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.

(CNSNews)   Remember that Colorado sheriff who announced that he will no longer enforce laws he doesn't like? Yeah...about that   (cnsnews.com) divider line 658
    More: Followup, Colorado, Weld County, gun controls, sheriffs  
•       •       •

28465 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2013 at 3:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-19 03:58:15 PM  

hipsellipsis: Wow, a metric shiat-ton anti-gun nutjobs in this thread.


For some reason this issue on the Colorado sheriffs brought the extra derp out of them. They aren't even this bad on the Assault Weapons ban threads. Something about people refusing the mandates of the State brings out their natural authoritarian inclinations.
 
2013-03-19 03:58:18 PM  

Karac: Ow! That was my feelings!: Dog Welder: I'm trying to figure out how a limit on magazine size is "unenforceable."  Does the magazine hold more than 15 bullets?  It's illegal.  If you can count to 16, it's enforceable.

Likewise, it wouldn't be up to the sheriff's to enforce the gun buyer paying for the background check.  I figured Republicans would be okay with this because it helps businesses.

Also...CNSNews...your blog sucks.

Because the law says that those magazines that have been in "continuous" ownership are still legal.  So, if I, as a Colorado resident have a stack of 30 round magazines today, they are still legal after the law goes into effect.    There is no way to prove "in continuous possession".

Well, that's why you're considered innocent until proven guilty.  If the sheriff finds those magazines in your trunk, he can't arrest you.  If he sees you buy them at the local swap meet, then he can because he's now proven that you didn't have them when the law went into effect.

If the reason that the sheriff says this is unenforceable is because he has to have evidence that a crime has been committed then he must spend a lot more time at the donut shop than we all suspected.


He sure as shiat could.  "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to a courtroom, not a traffic stop.  Cops can arrest you for anything they want.  Whether or not you'll be convicted is another matter.
 
2013-03-19 03:58:20 PM  

manimal2878: Infernalist: They'll talk a big game until a team from the FBI shows up and sits them down to take depositions on whether or not they'll enforce signed state law.

Then they'll meekly agree to enforce the laws, understanding that the FBI will be testing them on the issue rather quietly.

I think it is a bunch of empty talk, like you say.  In fact, has anyone ever been arrested solely for having a magazine that held too many bullets?  It's not something that would ever even come up.  If you committed another crime and they confiscated your gun as evidence only then would they cause to ever asses the magazine capacity.


Deputies made the arrest shortly before 7:30 p.m. Sunday on Steinhilber Road in the town of LeRay, where Mr. Haddad is accused of possessing five 30-round AR-15 magazines of ammunition. He is cited under a state penal law statute that prohibits possession of "a large capacity ammunition feeding device." The ammunition was found in his vehicle during a traffic stop, according to the sheriff's office.
 
2013-03-19 03:58:21 PM  

thenumber5: likely manufactures will just start selling magazines like the California type that need to tool to remove the magazine


The CA law is pretty specific to CA. It doesn't apply to the AWB here in Chicago, for instance. So there's no reason to think it absolves people in Colorado.

And really, there is no need to. Magazines don't have much in the way of identifying marks. There is little to stop someone from driving to, say, Wyoming, picking up a stack of magazines and distributing among their friends and pretending they have always owned them.

Colorado's law is poorly written because it casts suspicion on every legal gun owner but also makes it extremely difficult to fully enforce. Thus, it is unenforceable.
 
2013-03-19 03:58:41 PM  
The Sheriff don't like it..
 
2013-03-19 03:58:48 PM  

Giltric: Mr. Titanium: The Sheriff says the laws are unenforceable.  How is it unenforceable to charge for a background check?  If you don't get paid, you don't do the check.  Seems pretty simple to enforce.

/not saying I agree or disagree, but the logic seems strained

It is unenforcable to make people go through a background check.

Even the justice department released a memo saying the same thing. They may have even said that UBC will lead to more and more firearms being transferred in parking lots or back alleys.


