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  
•       •       •

28459 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
 
2013-03-19 01:16:02 PM
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!!
 
2013-03-19 01:18:20 PM
Well, I guess we can disband the Supreme Court now. This brilliant legal scholar has it all under control
 
2013-03-19 01:34:20 PM
Meanwhile, they're still all for seizing assets without going to court to prove guilt first.
 
2013-03-19 01:36:18 PM
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.
 
2013-03-19 01:44:13 PM
Authoritarians love their privacy. They just don't give a shiat about yours.
 
2013-03-19 01:48:40 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!!


Sherifs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sherif from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the sherif were convicted of a crime
 
2013-03-19 01:56:34 PM

Godscrack: Authoritarians love their privacy. They just don't give a shiat about yours.

 
2013-03-19 01:58:08 PM
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.
 
2013-03-19 01:58:34 PM

cman: 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!!

Sheriffs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sheriff from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the Sheriff were convicted of a crime


WOW did I fark that up.

Fixt spelling
 
2013-03-19 02:15:22 PM
I wish I could tell my boss that I think his policies are bullshiat and just refuse to do my job.
 
2013-03-19 02:28:19 PM

cman: cman: 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!!

Sheriffs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sheriff from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the Sheriff were convicted of a crime

WOW did I fark that up.

Fixt spelling


And here I thought the only way to remove a sheriff was to have him die.

/lives in sheriff joe's county
//i do remember his predecessor, however
 
2013-03-19 02:40:33 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.


Do they swear to uphold the Constitution and all the duly-passed laws of their state? Because if so, you've got him on a perjury charge, or dereliction of duty, or violating his oath of office (or, like a prosecutor with a boner, charge him with ALL of that, PLUS murder 1, 2, 3, 4, and 25, PLUS "theft of services", PLUS "being dumb in a dumbass-free zone").

// if not, how do we know they're supposed to enforce the law?
 
2013-03-19 03:06:24 PM

Nadie_AZ: cman: cman: 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!!

Sheriffs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sheriff from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the Sheriff were convicted of a crime

WOW did I fark that up.

Fixt spelling

And here I thought the only way to remove a sheriff was to have him die.

/lives in sheriff joe's county
//i do remember his predecessor, however


Did you sign the recall?
 
2013-03-19 03:11:51 PM
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.
 
2013-03-19 03:12:15 PM
Prostitution laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.

Drug laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.

Traffic laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.
 
2013-03-19 03:12:20 PM
'We are NOT OWNED by the government, like PBS'


....


'Please make a TAX FREE donation!'

RUFKM
 
2013-03-19 03:12:41 PM
So there are 340 sheriff department job openings? Good to know.
 
2013-03-19 03:12:42 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!!



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?
 
2013-03-19 03:13:29 PM

cman: 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!!

Sherifs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sherif from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the sherif were convicted of a crime


Would they go sans sherif?
 
2013-03-19 03:13:46 PM
"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? "


DING DING DING !!! We have a winner~!
 
2013-03-19 03:13:48 PM
Sheriffs have a right to prioritize wich laws they will enforce. I seem to remember us liberal cheering when police officers were refusing Arizonas Paper Please laws.
 
2013-03-19 03:13:50 PM
Isn't this kinda like "pre" jury nullification?  I mean, instead of acting like a cop, he's acting like a citizen.

I wish they would do that more, actually.  I'm tired of our paramilitary enforcement guard...er...I mean, civil servants.  (scoff)
 
2013-03-19 03:14:06 PM

Giltric: 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!!


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?


Oh snap.
 
2013-03-19 03:14:32 PM
Cuz I want some back-woods county sheriff ruling on constitutional issues?

Go Joe!!!
 
2013-03-19 03:15:01 PM
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.
 
2013-03-19 03:15:04 PM
People are really complaining about paying for Background checks?  I've had to pay for mine since the 90s.  The magazine size ban is pretty much useless without a corresponding Federal Law, even when there was a federal law limiting magazine size it was easy to get Hi-Cap mags they were just much more expensive.
 
2013-03-19 03:15:39 PM
Did Arpaio set the stage for this sort of moronic grandstanding, or has the elected office of Sheriff always been used in this self aggrandizing fashion?
 
2013-03-19 03:15:55 PM
Of all the people posting before me, one has read the article.
 
2013-03-19 03:15:58 PM
The predominant thought seems to be that elected officials sworn to uphold and enforce duly passed laws, should not get to decide which laws they want to uphold and enforce?  Does that apply both to the local as well as the federal level?  What if the laws are not duly passed?
 
2013-03-19 03:16:02 PM

vernonFL: Prostitution laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.

Drug laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.

Traffic laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.


You are correct.
 
2013-03-19 03:16:09 PM
This is from the same lib-tard mentality that think its wrong to ask for a drug test for getting public assistance, or that don't care what you use you EBT card for.
 
2013-03-19 03:16:35 PM

Giltric: 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!!


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 laws are not within the jurisdiction of anyone but the federal government.
 
2013-03-19 03:16:42 PM
Question to the Farkers with a GED in law:

Let's say you get arrested in this guy's county for something like DUI. Could you argue discrimination in court due to the Sheriff admitting he is selectively enforcing laws?

I mean, common sense we know it's stupid, but I'm just wondering if a sheriff making this kind of claim to neglect his job duties could cause legal blow back from a different angle.
 
2013-03-19 03:17:22 PM
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?

I don't think you are going to get an answer but I would love to see the mental gymnastics.
 
2013-03-19 03:17:49 PM
Heard this argument several times from local Texas "conservatives."  Immigration and drug laws?  To be obeyed by all law enforcement at all times no matter what.  Gun laws?  Cops and citizens can just ignore those as they feel like it.
 
2013-03-19 03:17:49 PM

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.


Keep dreamin', comrade Police State. Keep dreamin'.
 
2013-03-19 03:17:51 PM
Stupid biased site. Should have clicked these comments before the article.
 
2013-03-19 03:17:55 PM
Ha, I saw this and thought it was that nutter from El Paso County.

\that it's the Weld County sheriff isn't surprising either.
 
2013-03-19 03:17:56 PM
Well, good.

I'm gonna follow their example and not obey any law I feel is unconstitutional.
 
2013-03-19 03:18:03 PM
We've already won industry opinion and it's only a matter of time until Lapierre self destructs. Universal checks are coming, and it doesn't matter how many sheriffs want to cry about it.
 
2013-03-19 03:18:04 PM

Nadie_AZ: cman: cman: 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!!

Sheriffs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sheriff from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the Sheriff were convicted of a crime

WOW did I fark that up.

Fixt spelling

And here I thought the only way to remove a sheriff was to have him die.

/lives in sheriff joe's county
//i do remember his predecessor, however


My new sheriff's position is on this page. He's probably one of the 340 the article mentions.
 
2013-03-19 03:18:11 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: 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!!


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 laws are not within the jurisdiction of anyone but the federal government.


So? Law enforcement is still supposed to obey and enforce federal laws too.
 
2013-03-19 03:18:48 PM

Fano: Would they go sans sherif?

 
2013-03-19 03:19:04 PM
"Let's say you get arrested in this guy's county for something like DUI. Could you argue discrimination in court due to the Sheriff admitting he is selectively enforcing laws? "

Every US Law enforcement agency in existence is ALLOWED to selectively enforce laws
 
2013-03-19 03:19:10 PM
Maybe they shouldn't be bothered to swear to uphold the Constitution either.  Yea, about that old document.
 
2013-03-19 03:19:58 PM

umad: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: 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!!


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 laws are not within the jurisdiction of anyone but the federal government.

So? Law enforcement is still supposed to obey and enforce federal laws too.


Including laws not under their jurisdiction? I think the FBI might have a problem with that
 
2013-03-19 03:20:09 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-19 03:20:19 PM
A real news article about this issue and why the sheriff is right and justified. Link
 
2013-03-19 03:20:28 PM

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.
 
2013-03-19 03:20:35 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Sheriffs have a right to prioritize wich laws they will enforce. I seem to remember us liberal cheering when police officers were refusing Arizonas Paper Please laws.


Yup.

Police make decisions every day about which laws to enforce or not.  Sometimes it comes down to thinking the law is bullshiat and refusing to enforce a law they know is unjust.

This is one.
 
2013-03-19 03:21:40 PM
activist sheriff
 
2013-03-19 03:22:04 PM
Ahem... Lots of Sheriffs don't enforce laws they disagree with already.

Furthermore, the issues mentioned wouldn't be enforced by the Sheriffs. These are ATF issues.

And another thing; The fees for background checks will be swallowed by the dealers.
 
2013-03-19 03:22:06 PM
personally, i don't enforce any laws.

/not a cop, deputy, or agent.
 
2013-03-19 03:22:12 PM
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.
 
2013-03-19 03:22:30 PM
These laws are unenforceable*.

*unless you happen to be a brown-skinned firearms enthusiast
 
2013-03-19 03:22:31 PM

Giltric: 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!!


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?


I really wish we could.
 
2013-03-19 03:23:08 PM
CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR.
CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.


It's funded by a bunch of people with no agenda what-so-ever.
 
2013-03-19 03:23:40 PM

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.


This is probably the extent of his Constitutional thinking. He still isn't the person who decides such things.
 
