rifles,


The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting rifles either.
2013-03-17 05:59:14 PM  
1 votes:

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?
2013-03-17 05:57:51 PM  
1 votes:

iheartscotch: 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.

New York != Colorado

Due to bears and mountain lions; Coloradans actually need firearms. Giant mountain kitties think people are pretty tasty.


Fun fact: The SAFE act has nothing to do with hunting rifles, unless you somehow think that mountain lions are easier to hunt with an AR-15 with a 30 round mag than a Winchester .303.
2013-03-17 05:56:19 PM  
1 votes:

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.


New York != Colorado

Due to bears and mountain lions; Coloradans actually need firearms. Giant mountain kitties think people are pretty tasty.
2013-03-17 05:54:37 PM  
1 votes:

LarryDan43: stupid laws shouldn't be enforced.


Unconstitutional laws. This isn't one of them.
2013-03-17 05:54:24 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:54:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:54:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:52:15 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:46:23 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:43:43 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:43:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:36:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:06:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:38:30 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:15:59 PM  
1 votes:
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?
 
Displayed 60 of 60 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report