Here's the problem. You transfer a gun without the background check, but you bought it from the gun shop. They know it's yours. Now, 10 years down the line the gun is used in a crime. They come back to the registered owner and ask about the gun. Remember, while the sheriff will be doing the legwork, it's the prosecutor who will be filing charges. The owner, not realizing what the issue is, admits to selling the gun. The prosecutor charges him with not doing the backgound check. He never did it. Can't provide proof he did it. The former gun owner gets found guilty and goes to jail.

And the sherif did no enforcement of the law.
 
2013-03-19 03:58:57 PM  
Sanctuary city

"Sanctuary city is a term given to a city in the United States that follows certain practices that protect illegal immigrants. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one's immigration status."


Funny, I don't see anyone on Fark fussing about cities REFUSING TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAWS. Remember all the hubub raised when Arizona said that it WOULD enforce Federal law? And even Obama got in on the act?

Now here you are, screaming your lungs out in RAGE because a sheriff says that he won't enforce a STATE law that he believes is (A) unconstitutional and (B) ineffective.


/Smells like hypocrisy
 
2013-03-19 03:58:59 PM  
Everything seems to be unconstitutional. Why not just write a new constitution, then?

Hell, even Windows gets a new version every few years... What are we looking at here, almost 250 years...
 
2013-03-19 03:59:06 PM  

Caffandtranqs: Do you know many people with cannons? Do you know many people who think people having cannons is a good idea?


Actually yes, on both counts, but I collect antique firearms.

/Ever try to fire an 1851 Colt Navy? Not an easy gun to use.
 
2013-03-19 04:00:05 PM  

FarKY502: Fire all these douche nozzles..!!! Just do your farking job, no one cares about your opinions...


Sheriff's are usually(always?) an elected position and like it or not as the people responsible for enforcing laws they have the defacto ability to nullify laws by simply not enforcing them.

/the laws in question don't make any sense(and won't make anyone safer) in the rural parts of Colorado anyway(virtually the whole State)
 
2013-03-19 04:00:29 PM  

MichiganFTL: WippitGuud: Somebody pass the brownies.

You don't get it, an oven, the sun, Easy Bake Oven, even a chubby breathing heavy counts as a heat source. You're stuck with oils, marinol and maybe some no-bakes... mmm... no-bakes...


No, your honor, I did not use a heat source. I just left the pan outside.
 
2013-03-19 04:00:41 PM  

Kahabut: Did you know that a Sheriff is sworn to uphold the law of the land?

So then... I think we are done here.


Dereliction of duty, maybe.  I find it hard to believe that would ever constitute a crime.  Law enforcement exercises prosecutorial discretion every day.
 
2013-03-19 04:01:15 PM  

cranked: Do NOT look directly at the comments of TFA.


Too late...

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-19 04:01:27 PM  

museamused: manimal2878: Infernalist: They'll talk a big game until a team from the FBI shows up and sits them down to take depositions on whether or not they'll enforce signed state law.

Then they'll meekly agree to enforce the laws, understanding that the FBI will be testing them on the issue rather quietly.

I think it is a bunch of empty talk, like you say.  In fact, has anyone ever been arrested solely for having a magazine that held too many bullets?  It's not something that would ever even come up.  If you committed another crime and they confiscated your gun as evidence only then would they cause to ever asses the magazine capacity.

I have had a DNR officer ask to see my firearm, while I was hunting, to confirm I had a plug in to limit the rounds in my shotgun as long as he was bugging me for my license and other shiat.
Was it annoying?  Yes.  Did he have the right to do so?  Yes.  Did I have my plug in?  Yes.  Why?  Because I don't need 50 rounds to hit something like pussies like Ted Nugent and the limitation is reasonable.


How about if you use your gun for self-defense? Sorry, Citizen, you're going to PMITA prison and liable for civil suits from the criminal's family because you didn't turn in your magazine for one that held 3 less bullets. Because one thing everyone who has ever survived a gunfight has never thought is "gee, I wish I hadn't had so many extra bullets with me."
 