2013-03-19 03:24:15 PM

RevBigfoot: Question to the Farkers with a GED in law:

Let's say you get arrested in this guy's county for something like DUI. Could you argue discrimination in court due to the Sheriff admitting he is selectively enforcing laws?

I mean, common sense we know it's stupid, but I'm just wondering if a sheriff making this kind of claim to neglect his job duties could cause legal blow back from a different angle.


You could argue it.  You'll lose.
 
2013-03-19 03:24:43 PM
You do realize every single sheriff in Colorado is already violating federal law about weed possession.  It's a non-story and up to the county voters to remove the dude (either net election or w/ a recall depending on county rules).
 
2013-03-19 03:25:19 PM
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?
 
2013-03-19 03:25:22 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!!


You sound like an aspiring screen writer for Hollywood.  Very cliche' and PC to boot.   Try not to panic through life too hard.
 
2013-03-19 03:25:23 PM
Only the President can get away with saying he is not going to prosecute certain laws. Podunk sheriffs do not get that option.
 
2013-03-19 03:25:29 PM
I wonder where Sheriff Joe stands on this. Because you know if he was involved his pasty face would have been at the top of the article. Arpiao is corrupt, reactionary and is wont to dwell in right-wing Candyland but the man has made a career of just skirting the edge of legality. Which makes me think that he knows something these bush-league attention wh0res don't.
 
2013-03-19 03:26:02 PM
I am not convinced in 60 posts that ANY OF YOU read TFA.  It wasn't the one sheriff. Apparently, it's THREE HUNDRED FORTY.
 
2013-03-19 03:26:51 PM

coeyagi: I am not convinced in 60 posts that ANY OF YOU read TFA.  It wasn't the one sheriff. Apparently, it's THREE HUNDRED FORTY.


How many counties does colorado have?
 
2013-03-19 03:26:52 PM
it didnt work out that great for bunny.
 
2013-03-19 03:27:02 PM
All I want to know is...

...where can I contribute to this guy's re-election campaign?  Because he's awesome.
 
2013-03-19 03:27:04 PM

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


0/10.  Sheriffs aren't prosecutors, ace.

//would like to say "but you knew that", but alas, you probably didn't.
 
2013-03-19 03:27:20 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Sheriffs have a right to prioritize wich laws they will enforce. I seem to remember us liberal cheering when police officers were refusing Arizonas Paper Please laws.


And as has been pointed out in the past threads on this; WE KNOW.  It's just that these dumb ass sheriffs do not.

All they have to do is say:  "Due to current budget and time constraints, we only have the resources to investigate so many crimes as well as do general street patrolling.   Given the other demands on our officers these new unfunded mandates will not take a high priority in enforcement for my staff."

That's fine and that's LEGAL.

What's retarded is a bunch of plumdunk sheriffs in the sticks suddenly declaring themselves constitutional lawyers and saying they won't enforce laws solely because they *think* they're unconstitutional.  If they think they are unconstitutional, challenge them in court.  Otherwise STFU and do your job.
 
2013-03-19 03:28:12 PM

potterydove: coeyagi: I am not convinced in 60 posts that ANY OF YOU read TFA.  It wasn't the one sheriff. Apparently, it's THREE HUNDRED FORTY.

How many counties does colorado have?


I am not sure TFA was referring to just Colorado.  It was written by CNS, after all, where the "liberal slant" is gone as well as writing standards.
 
2013-03-19 03:28:12 PM

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.


You can't just show up with a stack of papers and ask for depositions. The FBI would have to file in court. And a local community saying "F U" to the feds makes the feds (and the President) look like complete morons. Joe Arpaio has been in full retard mode for years and the feds haven't been able to do diddly. Since a lot of local law enforcement can casually flip off the FBI over marijuana laws, you really think they'll have trouble doing it over gun control?

Feinstein, Obama, etc are completely out of touch with gun sentiments in the rural parts of the country. What makes total sense in Chicago or New York just won't fly in Troy, Missouri. And in a lot of these areas, a sheriff that refuses to enforce federal gun control laws is a hero.
 
2013-03-19 03:28:27 PM
Ugh... I can't believe I just gave Sheriff Joe credit even backhandedly. I think I'll go take a quick shower.
 
2013-03-19 03:28:29 PM
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
 
2013-03-19 03:28:31 PM

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?
 
2013-03-19 03:28:35 PM

cman: 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!!

Sherifs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sherif from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the sherif were convicted of a crime


The Sherif don't like it.
 
2013-03-19 03:28:40 PM

potterydove: How many counties does colorado have?


64
 
2013-03-19 03:29:00 PM

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.
 
2013-03-19 03:29:06 PM

Fano: cman: 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!!

Sherifs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sherif from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the sherif were convicted of a crime

Would they go sans sherif?


10/10
 
2013-03-19 03:29:07 PM

dewright_ca: This is from the same lib-tard mentality that think its wrong to ask for a drug test for getting public assistance, or that don't care what you use you EBT card for.


That would be the fiscally responsible mentality that pointed out that it wasn't cost effective in Florida?
 
2013-03-19 03:29:54 PM
Sweet, so cops only have to enforce laws they agree with, and still get to keep their jobs?  I'm gonna become a cop and just become a conscientious objector, just chill out and eat.  Badass.
 
2013-03-19 03:30:10 PM

ZeroPly: 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.

You can't just show up with a stack of papers and ask for depositions. The FBI would have to file in court. And a local community saying "F U" to the feds makes the feds (and the President) look like complete morons. Joe Arpaio has been in full retard mode for years and the feds haven't been able to do diddly. Since a lot of local law enforcement can casually flip off the FBI over marijuana laws, you really think they'll have trouble doing it over gun control?

Feinstein, Obama, etc are completely out of touch with gun sentiments in the rural parts of the country. What makes total sense in Chicago or New York just won't fly in Troy, Missouri. And in a lot of these areas, a sheriff that refuses to enforce federal gun control laws is a hero.


Both sides are bad... so vote secession?

//I would.
 
2013-03-19 03:30:54 PM

cman: 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!!

Sherifs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sherif from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the sherif were convicted of a crime


Considering that these bills will be state law, and that counties of a state must abide by state laws; the sheriff is committing a crime by not enforcing state law.
 
2013-03-19 03:31:00 PM
urbanhabitat.org

Refusing to enforce "unjust" laws isn't anything new to conservatives.
 
2013-03-19 03:31:16 PM

ShadowKamui: You do realize every single sheriff in Colorado is already violating federal law about weed possession.  It's a non-story and up to the county voters to remove the dude (either net election or w/ a recall depending on county rules).


Ayup
 
2013-03-19 03:31:16 PM

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.


Like with machine guns and sawed-off shotguns or guns with serial numbers removed?
 
2013-03-19 03:31:27 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!!


There is only one law that matters. God's Law.

....is what their response would be.
 
2013-03-19 03:31:31 PM
CNSNews.com is  not funded  by the government like NPR.
CNSNews.com is  not funded  by the government like PBS.


Thank goodness. I was all set to make my generous gift of $500.00, but then I was wondering if perhaps they were government-funded.

Still, I worry about the Liberal Media that doesn't report on THE TRUTH. Is CNSNews.com part of the Liberal Media that distorts and ignores THE TRUTH? I wish there were some way of knowing.
 
2013-03-19 03:31:31 PM
Wow, CNS, another jerk-off rag for right-wing 'patriots',  AKA cranky fat oldsters chest-pounding about:

[] Gubmint by 'we the people' (meaning every member of the Low T shuffle board team, but no niggrahs).
[] Militia revolution (a distinct and obese minority of deer spotlighters thinking they can take over a single county, much less the country).
[] The Constitution (while ignoring actual sentence structure in the original Bill of Rights...along with the other 17 amendments). And being blithely ignorant of several centuries of Supreme Court interpretations on various statues, because Waaaaaah! Judicial Activists!

Bonus hilarity: All the indignant Pillsbury-dough-boy tough guys slobbering wall to wall on CNS's comment boards.
 
2013-03-19 03:31:51 PM

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


Cop logic is a sub-discipline of cop math.
 
2013-03-19 03:31:56 PM

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

0/10.  Sheriffs aren't prosecutors, ace.

//would like to say "but you knew that", but alas, you probably didn't.


That's what I am saying. The sheriff just arrests people. Other people get to decide if the law is pursued.
 
2013-03-19 03:32:01 PM

Dixon Cider: "Farking conservatives thinks it's OK to break the law, if it is something they want."



So...choosing to selectively enforce federal drug laws in Colorado is good, while choosing to selectively enforce state gun laws in Colorado is bad. Because....because "farking conservatives", that's why. Got it.
 
2013-03-19 03:32:09 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?


Yes, because they're probably Punjabi, and know more about the constitution than folks who grew up here.
 
2013-03-19 03:32:16 PM
So all of you people who say the sheriffs who won't enforce gun laws are assholes, you would have exactly the same opinion of them if they said they aren't going to enforce marajuana laws. AMIRITE????
 
2013-03-19 03:32:25 PM
Do NOT look directly at the comments of TFA.
 
2013-03-19 03:32:55 PM
On another note....

Subby doesn't really get the "Yeah, about that..." meme.
 
2013-03-19 03:33:54 PM

coeyagi: potterydove: coeyagi: I am not convinced in 60 posts that ANY OF YOU read TFA.  It wasn't the one sheriff. Apparently, it's THREE HUNDRED FORTY.