2013-03-19 04:01:31 PM  
I wish the DOJ would promulgate a database of all these douchebag sheriffs, county commissioners, deputies, cops and other assorted law enforcement officials who get convicted every year for doing stupid shiat based on the arrogant assumption that they are above the law. Perhaps it's time we had a "Crooked Public Official" registry to keep track of them. Who knows how many simply jump from one jurisdiction to another after being caught?
 
2013-03-19 04:02:09 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Karac: Ow! That was my feelings!: Karac: Ow! That was my feelings!: Dog Welder: I'm trying to figure out how a limit on magazine size is "unenforceable."  Does the magazine hold more than 15 bullets?  It's illegal.  If you can count to 16, it's enforceable.

Likewise, it wouldn't be up to the sheriff's to enforce the gun buyer paying for the background check.  I figured Republicans would be okay with this because it helps businesses.

Also...CNSNews...your blog sucks.

Because the law says that those magazines that have been in "continuous" ownership are still legal.  So, if I, as a Colorado resident have a stack of 30 round magazines today, they are still legal after the law goes into effect.    There is no way to prove "in continuous possession".

Well, that's why you're considered innocent until proven guilty.  If the sheriff finds those magazines in your trunk, he can't arrest you.  If he sees you buy them at the local swap meet, then he can because he's now proven that you didn't have them when the law went into effect.

If the reason that the sheriff says this is unenforceable is because he has to have evidence that a crime has been committed then he must spend a lot more time at the donut shop than we all suspected.

But there is no way to determine if a magazine is brought into the state after the ban goes into effect. It will be virtually impossible to ever prosecute anyone for it. This law is a perfect example of 'feel good, do nothing' legislation.

It's very easy for a cop to prove you broke the law if, as I said, he sees you do it.

But they would be illegal to sell in the state, so your example would rarely ever happen.  Why not just buy them in Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, etc, etc.   Again, just feel good, do nothing but get Democrats fired legislation.


It also cost CO about 400 jobs and 90 million in tax revenue
 
2013-03-19 04:02:13 PM  
robslink.comI can't think of the right Venn diagram so I'll leave this equivalent of a rabbit with a pancake hat.
 
2013-03-19 04:02:17 PM  
Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.
 
2013-03-19 04:02:26 PM  

ManRay: Karac: ManRay: Only the President can get away with saying he is not going to prosecute certain laws. Podunk sheriffs do not get that option.

Such as?

Presidents direct their AG to slow work on certain laws all the time. It would be great if Obama would tell Holder to not prosecute pot laws in the states that have legalized it, for instance.


Holder is too busy selling m4's and m64's to mexican cartels out of the back of his Chevy Volt.
 
2013-03-19 04:02:51 PM  

lilplatinum: potterydove: lilplatinum: Giltric: How do you feel about the legalities of sanctuary cities? Should they fire the politicians and law enforcement officals who refuse to enforce immigration laws?

Immigration law is a civil, not a criminal matter.

Nope.  There are criminal penalties for illegal entry.

Illegal entry is a misdemeanor offense (and not one all people referred to as "illegals" are guilty of - i.e. those who overstay their visas or were brought here as kids), but immigration law is not criminal law.  Deportation is not a criminal matter and the punishment for illegal entry is not deportation.


Also immigration is a Federal matter and not a State/local

local law enforcement isnt always keep in the loop concerning federal investations in there Area, and the local PD deciding to go after a illegal can blow a mutiyear drug/gun running investation
 
2013-03-19 04:03:02 PM  

WippitGuud: No, your honor, I did not use a heat source. I just left the pan outside.


Outside!??!? Where the children could see it and possibly touch it!? How horrible of a human being are you!!!11! Think of the children! ... 5 years in jail.
 
2013-03-19 04:03:06 PM  

pudding7: umad: EdNortonsTwin: Maybe they shouldn't be bothered to swear to uphold the Constitution either.  Yea, about that old document.