How many counties does colorado have?

I am not sure TFA was referring to just Colorado.  It was written by CNS, after all, where the "liberal slant" is gone as well as writing standards.


I agree, They are like the Mother Jones News of the right.
 
2013-03-19 03:34:14 PM

coeyagi: I am not convinced in 60 posts that ANY OF YOU read TFA.  It wasn't the one sheriff. Apparently, it's THREE HUNDRED FORTY.


i dont think you did

the 340 number comes from a lobbying group who says 340 Sheriff's(and other law enforcement personal) believe in the modern far right view of the second admendment (All American have the right to private ownership of any and  All military hardware)
 
2013-03-19 03:34:23 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!!


Authorities *don't* have to enforce laws they believe are unconstitutional. In fact some might say they have a responsibility to do so. If right now, the religious right managed to pass a national law banning same sex marriage, authorities would be in the right to refuse to enforce it.
 
2013-03-19 03:34:33 PM

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.
 
2013-03-19 03:34:46 PM

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.
 
2013-03-19 03:35:26 PM

aerojockey: So all of you people who say the sheriffs who won't enforce gun laws are assholes, you would have exactly the same opinion of them if they said they aren't going to enforce marajuana laws. AMIRITE????


You'd be right if they were refusing to enforce state marijuana laws or if they were Federal employees.

So no, you're wrong.
 
2013-03-19 03:35:40 PM

Caffandtranqs: cman: 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!!

Sherifs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sherif from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the sherif were convicted of a crime

Considering that these bills will be state law, and that counties of a state must abide by state laws; the sheriff is committing a crime by not enforcing state law.


Wrong.
 
2013-03-19 03:35:52 PM
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.
 
2013-03-19 03:36:09 PM

Wook: 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!!

You sound like an aspiring screen writer for Hollywood.  Very cliche' and PC to boot.   Try not to panic through life too hard.


Man... I know I was a little overboard with the whole thing. Did the sarcasm not bleed thru?
Settle down.. your latte will be here soon!
 
2013-03-19 03:36:26 PM
But did he rock the casbah?
 
2013-03-19 03:36:37 PM

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.
 
2013-03-19 03:36:55 PM

gunga galunga: 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!!

There is only one law that matters. God's Law.

....is what their response would be.


No snark without coffee... I get it! I get it!
 
2013-03-19 03:37:04 PM

Dr Dreidel: 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.

Do they swear to uphold the Constitution and all the duly-passed laws of their state? Because if so, you've got him on a perjury charge, or dereliction of duty, or violating his oath of office (or, like a prosecutor with a boner, charge him with ALL of that, PLUS murder 1, 2, 3, 4, and 25, PLUS "theft of services", PLUS "being dumb in a dumbass-free zone").

// if not, how do we know they're supposed to enforce the law?


Yes. Colorado Constitution:
Every civil officer, except members of the general assembly and such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of the office upon which he shall be about to enter.

Of course, this silly show-boating yahoo will contend he IS defending (what he imagines to be) the Constitution.
 
2013-03-19 03:37:05 PM

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.


You do understand that the letter "F" in FBI stands federal, and that this is not a federal matter?

He can only be forced to enforce those laws by an order from a state court. Even then, he might still get away with little to no enforcement.

I seem to recall something about Federal agents choosing not
to enforce immigration laws.

Laws that require existing gun owners to take lengthy classes and pay high registration fees are pretty odious, but I'm not sure what he thinks is unconstitutional here. I suppose you could argue that multiple background checks is unduly burdensome and violates the 2nd amendment. A bit dubious.
 
2013-03-19 03:37:14 PM

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
 
2013-03-19 03:37:19 PM
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
 
2013-03-19 03:37:25 PM

spmkk: Dixon Cider: "Farking conservatives thinks it's OK to break the law, if it is something they want."


So...choosing to selectively enforce federal drug laws in Colorado is good, while choosing to selectively enforce state gun laws in Colorado is bad. Because....because "farking conservatives", that's why. Got it.


It is the federal governments job to enforce federal law. It is the states job to enforce state law. States rights and all that ya know.
 
2013-03-19 03:37:48 PM

cman: 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!!

Sherifs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sherif from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the sherif were convicted of a crime


Yes, there are mechanisms to remove a sheriff. They vary from state and county, so I don't know what the situation in CO would be. There is usually a set of circumstances where another specific official can force a recall vote or arrest the sheriff. Those circumstances do not usually include the sheriff swearing to uphold the office and authority they were granted by a democratic vote.
 
2013-03-19 03:38:00 PM

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.


Only if they have said gun or mag in plain sight or there is a reasonable suspicion the person in question has said guns or mags, outside of a search warrant that is.

It's not like a traffic cop field stops your car looking for dope when you get pulled over for speeding.
 
2013-03-19 03:38:02 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Darth_Lukecash: Sheriffs have a right to prioritize wich laws they will enforce. I seem to remember us liberal cheering when police officers were refusing Arizonas Paper Please laws.

And as has been pointed out in the past threads on this; WE KNOW.  It's just that these dumb ass sheriffs do not.

All they have to do is say:  "Due to current budget and time constraints, we only have the resources to investigate so many crimes as well as do general street patrolling.   Given the other demands on our officers these new unfunded mandates will not take a high priority in enforcement for my staff."

That's fine and that's LEGAL.

What's retarded is a bunch of plumdunk sheriffs in the sticks suddenly declaring themselves constitutional lawyers and saying they won't enforce laws solely because they *think* they're unconstitutional.  If they think they are unconstitutional, challenge them in court.  Otherwise STFU and do your job.


You need someone to be charged under a law to challenge the law.  I think it is called "standing"....but IANAL.
 
2013-03-19 03:38:54 PM

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".
 
2013-03-19 03:39:08 PM

aerojockey: So all of you people who say the sheriffs who won't enforce gun laws are assholes, you would have exactly the same opinion of them if they said they aren't going to enforce marajuana laws. AMIRITE????


Did these sheriffs send the state's AG to meet with the Federal AG to determine the legality/enforceability of a state-level law in light of Federal law?

Because CO did just that about the weed law - they basically asked the US government for permission to break their drug law; they didn't stand on their gut knowledge of the Constitution, thumb their nose and say "Not in my state, lib!"
 
2013-03-19 03:39:14 PM

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.


So is the right to bear arms.

The NRA is the oldest civil rights group in the United States.
 
2013-03-19 03:39:14 PM

Fano: Would they go sans sherif?


That would be fine, as long as the don't go comic sans.
 
2013-03-19 03:39:16 PM
QUICK: HAS ANYBODY CALLED THEM  RACIST YET?!!?
 
2013-03-19 03:39:17 PM
But it's still OK for the President to tell the Justice Department not to enforce federal laws, amiright?
 
2013-03-19 03:39:21 PM

Quickmatch: On another note....

Subby doesn't really get the "Yeah, about that..." meme.


This is the first thing I thought after reading the article.  There really was no 'yeah, about that' moment.
 
2013-03-19 03:39:32 PM

spmkk: Dixon Cider: "Farking conservatives thinks it's OK to break the law, if it is something they want."


So...choosing to selectively enforce federal drug laws in Colorado is good, while choosing to selectively enforce state gun laws in Colorado is bad. Because....because "farking conservatives", that's why. Got it.


Conservatives, oh say 75% of them are still assholes. The rest are OK. For realdo my dildo!
But again... I am sorry I snarked w/o coffee! I will take my online trashing...
 
2013-03-19 03:39:45 PM
CNSNews.com relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore.

Hmmm...today are we not commenting on the 10-year-anniversary of the Iraq War? Was all that cheerleading by the media leading up to it 'liberal?'
 
2013-03-19 03:40:03 PM

cman: 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!!

Sherifs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sherif from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the sherif were convicted of a crime


States can't do a damn thing to a sheriff unless he breaks a law the can prosecute. Sheriffs work for the county and it's up to the county government to decide how they pick a sheriff. Most are elected so it's up to the voter to fire them. None of these guys will suffer the tiniest bit of political fallout for deciding certain gun laws are not a priority.

They are also full of shiat. Don't think for a second that if they can't get anything else on someone brown they have a hardon for that they wont be happy to enforce it.
 
2013-03-19 03:40:06 PM
I wonder how many of the individuals in this thread are comfortable driving down the road at some number between 1 and 10 miles per hour over the speed limit and expect not to pulled over while doing so.  Is it fair that the cop gets to decide when to enforce that law?  What about if a cop sees someone with an open beer bottle in public and tells them to pour it out instead of citing them?  Is that OK?

The outrage in this thread about an elected law enforcement official making their priorities known is silly, at best.  If the citizens of the counties affected are so inclined they can start a recall petition and work to get the elected official removed from office.  They can also wait until the next election and vote for one of the other candidates if they're too lazy for the recall path.  Personally, I'd be glad that the Sheriff I helped elect is taking a public stand regarding a stupid set of laws and vote for them again when the time came.
 
2013-03-19 03:40:18 PM

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

0/10.  Sheriffs aren't prosecutors, ace.

//would like to say "but you knew that", but alas, you probably didn't.

That's what I am saying. The sheriff just arrests people. Other people get to decide if the law is pursued.


My bad, that could be read several different ways.
 
2013-03-19 03:40:44 PM
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.
 
2013-03-19 03:41:38 PM
What I'm wondering is this: exactly how independent is a Sheriff? Aside from the Oath of Office, who is a Sheriff beholden to? I was always under the impression that the Governor, or a county-level leader, is essentially the "Commander in Chief" of the Sheriff's department, regardless of whether the Sheriff is elected to that position or not. As such, wouldn't the Sheriff be liable for dereliction of duty if he fails to enforce duly-passed laws?
 
2013-03-19 03:41:40 PM
When was the last time an elected official was removed for malfeasance in office?

Last time I looked, ignoring your official duties was grounds for a malfeasance charge.
 
2013-03-19 03:41:54 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.



So to back up your assertion that only a President can get away with not enforcing laws, you point to how Obama isn't ignoring federal drug laws?
 
2013-03-19 03:42:03 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!!


You live near all 340 sheriffs?  Way to read the article.
 
2013-03-19 03:42:05 PM

ChuDogg: QUICK: HAS ANYBODY CALLED THEM  RACIST YET?!!?


sammyk: cman: 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!!

Sherifs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sherif from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the sherif were convicted of a crime

States can't do a damn thing to a sheriff unless he breaks a law the can prosecute. Sheriffs work for the county and it's up to the county government to decide how they pick a sheriff. Most are elected so it's up to the voter to fire them. None of these guys will suffer the tiniest bit of political fallout for deciding certain gun laws are not a priority.

They are also full of shiat. Don't think for a second that if they can't get anything else on someone brown they have a hardon for that they wont be happy to enforce it.


Annnnnd there ya go
 
2013-03-19 03:42:57 PM

Dixon Cider: Conservatives, oh say 75% of them are still assholes. The rest are OK. For realdo my dildo!


75% of people period are.
 
2013-03-19 03:43:21 PM

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?
 
2013-03-19 03:43:22 PM

weltallica: [urbanhabitat.org image 640x540]

Refusing to enforce "unjust" laws isn't anything new to conservatives.


0/10. I'd have given you 1 point if you'd worked Hitler or "Faux News" in there somehow.

I never thought this would be uber troll thread, boy was I wrong.
 
2013-03-19 03:43:22 PM
Wow, a metric shiat-ton anti-gun nutjobs in this thread.
 
2013-03-19 03:43:29 PM

Silverstaff: Darth_Lukecash: Sheriffs have a right to prioritize wich laws they will enforce. I seem to remember us liberal cheering when police officers were refusing Arizonas Paper Please laws.

Yup.

Police make decisions every day about which laws to enforce or not.  Sometimes it comes down to thinking the law is bullshiat and refusing to enforce a law they know is unjust.

This is one.


I think people underestimate just how many stupid and unfair laws are still on the books.
If the law enforcement is elected by the people rather than appointed by a politician, they'll do what they think their constituents want.

/I think I'd prefer it that way, given a choice.
/Keep the authority low to the ground, close to the people.
 
2013-03-19 03:43:48 PM

thenumber5: coeyagi: I am not convinced in 60 posts that ANY OF YOU read TFA.  It wasn't the one sheriff. Apparently, it's THREE HUNDRED FORTY.

i dont think you did

the 340 number comes from a lobbying group who says 340 Sheriff's(and other law enforcement personal) believe in the modern far right view of the second admendment (All American have the right to private ownership of any and  All military hardware)


Um, I never once indicated that the dogsh*t in the article was anything but dogsh*t, I am just saying people in this thread seem to be focusing on the one sheriff when TFA wasn't.
 
2013-03-19 03:44:29 PM

umad: So? Law enforcement is still supposed to obey and enforce federal laws too.


No.   Local law enforcement is under no obligation to enforce federal laws.

They have to obey federal laws just like everyone else, but they don't have to enforce them if they choose not to do so.
 
2013-03-19 03:44:38 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


Sorry about your brother. Did they convict the dirt bag that did it to him?
 
IP
2013-03-19 03:44:47 PM

Godscrack: Authoritarians love their privacy. They just don't give a shiat about yours.

 
2013-03-19 03:45:07 PM
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.


"Well Regulated Militia"

I am pretty sure he isn't
 
2013-03-19 03:45:22 PM
If they applied this logic to drug laws, I would be ok with it.
 
2013-03-19 03:45:29 PM
He moved to Phoenix?
 
2013-03-19 03:45:43 PM

vernonFL: Prostitution laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.

Drug laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.

Traffic laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.



There is no specific amendment to the Constitution protecting the People's right to prostitution, drugs or driving.

I haven't yet found the text of the Oath of Office sworn by Colorado sheriffs, but I'll bet Constitution is in the first sentence.
 
2013-03-19 03:46:10 PM

thenumber5: the Ban is on the sale of the magazines in question, like every other new law if you already own it your grandfathered in


1) That doesn't change the fact that the law is worded so poorly it is unenforceable and 2) it makes it even harder to tell if a magazine is legally owned since even magazines that are of illegal size might still be legal

tom baker's scarf: Only if they have said gun or mag in plain sight or there is a reasonable suspicion the person in question has said guns or mags, outside of a search warrant that is.

It's not like a traffic cop field stops your car looking for dope when you get pulled over for speeding.


It isn't "said magazines" because as I said all magazines are, under the wording of this law, probably illegal. So any indication that someone is a gun owner makes it likely they are in violation of this new law.
 
2013-03-19 03:46:11 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".


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.
 
2013-03-19 03:46:15 PM

Caffandtranqs: 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.


Actually a Cannon is considered a Muzzle Loading Firearm and falls under those rules so no special license or permit is required on a federal level.
 
2013-03-19 03:46:33 PM

ShadowKamui: You do realize every single sheriff in Colorado is already violating federal law about weed possession.


Sheriffs don't enforce any federal laws. From time to time the feds might ask them for help, but that's always optional. These guys are talking about ignoring STATE laws, which it IS their job to enforce.

This would be easily solved in the next budget bill, by earmarking a certain (slightly painful) percentage of the state money that goes to sheriffs for enforcement of this law. But I doubt these guys are in any way serious about the principle involved, now that they've had a chance to blow smoke up the asses of a few voters in the next low-turnout sheriff's election.
 
2013-03-19 03:46:38 PM

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.
 
2013-03-19 03:47:17 PM
I guess most people don't understand that sheriffs are elected, at least in Colorado. The Weld County sheriff and others are just responding to their constituents. They will get fired if they enforce the magazine ban in Colorado. The more you know....
 
2013-03-19 03:47:28 PM

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


Well, hoping is easier than mounting a recall election.

Oh, you thought he was employee?  Sorry.
 
2013-03-19 03:47:33 PM

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.





Clip limit does not infringe on an ownership of a weapon. You an Scalia can ignore the "Well Regulated Militia" part.
 
2013-03-19 03:47:33 PM

Animatronik: 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.

You do understand that the letter "F" in FBI stands federal, and that this is not a federal matter?

He can only be forced to enforce those laws by an order from a state court. Even then, he might still get away with little to no enforcement.

I seem to recall something about Federal agents choosing not
to enforce immigration laws.

Laws that require existing gun owners to take lengthy classes and pay high registration fees are pretty odious, but I'm not sure what he thinks is unconstitutional here. I suppose you could argue that multiple background checks is unduly burdensome and violates the 2nd amendment. A bit dubious.


The Supreme Court has already said you cannot prohibit guns in "common usage". These CO laws would not only prohibit "high capacity magazines" which come as standard with virtually every handgun produced, but also "readily convertible" magazines, which is quite literally 99% of removable magazines ever made. Banning an essential functional part of a item is a de facto ban on that item. Moreover, the laws would ban guns that can ACCEPT such magazines which is every magazine-fed firearm made.

That would probably fall under the definition of in "common usage".
 
2013-03-19 03:47:56 PM

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 dont

its about transfer of ownership

someone giving one to there buddy wont get you tagged

someone actively selling them to the general public will

just like the AWB, the people who got in trouble where the ones openly violating the ban
 
2013-03-19 03:48:26 PM
Based on the comments at the bottom of the article... I look forward to watching the Second American Civil War in HD in the near future,
 
2013-03-19 03:48:31 PM
I agree that the laws are passing as feel good, knee jerk, and worthless.
I know just because a bunch of weepy eyed libs sway their lawmaker into passing a hasty bandaid law and hold hands an sing kumbayah it isn't going to stop bad people from stealing guns, trading them for drugs, and generally creating mayhem and gunsmoke.
That being said. When you are a cop, you enforce the law.
/Only time I looked the other way when I was a cop was for roaches in the ashtray.
//lots of folks roll their own and I don't need to bother people who aren't breaking the law right in front of me.
///quit because my coworkers were racist, homophobic assholes.
 
2013-03-19 03:48:36 PM

Giltric: 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.

So is the right to bear arms.

The NRA is the oldest civil rights group in the United States.


While I agree the right to bear arms is a civil right, that does not change your lack of understanding of the distinction between civil law and criminal law.    Civil law does not mean "law pertaining to civil rights."

For the record, hillbilly sheriffs, just like the president, can choose not to enforce laws and do it all the time.  But your analogy was bad and you should feel bad.
 
2013-03-19 03:48:58 PM

Giltric: You need someone to be charged under a law to challenge the law. I think it is called "standing"....but IANAL.


In some cases, yes.  But for laws that you may reasonably be affected by you can sue to block them from taking effect pending court review.  Happens all the time, for example, with all the abortion laws Republicans have been pushing through.
 