The same one that says "shall not be infringed?" Maybe he is.

1st amendment is freedom of speech.  Are you allowed to say anything you want, anytime you want, anywhere you want, without restriction?   No, you're not.   There are limits/restrictions.   Same with the 2nd amendment.   Constitutionally, what's the difference between a 30-round magazine and a 10-round magazine?


A proper analogy would be can you shoot anyone you want anytime you want anywhere you want?

What you are doing is comparing use of the 1st with devices related to the 2nd.

Banning a 30 round mag is more in line with banning a keyboard or youtube because you have the potential to reach many people simultaneously,  claiming that there is a fire in a theater.
 
2013-03-19 04:03:20 PM  

kellyclan: pudding7: umad: EdNortonsTwin: Maybe they shouldn't be bothered to swear to uphold the Constitution either.  Yea, about that old document.

The same one that says "shall not be infringed?" Maybe he is.

1st amendment is freedom of speech.  Are you allowed to say anything you want, anytime you want, anywhere you want, without restriction?   No, you're not.   There are limits/restrictions.   Same with the 2nd amendment.   Constitutionally, what's the difference between a 30-round magazine and a 10-round magazine?

Yes, you are. If you say something that causes harm to someone else, you might get punished for it, but you have the right and the ability to do so.

If we're going to start pre-cognitively punishing people, let's start cutting all newborn's vocal cords so they can never grow up to shout fire in a theater.


Doing something illegal, and then being punished for it later is how laws work, and it's what we're talking about.

I mean, you could sell/buy a 100-round magazine in California, but you might get punished for it later.  You could drive drunk, but you might get punished for it later.  Hell, you could rob a bank, but you might get punished for it.
 
2013-03-19 04:03:32 PM  

Dixon Cider: I live near this asshole and hope he gets fired soon!

Farking conservatives thinks it's OK to break the law, if it is something they want. But ask for Equal Rights for Brown or Gay people and HOLY shiat, your asking fro crimes against humanity!!


TROLL ALERT
 
2013-03-19 04:03:39 PM  

GanjSmokr: manimal2878: Infernalist: They'll talk a big game until a team from the FBI shows up and sits them down to take depositions on whether or not they'll enforce signed state law.

Then they'll meekly agree to enforce the laws, understanding that the FBI will be testing them on the issue rather quietly.

I think it is a bunch of empty talk, like you say.  In fact, has anyone ever been arrested solely for having a magazine that held too many bullets?  It's not something that would ever even come up.  If you committed another crime and they confiscated your gun as evidence only then would they cause to ever asses the magazine capacity.

Deputies made the arrest shortly before 7:30 p.m. Sunday on Steinhilber Road in the town of LeRay, where Mr. Haddad is accused of possessing five 30-round AR-15 magazines of ammunition. He is cited under a state penal law statute that prohibits possession of "a large capacity ammunition feeding device." The ammunition was found in his vehicle during a traffic stop, according to the sheriff's office.


Well, looks like I was wrong.  That's farked up.
 
2013-03-19 04:03:50 PM  

EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: Here we go again with this shiat.  It's unconstitutional because the Consitution has not been updated with an ammendment pertinent to this farking century.  You could make a case for having a damn cannon to be at your house with the way the way the Constitution is written out about this.  These farking idiots can't seem to get past the year 1791 when it comes to this issue.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 What has changed in that time frame as relating to this text?


Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to own cannons?  I know a few people that have them and fire them (charge only) on random holidays.  Is that wrong, legally?  I'm sure a few people might argue the noise is a bit much, but not any louder than fireworks typically being launched around the same time.


You don't know what has changed in this country since 1791?  Oh boy.  I was using it as an example.  The broad description allows for all sorts of weaponry that is not good for people to have...such as grenades or tommy guns.  Acccording to the Constitution, not allowing people to have these things is infringing on their rights, right?
 