2013-03-19 03:48:58 PM

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.
 
2013-03-19 03:49:43 PM

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.
 
2013-03-19 03:50:17 PM

aerojockey: So all of you people who say the sheriffs who won't enforce gun laws are assholes, you would have exactly the same opinion of them if they said they aren't going to enforce marajuana laws. AMIRITE????


Yeah, pretty much. In much the same way that I don't want sanitation workers deciding which environmental laws they think are reasonable and fair.
 
2013-03-19 03:50:45 PM

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?
 
2013-03-19 03:50:49 PM
img692.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-19 03:51:09 PM

odinsposse: thenumber5: the Ban is on the sale of the magazines in question, like every other new law if you already own it your grandfathered in

1) That doesn't change the fact that the law is worded so poorly it is unenforceable and 2) it makes it even harder to tell if a magazine is legally owned since even magazines that are of illegal size might still be legal

tom baker's scarf: Only if they have said gun or mag in plain sight or there is a reasonable suspicion the person in question has said guns or mags, outside of a search warrant that is.

It's not like a traffic cop field stops your car looking for dope when you get pulled over for speeding.

It isn't "said magazines" because as I said all magazines are, under the wording of this law, probably illegal. So any indication that someone is a gun owner makes it likely they are in violation of this new law.


likely manufactures will just start selling magazines like the California type that need to tool to remove the magazine
 
2013-03-19 03:51:13 PM

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.
 
2013-03-19 03:51:28 PM

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.


It is actually perfectly legal to have a cannon at your house and NONE of these proposed laws would change that.

Please write your reps and encourage them to ban the assault cannons that gangbangers and crazy people have been using to gun down innocent cops and children.
 
2013-03-19 03:51:42 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.


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.
 
2013-03-19 03:51:56 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Caffandtranqs: cman: 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!!

Sherifs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sherif from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the sherif were convicted of a crime

Considering that these bills will be state law, and that counties of a state must abide by state laws; the sheriff is committing a crime by not enforcing state law.

Wrong.


Interesting......Yet, one not in an elected position would themselves be committing a crime.  That's nice.
 
2013-03-19 03:52:04 PM
Seems like he was only following the lead of the justice dept.
 
2013-03-19 03:52:30 PM

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.


Thank you for an excellent example of just how much you have to cherry-pick the text of that amendment in order to arrive at the level of derp the NRA's reading relies on.

We've had an assault weapons ban before and did not slip into the sixth level of hell, and it's wildly irresponsible for organizations like the NRA and various Tea Party groups to suggest that we're approaching the End Times just because someone might have to reload more often. There are limits on every other amendment, yet they seem to think this one is somehow magical and includes magic words. Time to let go of the logic of an eight year-old and grow up.
 
2013-03-19 03:52:39 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Clip limit does not infringe on an ownership of a weapon.


Limits are ok on rights. We can limit free speech to 160 characters. We can search your house unreasonably, but only with less than 6 people. Ya know, we're going to ok marijuana use, you just can't use it in conjunction with any heat source or flame.
 
2013-03-19 03:52:50 PM

Satanic_Hamster: example, with all the abortion laws Republicans have been pushing through.


Those are already in direct contradiction to standing legislation. You are comparing apples to fetuses.
 
2013-03-19 03:53:22 PM

Caffandtranqs: Considering that these bills will be state law, and that counties of a state must abide by state laws; the sheriff is committing a crime by not enforcing state law.


Where did you get a dumb idea like that?
 
2013-03-19 03:53:28 PM

EViLTeW: Is that wrong, legally?


Not on a federal level, but since a cannon is considered a firearm, shooting it off in town may be an issue.
 
2013-03-19 03:53:34 PM

Tom_Slick: Caffandtranqs: 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.

Actually a Cannon is considered a Muzzle Loading Firearm and falls under those rules so no special license or permit is required on a federal level.


Yes, that's why I used it as an example.  Do you know many people with cannons?  Do you know many people who think people having cannons is a good idea?
 
2013-03-19 03:53:49 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!!


Its already against the law to discriminate.
 
2013-03-19 03:54:15 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?


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.
 
2013-03-19 03:54:20 PM

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.
 
2013-03-19 03:54:35 PM

spmkk: Dixon Cider: "Farking conservatives thinks it's OK to break the law, if it is something they want."


So...choosing to selectively enforce federal drug laws in Colorado is good, while choosing to selectively enforce state gun laws in Colorado is bad. Because....because "farking conservatives", that's why. Got it.


This sums up this thread 1,000%.

And for everyone complaining about selective enforcement on this thread I hope next time you're caught dead to rights doing something illegal...say, speeding, on your cell phone, and the cop says "I'm going to let you off with a warning this time." I hope tell that officer that you want his badge number and you're going to report him for dereliction of duty, you're going to the press, and you won't rest until you see that man fired and on the street living in a cardboard box!

/also I'm shocked no one has brought up illegal immigration yet.
 
2013-03-19 03:54:36 PM

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.
 
2013-03-19 03:54:45 PM
Fire all these douche nozzles..!!! Just do your farking job, no one cares about your opinions...
 
2013-03-19 03:54:47 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.


Lets see your blog.
 
2013-03-19 03:54:57 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!!


So... it is ok to break the rules you don't like, like who is allowed to have the government recognize their marriage, but it is NOT ok to break the rules you do like, like gun control, and then you call those people names for selectively enforcing laws.

Got it.  Not hypocritical at all.
 
2013-03-19 03:55:16 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.


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.
 
2013-03-19 03:55:24 PM

Harmania: There are limits on every other amendment,


and you don't think there aren't already a ton of limits on this one? Ya know, those national acts are just nusiances. Import laws? Pashaw...
 
2013-03-19 03:55:38 PM

MichiganFTL: Ya know, we're going to ok marijuana use, you just can't use it in conjunction with any heat source or flame.


Somebody pass the brownies.
 
2013-03-19 03:55:55 PM

Caffandtranqs: Tom_Slick: Caffandtranqs: 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.

Actually a Cannon is considered a Muzzle Loading Firearm and falls under those rules so no special license or permit is required on a federal level.

Yes, that's why I used it as an example.  Do you know many people with cannons?  Do you know many people who think people having cannons is a good idea?


ive know a few people who have old navy Cannons as lawn art

it not uncommon in areas with a long naval history
 
2013-03-19 03:56:15 PM

Fano: Would they go sans sherif?


It's the way of the futura.
 
2013-03-19 03:56:44 PM

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.
 
2013-03-19 03:56:47 PM

vernonFL: Prostitution laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.

Drug laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.

Traffic laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.


THIS

Someone please point out in the constitution where it says that I cannot do what I want with my own body for money. Where does it say in the constitution that I cannot grow and smoke dried plants in the privacy of my home? Where in the constitution does it say that I cannot drive my car 100 miles per hour on an empty west Texas road? These laws are stupid and unconstitutional.
 
2013-03-19 03:57:06 PM

Godscrack: [img692.imageshack.us image 630x454]


Maybe we should just institute a mustache tax on sheriffs. If you solve the debt crisis, who cares about guns?
 
2013-03-19 03:57:10 PM

GoldSpider: Caffandtranqs: Considering that these bills will be state law, and that counties of a state must abide by state laws; the sheriff is committing a crime by not enforcing state law.

Where did you get a dumb idea like that?


I used to work in law enforcement, but in TX.
 
2013-03-19 03:57:17 PM

GoldSpider: Caffandtranqs: Considering that these bills will be state law, and that counties of a state must abide by state laws; the sheriff is committing a crime by not enforcing state law.

Where did you get a dumb idea like that?


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


So then... I think we are done here.
 
2013-03-19 03:57:47 PM

Evil High Priest: 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.


Were you saying this when Obama and Holder decided to stop enforcing DOMA?
 
2013-03-19 03:57:57 PM

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.
 
2013-03-19 03:58:04 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Sheriffs have a right to prioritize wich laws they will enforce. I seem to remember us liberal cheering when police officers were refusing Arizonas Paper Please laws.


Which has nothing whatsoever to do with this particular story. Thanks for trying, though.
 
2013-03-19 03:58:11 PM

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...
 
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
 
2013-03-19 04:11:37 PM

GUTSU: 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.


He only does that in his spare time, his main job is to help the cartels launder their money
 
2013-03-19 04:11:46 PM

WippitGuud: 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.


Oh ok, then we're cool. Wait how did I get here?
 
2013-03-19 04:11:49 PM

pedobearapproved: And for everyone complaining about selective enforcement on this thread I hope next time you're caught dead to rights doing something illegal...say, speeding, on your cell phone, and the cop says "I'm going to let you off with a warning this time." I hope tell that officer that you want his badge number and you're going to report him for dereliction of duty, you're going to the press, and you won't rest until you see that man fired and on the street living in a cardboard box!


Depends. Did the cop get up in front of news cameras a few months prior and say that because he (with his years and years of legal work, combined with his certifications as a legal scholar) thinks traffic laws are unenforceable that he won't be writing any tickets for the indefinite future?

Or did he decide on the spot that doing 66 in a 65 wasn't worth either of your time?
 
2013-03-19 04:12:12 PM

WippitGuud: Based on the comments at the bottom of the article... I look forward to watching the Second American Civil War in HD in the near future,


As long as it's narrated by Ken Burns and set to old-timey banjo music, count me in.
 