2013-03-19 04:03:50 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, I guess we can disband the Supreme Court now. This brilliant legal scholar has it all under control


THIS.  I don't know what's gotten into all these various derpy local sheriffs lately, but they need to realize that they are NOT the courts.  Their job is to enforce the laws of their jurisdiction, period.  If it's unconstitutional, the Supreme Court (or any number of courts) will worry about it.  Get back to rounding up meth heads and quit attention whoring.
 
2013-03-19 04:04:40 PM  

MichiganFTL: WippitGuud: No, your honor, I did not use a heat source. I just left the pan outside.

Outside!??!? Where the children could see it and possibly touch it!? How horrible of a human being are you!!!11! Think of the children! ... 5 years in jail.


It was in my locked car.
Behind the back seat under the windshield. Which just happened to be pointed south.
 
2013-03-19 04:04:41 PM  

unyon: FTFA: Cooke says of the new laws: "They're feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable."

Of course they're unenforcable, because the guy in charge of enforcing them just explained that he refused to do so.


maybe he meant unforseeable, but didn't know what that word meant either.


in the end it doesn't matter. There will be no assault weapons ban as part of the gun control bill coming up because Reid knew it would be a non starter and he desperately needs to win one for the "children".
 
2013-03-19 04:04:45 PM  

R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.


This. Plus, Sheriffs and Law Enforcement have chosen to ignore laws on the books in the past without so much as a thought. The only reason that people are even mentioning it is because A) this is Fark, and B) it involves guns.

If it involved porn or weed, Fark would be all for it.

/hypocrites.
 
2013-03-19 04:05:12 PM  

rooftop235: I am in agreement with the Sheriffs. Believe it or not, and as much as we might not like them all the time, the police are our last line of defense against totalitarianism by upper government officials.
/Grabs popcorn and waits for someone to say "I can defend myself".
//Can you defend yourself if you have no weapons, sheep?

///Brother was murdered by a jackass with a .40 cal last year. So yeah, assholes with guns kill people. Guns just don't jump up and start shooting.
http://www.14news.com/story/19324887/man-facing-murder-charges-in-de co mposed-body-case-makes-court-appearance


So what, your brother tired to defend himself, but ran out of ammo after 15 shots and was killed?

Because that is what this law is about you know.
 
2013-03-19 04:06:12 PM  

kellyclan: If we're going to start pre-cognitively punishing people, let's start cutting all newborn's vocal cords so they can never grow up to shout fire in a theater.


On a scale of 1 to 10, how embarrassed are you for making this analogy? 1 being: "Meh, I'm indifferent" and 10. being, "I wish I could format the internet so no one ever reads this, ever."
 
2013-03-19 04:06:25 PM  

Bravo Two: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

This. Plus, Sheriffs and Law Enforcement have chosen to ignore laws on the books in the past without so much as a thought. The only reason that people are even mentioning it is because A) this is Fark, and B) it involves guns.

If it involved porn or weed, Fark would be all for it.

/hypocrites.


I can't walk into a school with porn and weed and kill a bunch of students.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the students would throw a party in my favor.

In fact, forget the school.
 
2013-03-19 04:06:28 PM  

CigaretteSmokingMan: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x657]


That looks like a poster straight out of logan's run
 
2013-03-19 04:06:29 PM  

Alphakronik: I'm curious as to if these gun-lubbin' 'mericans would sell AR's to a group of dark skinned men Americans dressed in turbans?


I've wondered about this myself, for gun shows, which is where you go for no-questions-asked firearms in a hurry. If you set it up right, you could have a whole hidden-camera exposé.

Would they sell to a swarthy guy who muttered in Arabic and cackled evilly?
Would they sell to a guy who kept arguing with the invisible 6-foot-tall rabbit only he could see?
Would they sell to a guy who wouldn't shut up about his felony convictions?
Would they sell to an 8th-grader? ("Yeah, I'm 18. What's it to you? You some kind of Nancy Pelosi-style fascist?")

I'm guessing you wouldn't have to go far at "reputable" gun shows to find people who'd answer yes to all of those questions. For added lulz, if any of them said no, you could have a guy in a suit show up claiming to be an NRA monitor and loudly demanding to know why they were pissing on the Second Amendment.

Loophole-oriented gun shows are truly amazing things. Everyone should go check one out, no matter how much you love or hate guns. Don't worry about blending in--nobody will be making eye contact with you.
 
2013-03-19 04:06:33 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Get back to rounding up meth heads and quit attention whoring.


There's definitely a large AW component to this.  Nobody would be the wiser if these guys didn't say a thing.
 
2013-03-19 04:06:34 PM  

Karac: redmid17: thenumber5: odinsposse: tom baker's scarf: here's the thing. no one is expecting sheriff wiggam and officer lou to go door-to-door making inspections but if while in the course of legal search of a home or car or business they find illegal guns and/or illegal gun paraphernalia then he is required to act and report.

I don't understand what is so "unenforceable" or why he "doesn't have the manpower."  10:1 he has a bunch of whatever is being banned and doesn't want to give up his toys.

The language of the law sets a magazine limit and also bans any magazine that could be modified to accept more than the limit. Most any magazine can be modified so the law essentially means this sheriff would have to investigate every gun owner they come across. That would take a lot of manpower.

the Ban is on the sale of the magazines in question, like every other new law if you already own it your grandfathered in

Great now how do you prove piece of stamped metal with no serial # was manufactured before the ban went into place?

YOU don't prove that.  The cops would have to prove that it was manufactured or bought after the ban.
You know, the same exact way that any law with a grandfather clause is enforced.


So as long as anything came from outside of Colorado, it'd be pretty much unenforceable? Sounds familiar
 
MFK
2013-03-19 04:06:48 PM  

Chariset: CNSNews.comrelies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore.Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today.Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come.

Your blog sucks.


is there a single one of these right wing sites that isn't just a scam to make these rubes outraged enough to "donate"?
 
2013-03-19 04:07:24 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Dog Welder: I'm trying to figure out how a limit on magazine size is "unenforceable."  Does the magazine hold more than 15 bullets?  It's illegal.  If you can count to 16, it's enforceable.

Likewise, it wouldn't be up to the sheriff's to enforce the gun buyer paying for the background check.  I figured Republicans would be okay with this because it helps businesses.

Also...CNSNews...your blog sucks.

Because the law says that those magazines that have been in "continuous" ownership are still legal.  So, if I, as a Colorado resident have a stack of 30 round magazines today, they are still legal after the law goes into effect.    There is no way to prove "in continuous possession".


Okay, but if you see a store or a gun dealer SELLING 30 round magazines, that would be illegal, correct?  Again, how is that unenforceable?
 
2013-03-19 04:07:37 PM  

Cheviot: Here's the problem. You transfer a gun without the background check, but you bought it from the gun shop. They know it's yours. Now, 10 years down the line the gun is used in a crime. They come back to the registered owner and ask about the gun.


So they are disregarding  the Firearm Owners Protection Act?

Its almost as if you want them to not enforce a law.......in order to prosecute someone under a different law.
 
2013-03-19 04:07:56 PM  

WippitGuud: MichiganFTL: WippitGuud: No, your honor, I did not use a heat source. I just left the pan outside.

Outside!??!? Where the children could see it and possibly touch it!? How horrible of a human being are you!!!11! Think of the children! ... 5 years in jail.

It was in my locked car.
Behind the back seat under the windshield. Which just happened to be pointed south.


I dunno son, that sounds like intent to deceive law enforcement. Why did you have to lock your car, what are you hiding? South is where the devil comes from. Make that 10 years, chain gang.
 
2013-03-19 04:08:08 PM  

R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.


How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?
 
2013-03-19 04:08:42 PM  
Well it's good that I consider speed limits unconstitutional and will no longer be paying attention to them while in Weld County.
 