2013-03-19 04:12:18 PM

ZeroPly: the rural parts of the country


Screw the hillbillies
 
2013-03-19 04:12:21 PM

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

Wait.
dude.
Can you smoke porn?
Like
what would happen?


There are some risks. Your lungs can fill with lube and there is, of course, the risk of priapism.
 
2013-03-19 04:12:22 PM

Giltric: 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.


No.  The 1st amendment is about "doing" something.  "Speaking" so to, uhm... speak.  There are restrictions/limits on your 1st amendment rights.  Limits to what you can "do".  You can be arrested/cited/convicted for speaking based on where, when, what you speak.

The 2nd amendment is about "possessing" something.  So, just like the 1st amendment, there are restrictions/limits on what you can possess.  Limits on where, what, when you possess it.   Magazine capacity limits, for example.   No guns in courtrooms, etc.

So not that we've established that the Constitution does, in fact, allow for limits on the right to keep/bear arms, it's just a matter of where the line is drawn.  In California, it's (unfortunately) 10-rounds in a magazine.  Now in Colorado it's apparently 15 rounds.  Some states it's 30.  Is a 30-round limit constitutional, but a 15-round limit isn't?   How so?

The sheriff can say it's unenforceable because it's poorly worded, I get that, no problem.   But to say it's "unconstitutional" is retarded.
 
2013-03-19 04:12:27 PM
Colorado Democratic Senate President John Morse is going to face a recall election over his support for firearms restrictions. Now, I understand that recall elections are notoriously difficult to pull off, but this one has a real chance. He represents CO Springs. Sure it is the blue collar, less Fundie part of the Springs, but it is still the Springs and he barely won reelection in 2010. He is going down.

Recall John Morse
 
2013-03-19 04:12:37 PM
As someone that works in Greeley CO, I'm getting a kick out of these replies

/ducks gun random fire
 
2013-03-19 04:13:41 PM

semiotix: 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.


You have never been to a gun show, and I doubt you are any sort of reasonable person. Why do you demonize people you've never met? Why do you assume people selling firearms are shady characters? Do you assume the same thing about people having yard sales, or selling a used car? Or should people not be allowed to sell their own property without government intervention?
 
2013-03-19 04:13:48 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Colorado Democratic Senate President John Morse is going to face a recall election over his support for firearms restrictions. Now, I understand that recall elections are notoriously difficult to pull off, but this one has a real chance. He represents CO Springs. Sure it is the blue collar, less Fundie part of the Springs, but it is still the Springs and he barely won reelection in 2010. He is going down.

Recall John Morse


Stupid hicks being stupid hicks.  Let them secede already.
 
2013-03-19 04:14:21 PM

jaybeezey: 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".


I'm pretty sure these sheriffs are mostly talking about the current state law regarding magazinse that is being fought, not any federal law.
 
2013-03-19 04:14:33 PM
Wait, so, there's a limit of 15 round in a magazine?


Uh...


Can I have more than one magazine?
 
2013-03-19 04:14:45 PM

thenumber5: 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


I've purchased several guns (rifles and pistols) here in California, and none of them require a tool that prevents me from quickly changing magazines.  The release on my Sig bought in CA works just like the release on my brother-in-law's Sig bought in Arizona.
 
2013-03-19 04:15:14 PM

GUTSU: Do you assume the same thing about people having yard sales, or selling a used car?


Actually yes, but I know less about yards and cars than I do firearms, so I feel I can avoid a scam. How much for the irradiated ants?


/I have no reason to be here anymore...
 
2013-03-19 04:15:22 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?


How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?
 
2013-03-19 04:15:42 PM

thenumber5: 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


Gun control can also be a federal matter.  Especially when we are talking about an assault weapons ban.
 
2013-03-19 04:15:59 PM
I am not a gun owner so I guess I am not seeing the issue with the 2 Colorado laws in question.  What is the big deal with having people pay for the background checks?  If you want to own the gun pay for the checks.  And what the issue on a 15 round limit on the magizine?  If you kill the guy (let's assume home invader) then what do you need the other 14 or more rounds for?  To make sure?

I guess I just do not get it.
 
2013-03-19 04:16:26 PM

WippitGuud: 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.


That's not the point. Firstly, they'd still arrest you. Secondly, knee-jerk limitations that have no basis in reality and do nothing to prevent anything are a waste of time trying to enforce, just like policing drugs. Yeah, people may abuse drugs and occasionally do bad shiat with them, too. How well are those preemptive restrictions on Sudafed working out for you?
 
2013-03-19 04:17:05 PM

GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?


murlocparliament.com
 
2013-03-19 04:17:19 PM

thenumber5: 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


Right. That makes those magazines legal in California. I already pointed out that same modification does not make those magazines legal here in Chicago, which has a similar set of assault weapon laws. So there is no certainty that that modification would make those magazines legal in Colorado.
 
2013-03-19 04:17:21 PM

GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?


$12 for a background check... that's less than the farking sales tax. So, now you have to pay $812 dollars....
 
2013-03-19 04:17:38 PM
What makes these inbred redneck sheriffs think they are the Supreme Court?
 
2013-03-19 04:17:46 PM

coeyagi: Ow! That was my feelings!: Colorado Democratic Senate President John Morse is going to face a recall election over his support for firearms restrictions. Now, I understand that recall elections are notoriously difficult to pull off, but this one has a real chance. He represents CO Springs. Sure it is the blue collar, less Fundie part of the Springs, but it is still the Springs and he barely won reelection in 2010. He is going down.

Recall John Morse

Stupid hicks being stupid hicks.  Let them secede already.


God forbid a politician be held accountable to the voters.  Sorry not everyone can rule by decree like Bloomburg
 
2013-03-19 04:17:52 PM

Tom_Slick: 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.


I mean cannons that use live ammunition to shoot large projectiles to inflict damage to a structure, not show pieces or (as someone before stated) as lawn decorations.

/Never tried to shoot one
 
2013-03-19 04:18:16 PM
This is a nice election gesture, but that's it. Cops will use any tool you give them if the feel they are taking criminals off the street by using it. You can say, "I will not enforce this law," but as soon as some criminal clearly flaunts the new law, a DA will most certainly prosecute them for it.
 
2013-03-19 04:18:26 PM

odinsposse: thenumber5: the Ban is on the sale of the magazines in question, like every other new law if you already own it your grandfathered in

1) That doesn't change the fact that the law is worded so poorly it is unenforceable and 2) it makes it even harder to tell if a magazine is legally owned since even magazines that are of illegal size might still be legal

tom baker's scarf: Only if they have said gun or mag in plain sight or there is a reasonable suspicion the person in question has said guns or mags, outside of a search warrant that is.

It's not like a traffic cop field stops your car looking for dope when you get pulled over for speeding.

It isn't "said magazines" because as I said all magazines are, under the wording of this law, probably illegal. So any indication that someone is a gun owner makes it likely they are in violation of this new law.


Please. the cops are already not looking to arrest anyone over this. Could most mags be modified to hold more than 15 rounds sure, if you cut out the bottom, wield or tape on another mag with a longer feeder spring etc but that's like saying if I'm transporting two cases of liquor I'm under suspicion of selling it without a license.

If on the other hand officer Lou opens your trunk and finds a bunch of mags with the bottoms cut off or there is just a removable plug so the 100 round drum can only hold 15 rounds while the plug is installed then you're obviously violating the law and should be detained.

This isn't a manpower or enforcement issue. This is a elected cop keeping his name in the papers stoking the derp so he can keep being an elected cop.
 
2013-03-19 04:18:29 PM
Juries have the ability to nullify a law (or at least a conviction under that law) they think is unenforceable or unconstitutional. Why wouldn't a sheriff also have that ability?
 
rka
2013-03-19 04:18:37 PM
Couple of things.

This sheriff is on his 3rd term and in the last election he got over 76% of the vote. I rather doubt his constituents are going to throw him out.

BUT

He's up against a term limit law. He needs a pending court case to go in his favor in order to run again in 2014.

Unless he himself violates a law or the constitution there is no legal reason for his removal. Not enforcing every law on the books does not rise to the level of law breaking for a sheriff.

The only thing that's unusual about this case is his very public commentary. Normally, sheriffs just quietly go about their business of non-enforcement.
 
2013-03-19 04:18:48 PM

Rose McGowan Loveslave: I am not a gun owner so I guess I am not seeing the issue with the 2 Colorado laws in question.  What is the big deal with having people pay for the background checks?  If you want to own the gun pay for the checks.  And what the issue on a 15 round limit on the magizine?  If you kill the guy (let's assume home invader) then what do you need the other 14 or more rounds for?  To make sure?

I guess I just do not get it.


Because granny with bad eyesight needs more than 6 rounds.  Or something about like a gang of people invading the house.  You know, real statistical worries.
 
2013-03-19 04:18:50 PM

cman: 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!!

Sherifs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sherif from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the sherif were convicted of a crime


The county coroner is usually the only elected official with authority to fire a sheriff outright (Ohio).  The state can step in as well, but they would likely tr to stay out of this.
 
2013-03-19 04:18:51 PM

Rose McGowan Loveslave: I am not a gun owner so I guess I am not seeing the issue with the 2 Colorado laws in question.  What is the big deal with having people pay for the background checks?  If you want to own the gun pay for the checks.  And what the issue on a 15 round limit on the magizine?  If you kill the guy (let's assume home invader) then what do you need the other 14 or more rounds for?  To make sure?