2013-03-19 04:08:45 PM  

MichiganFTL: WippitGuud: MichiganFTL: WippitGuud: No, your honor, I did not use a heat source. I just left the pan outside.

Outside!??!? Where the children could see it and possibly touch it!? How horrible of a human being are you!!!11! Think of the children! ... 5 years in jail.

It was in my locked car.
Behind the back seat under the windshield. Which just happened to be pointed south.

I dunno son, that sounds like intent to deceive law enforcement. Why did you have to lock your car, what are you hiding? South is where the devil comes from. Make that 10 years, chain gang.


I'm in Canada.
 
2013-03-19 04:09:32 PM  

Evil High Priest: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, I guess we can disband the Supreme Court now. This brilliant legal scholar has it all under control

Yeah, no shiat!

"Including Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County, Colorado, 340 sheriffs have publicly stated they  will not enforce gun laws they believe are unconstitutional."

That's not your farking job. Your farking job is to uphold laws, as passed. You don't get to pick and choose. Do your farking job, or quit.


It is in fact not their job to blindly enforce the law. It is our job to use the enforcement to uphold BOTH the Constitution of the United States and state law.

If the two conflict, as they will in this instance, it IS their job to exercise their discretion. That is why an election is not supposed to be a who's your buddy popularity contest, but a careful selection of a person with sound judgement to be placed in a position of authority.
 
2013-03-19 04:09:32 PM  

Great Janitor: Good.  We need more people like him to stand up and say no.

The problems with the laws that he's against is that they only make it harder for law abiding people to get guns and will deter more law abiding people to get guns.  It's going to do nothing about guns that are acquired illegally or out of state.  I want to see more law enforcement officers around the nation say no to these laws.


Me too. That way we can get rid of idiot conservaturds holding power. They are violating multiple laws (state and Federal) by refusing to uphold the law.
 
2013-03-19 04:09:38 PM  

Bravo Two: If it involved porn or weed, Fark would be all for it.


Wait.
dude.
Can you smoke porn?
Like
what would happen?
 
2013-03-19 04:10:39 PM  

semiotix: I've wondered about this myself, for gun shows, which is where you go for no-questions-asked firearms in a hurry. If you set it up right, you could have a whole hidden-camera exposé.

Would they sell to a swarthy guy who muttered in Arabic and cackled evilly?
Would they sell to a guy who kept arguing with the invisible 6-foot-tall rabbit only he could see?
Would they sell to a guy who wouldn't shut up about his felony convictions?
Would they sell to an 8th-grader? ("Yeah, I'm 18. What's it to you? You some kind of Nancy Pelosi-style fascist?")


cygnus-x1.net
 
2013-03-19 04:11:18 PM  

Earl of Chives: R.A.Danny: Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?



It's like mandating people buy an ID to vote. It puts financial obstacles in the way of exercising a civil right. It  disenfranchises the poor...who happen to be the victims of a majority of the crimes being committed.
 
2013-03-19 04:11:18 PM  

odinsposse: thenumber5: likely manufactures will just start selling magazines like the California type that need to tool to remove the magazine

The CA law is pretty specific to CA. It doesn't apply to the AWB here in Chicago, for instance. So there's no reason to think it absolves people in Colorado.

And really, there is no need to. Magazines don't have much in the way of identifying marks. There is little to stop someone from driving to, say, Wyoming, picking up a stack of magazines and distributing among their friends and pretending they have always owned them.

Colorado's law is poorly written because it casts suspicion on every legal gun owner but also makes it extremely difficult to fully enforce. Thus, it is unenforceable.


..really

i didnt say any thing about California law applying any where but California

i said "California Style Magazines" meaning, manfactures will likely start making magazines that have a locking screw on the strike plate so it cant be easily removed in the feild for a extender to snapped on, much like in California guns sold with removable magazines are required to have a lock screw to keep someone from quickly changing mags
 
Displayed 50 of 658 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | 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