I guess I just do not get it.


Background checks aint the problem. The mag restriction legislation does absolutely nothing functionally, and by the wording, basically restricts virtually all magazines.

But yes, let's keep not saying anything as they chip away at our freedoms. After all, if you don't use your right to own a weapon, it doesn't affect you and isn't important, right?
 
2013-03-19 04:18:56 PM

WippitGuud: Wait, so, there's a limit of 15 round in a magazine?

Uh...

Can I have more than one magazine?


And if even a single child manages to escape while you're swapping magazines then it was worth it.
 
2013-03-19 04:19:31 PM

Godscrack: [img692.imageshack.us image 630x454]


Pure win.

(right click, save)
 
2013-03-19 04:19:43 PM

Caffandtranqs: Tom_Slick: 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.

I mean cannons that use live ammunition to shoot large projectiles to inflict damage to a structure, not show pieces or (as someone before stated) as lawn decorations.


Does it have to be gunpowder-powered?
Apparently there is a surprising number of people who have a backyard trebuchet
 
2013-03-19 04:21:08 PM

odinsposse: thenumber5: 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

Right. That makes those magazines legal in California. I already pointed out that same modification does not make those magazines legal here in Chicago, which has a similar set of assault weapon laws. So there is no certainty that that modification would make those magazines legal in Colorado.


....i see you just dense
 
2013-03-19 04:21:11 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: ZeroPly: the rural parts of the country

Screw the hillbillies


Yeah, fark everyone that doesn't live in a city, what do they do besides supply everything people in the cities need to live? Obviously they're all sister farking hicks, I bet they don't even pay $10 for a cup of coffee.
 
2013-03-19 04:21:32 PM

Satanic_Hamster: All they have to do is say: "Due to current budget and time constraints, we only have the resources to investigate so many crimes as well as do general street patrolling. Given the other demands on our officers these new unfunded mandates will not take a high priority in enforcement for my staff."

That's fine and that's LEGAL.


So, if he said things like these:

"Why put the effort into enforcing a law that is unenforceable? With all of the other crimes that are going on, I don't have the manpower, the resources or the desire to enforce laws like that."

"if a person who uses a gun outfitted with a magazine able to hold more than 15 rounds in a crime, that person will be charged under the new law."


You'd be ok with his decision?

It's obvious that he he isn't a fan of the law, but it's also obvious that his primary reasoning is that even if he liked the laws, he (and his force) have no ability to enforce them. The best they can do is tack it on as an extra charge for other crimes.
 
2013-03-19 04:21:32 PM

sirgrim: WippitGuud: Wait, so, there's a limit of 15 round in a magazine?

Uh...

Can I have more than one magazine?

And if even a single child manages to escape while you're swapping magazines then it was worth it.


And I agree.

I want to know why people are whining that they have to carry two 15-round clips instead of one 30-round clip.
 
2013-03-19 04:21:38 PM

Bravo Two: Background checks aint the problem. The mag restriction legislation does absolutely nothing functionally, and by the wording, basically restricts virtually all magazines.

But yes, let's keep not saying anything as they chip away at our freedoms. After all, if you don't use your right to own a weapon, it doesn't affect you and isn't important, right?


Inoright?  This is just like when it was decided you couldn't shout fire in a crowded theater and then the right to free speech disappeared.
 
2013-03-19 04:21:51 PM

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.


Just out of curiosity, what does the FBI have to do with an argument between state and county officials over the enforcement of a state law?
 
2013-03-19 04:22:13 PM

Caffandtranqs: I mean cannons that use live ammunition to shoot large projectiles to inflict damage to a structure, not show pieces or (as someone before stated) as lawn decorations.


Would a bowling ball mortar fall into that description?
 
2013-03-19 04:22:20 PM
As a gun owner in Colorado I am not impacted by either of these measures so it doesn't matter to me at all. You people whining about a magazine limit crack me up too, "I can't buy a new 30 round mag so i have to reload more now waaaaaaaahhhhhh". I can see the argument likening the paying your own background check fee is like a poll tax and might like to see that law stricken on those grounds and replaced with a system where everyone gets 1 free a year and then has to pay for them after that. Other than that, this all much ado about nothing.
 
2013-03-19 04:22:56 PM

Fano: sans


Came to say I see what you did there.

/nice pun
/your hair is nice too
 
2013-03-19 04:22:57 PM

Shryke: Evil High Priest: 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.

Were you saying this when Obama and Holder decided to stop enforcing DOMA?


They're sheriffs now? Who knew!

Sheriffs get to allocate resources. They don't get to decide court cases.
 
2013-03-19 04:23:35 PM

GUTSU: Yeah, fark everyone that doesn't live in a city, what do they do besides supply everything people in the cities need to live?


Yeah, there is no point to say fark the hillbillies, we need serfs willing to toil in the fields in order to make our city lives awesome.
 
2013-03-19 04:23:40 PM

ShadowKamui: coeyagi: Ow! That was my feelings!: Colorado Democratic Senate President John Morse is going to face a recall election over his support for firearms restrictions. Now, I understand that recall elections are notoriously difficult to pull off, but this one has a real chance. He represents CO Springs. Sure it is the blue collar, less Fundie part of the Springs, but it is still the Springs and he barely won reelection in 2010. He is going down.

Recall John Morse

Stupid hicks being stupid hicks.  Let them secede already.

God forbid a politician be held accountable to the voters.  Sorry not everyone can rule by decree like Bloomburg


That's fine, I am just advocating that they be hicks in their own country and stop f*cking up mine.  I know they want to. You know they want to.  Let them live in a paradise where anyone can do anything to anybody.  F*ck if I care.
 
2013-03-19 04:23:46 PM
And we're supposed to be afraid of al Qaeda? Here are 240 "law enforcement" officials vowing to subvert the law & the Constitution.
 
2013-03-19 04:23:51 PM

FreetardoRivera: GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

[murlocparliament.com image 695x535]


A poll tax is a reasonable restriction on the right to vote.  Reasonable.
 
2013-03-19 04:24:23 PM

pudding7: I've purchased several guns (rifles and pistols) here in California, and none of them require a tool that prevents me from quickly changing magazines. The release on my Sig bought in CA works just like the release on my brother-in-law's Sig bought in Arizona.


I think he is talking about AR-15s that end up requiring a "bullet button." Meaning you need a tool to remove the Ar mag.
 
2013-03-19 04:24:32 PM

GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?


Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?
 
2013-03-19 04:24:43 PM
Sheriff: I will NOT be supporting these gun control laws that will cause undue harm to law-abiding citizens by requiring them to pay a $12 registration fee...

...but if your ass gets caught with so much as a gram of marijuana, so help me GOD, I will use every tool at my disposal to make sure that the prosecutor can bury your ass under years of supervised probation. I'll also be there to honor the warrant for your arrest if you miss ONE payment to the court for your probation costs and court costs. I don't give a shiat how the missed days from work affects your ability to pay. Die, hippy.
 
2013-03-19 04:25:04 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

$12 for a background check... that's less than the farking sales tax. So, now you have to pay $812 dollars....


So it's okay to be forced to pay to exercise you're constitutional rights?
 
2013-03-19 04:25:29 PM

macdaddy357: What makes these inbred redneck sheriffs think they are the Supreme Court?


They don't think that. They think that they are law enforcement officers being told to do the impossible.
 
2013-03-19 04:25:30 PM
> will not enforce any new gun laws.

That declaration holds a dangerous lack of vision.
 
2013-03-19 04:25:34 PM

sirgrim: WippitGuud: Wait, so, there's a limit of 15 round in a magazine?

Uh...

Can I have more than one magazine?

And if even a single child manages to escape while you're swapping magazines then it was worth it.


What if it doesn't save a single child?  Is it still worth it to appease to some liberal sense of "We are doing something!"

I can't imagine 6 year old kids trapped in a classroom huddled scared in a corner will have any better chance against someone swapping mags vs a large mag.

Let's concentrate on things that will actually make a difference.  Like improved mental healthcare?

But no, just like banning 20oz sodas will end obesity, limiting magazine sizes will eliminate school shootings, right?
 
2013-03-19 04:25:58 PM

Caffandtranqs: 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?


You chose to ignore the "as relating to this text" part of my question, how surprising.  Why shouldn't someone own a Tommy gun, again?  As for the grenade, it's cute how you threw in an explosive to make your argument seem even scarier.  A person wishing to utilize an explosive device to harm others can make ones that are far, far more powerful than a grenade and you aren't going to run around banning cleaning chemicals or raw black powder, are you?  Ban fireworks so a criminal couldn't tear them all apart and take the powder?
 
2013-03-19 04:26:01 PM
They're all bluster and no backbone.
 
2013-03-19 04:26:52 PM

GoldSpider: FreetardoRivera: GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

[murlocparliament.com image 695x535]

A poll tax is a reasonable restriction on the right to vote.  Reasonable.


Is it justified? It needs to be justifiable to be reasonable (I mean, other than to give a favorable Math outcome to the GOP to make themselves feel better).
 
2013-03-19 04:27:16 PM

Evil High Priest: They're sheriffs now? Who knew!

Sheriffs get to allocate resources. They don't get to decide court cases.


And the DOJ doesn't? Snicker.
 
2013-03-19 04:27:28 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Sheriff: I will NOT be supporting these gun control laws that will cause undue harm to law-abiding citizens by requiring them to pay a $12 registration fee...

...but if your ass gets caught with so much as a gram of marijuana, so help me GOD, I will use every tool at my disposal to make sure that the prosecutor can bury your ass under years of supervised probation. I'll also be there to honor the warrant for your arrest if you miss ONE payment to the court for your probation costs and court costs. I don't give a shiat how the missed days from work affects your ability to pay. Die, hippy.


He is a sheriff in Colorado.  Think about that and your comment for a second.
 
rka
2013-03-19 04:27:34 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: ZeroPly: the rural parts of the country

Screw the hillbillies


Weld County isn't full of hillbillies. It has Longmont and Greeley as well as two of Denver's north-eastern suburbs in Northglenn and Thornton.

I can hit a golf ball to Weld County from my house and I don't live in the sticks.

/It's also the #1 agricultural county in the entire US east of the Rocky Mountains but I suppose to you anyone on a farm is a hillbilly.
 
2013-03-19 04:27:44 PM

GoldSpider: A poll tax is a reasonable restriction on the right to vote.  Reasonable



3/10 trolling
or
6/10 sarcasm
 
2013-03-19 04:27:54 PM

GoldSpider: 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.


Funny thing, the prosecutor also has discretion, and so long as he and the Sheriff see eye to eye, there is no crime.  As soon as they don't see eye to eye, the crimes start flying around like shiat in a monkey house. We have in fact seen that happen before, right here on fark.  I would not be surprised to see it again here.
 
2013-03-19 04:28:00 PM

GUTSU: So it's okay to be forced to pay to exercise you're constitutional rights?


If I had to pay to register to pay to vote, then you'd have a point.

Your argument is tantamount to saying that sales tax on guns in unconstitutional because they force you to pay the state to exercise your constitutional right.
 
2013-03-19 04:28:19 PM

meat0918: They're all bluster and no backbone.


Bingo. 340 morons who are about to discover the definition of "dereliction of duty", I expect.
 
2013-03-19 04:29:28 PM

GUTSU: WippitGuud: GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

$12 for a background check... that's less than the farking sales tax. So, now you have to pay $812 dollars....

So it's okay to be forced to pay to exercise you're constitutional rights?


Ok, so lets make the rule something like this:
"Acquisition of a firearm requires a background check. If you cannot afford the background check, then the background check will be waived."

Which puts it in the same boat as Right to Council.
 
2013-03-19 04:29:34 PM

coeyagi: Rose McGowan Loveslave: I am not a gun owner so I guess I am not seeing the issue with the 2 Colorado laws in question.  What is the big deal with having people pay for the background checks?  If you want to own the gun pay for the checks.  And what the issue on a 15 round limit on the magizine?  If you kill the guy (let's assume home invader) then what do you need the other 14 or more rounds for?  To make sure?

I guess I just do not get it.

Because granny with bad eyesight needs more than 6 rounds.  Or something about like a gang of people invading the house.  You know, real statistical worries.


This whole push for more gun control legislation is based on that......They have to go back 10 years and total up all the mass shootings to inflate the number  and make it scary enough to try to do something about via legislation
 
2013-03-19 04:29:46 PM

Earl of Chives: GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?


It doesn't have to be discrimination based on a protected class if protected classes are disproportionately affected (ie adverse impact). Protected class here being race. One could make an argument that since hispanics, blacks, and other racial minorities are disproportionately poorer than asians and whites, it has an adverse impact on their ability to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

IANAL so I don't know how well that would hold up.
 
2013-03-19 04:29:54 PM

WippitGuud: I want to know why people are whining that they have to carry two 15-round clips instead of one 30-round clip.


"It's not difficult to comply with" is not a justification for an asinine law. I can easily buy my Sunday beer on a Saturday, but blue laws are still retarded.
 
2013-03-19 04:29:57 PM

lilplatinum: Bravo Two: Background checks aint the problem. The mag restriction legislation does absolutely nothing functionally, and by the wording, basically restricts virtually all magazines.

But yes, let's keep not saying anything as they chip away at our freedoms. After all, if you don't use your right to own a weapon, it doesn't affect you and isn't important, right?

Inoright?  This is just like when it was decided you couldn't shout fire in a crowded theater and then the right to free speech disappeared.


If you had to get a background check before freely speaking then I'd say its an analogy worth considering.
 
2013-03-19 04:30:05 PM

Earl of Chives: GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?


So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?
 
2013-03-19 04:30:39 PM

GUTSU: You have never been to a gun show, and I doubt you are any sort of reasonable person. Why do you demonize people you've never met? Why do you assume people selling firearms are shady characters?


Rrrrrright. Also, I've certainly never fired a gun, or made love to a woman, or worked a day in my life. And the reason I'm not impressed by people who can drive stick must be because I can't.

I'm sure there are some gun shows out there populated by nothing but lantern-jawed sportsmen, constitutional scholars, Glock executives in button-downs, Olympic biathletes, and antique buffs. And then there are the ones where people go to buy guns.

Like I said, no matter how much you love or hate guns, check one of those out. You can decide for yourself if these people are "shady," or patriotic defenders of our Second Amendment rights. I'll say this much, they're the safest places in the world, and not because there are a million guns lying around.
 
2013-03-19 04:30:58 PM

sirgrim: WippitGuud: Wait, so, there's a limit of 15 round in a magazine?

Uh...

Can I have more than one magazine?

And if even a single child manages to escape while you're swapping magazines then it was worth it.


And if the parent and child is killed during a home invasion while the parent is swapping mags? Is it worth it then?
 
2013-03-19 04:31:24 PM
stupid law - nobody's going to pay attention to - not gonna enforce it - blah blah blah

fine lets all just sit on our hands and whine for and against and wait for the next 26 dead children and women.
.  .  .  .
Or we could give something a try and see if it works, if it doesn't and proves unworkable then fine lets move to something that is workable.

Because what we have now   ISN'T WORKINGor hasn't anyone noticed?  I would think that when you've been to enough funerals for dead children you'd start to think about things that don't work like our current LACK OF GUN REGULATION.
I'll go through it again- more people have died in gun violence since the Sandy Hook Elementary School murders than in all the shoot outs in the Wild West Era.

So the ball is in your court, YOU come up with something instead of "no".
 
2013-03-19 04:31:40 PM
Federal government won't enforce DOMA = hooray!
Local government won't enforce gun laws = OMG THIS GUY NEEDS A FIRING!
 
2013-03-19 04:31:45 PM

Giltric: 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.


The poor have no excuse.  Welfare more than covers the cost of an ID.  Put down the 40 and the pack of smokes and get an ID.
 
2013-03-19 04:32:00 PM

GUTSU: Earl of Chives: GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?


What is the fee to apply for a permit that allows you to hold a concert in Central Park?
 
2013-03-19 04:32:22 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: ZeroPly: the rural parts of the country

Screw the hillbillies


Not a really good PR strategy for the feds. Remember that the rural parts of the country are disproportionately represented by both active military and veterans. You know, the people who actually have real experience with guns, combat, and all those other other things that are being discussed. Feinstein has already had her pee-pee slapped by that Marine's "F*ck you and your idiot ideas, biatch" diatribe. What Obama and company are not looking for is a discussion of why people like them with no meaningful firearms know-how are supposed to be legislating firearms. It's kind of like SOPA/PIPA but with "clips" instead of DNS.
 
2013-03-19 04:32:28 PM

WippitGuud: I want to know why people are whining that they have to carry two 15-round clips instead of one 30-round clip.


The criminal can rush them during a mag swap......the same concept (rushing the attacker) can be used against the person defending themself with a firearm.
 
2013-03-19 04:32:55 PM

Giltric: coeyagi: Rose McGowan Loveslave: I am not a gun owner so I guess I am not seeing the issue with the 2 Colorado laws in question.  What is the big deal with having people pay for the background checks?  If you want to own the gun pay for the checks.  And what the issue on a 15 round limit on the magizine?  If you kill the guy (let's assume home invader) then what do you need the other 14 or more rounds for?  To make sure?

I guess I just do not get it.

Because granny with bad eyesight needs more than 6 rounds.  Or something about like a gang of people invading the house.  You know, real statistical worries.

This whole push for more gun control legislation is based on that......They have to go back 10 years and total up all the mass shootings to inflate the number  and make it scary enough to try to do something about via legislation


The whole push for less gun control is based on that too.  Cherry picking data.  Don't get me wrong, I am not a gun control advocate, but I favor their position on actually wanting to do something about the issue.  The other side only gives a f*ck about themselves, and anyone who says that expanding gun rights will help the situation is a lying f*ck shill for the gun lobby.
 
2013-03-19 04:32:59 PM

Darth_Lukecash: 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.

Clip limit does not infringe on an ownership of a weapon. You an Scalia can ignore the "Well Regulated Militia" part.


I'm not ignoring it. I know that it doesn't mean what you think it means so it is moot.
 
2013-03-19 04:33:30 PM

Communist_Manifesto: As a gun owner in Colorado I am not impacted by either of these measures so it doesn't matter to me at all.


When they came for the jews...I was not a jew so I did not care.

+1 for boot licking.
 
2013-03-19 04:33:33 PM

wildcardjack: Ahem... Lots of Sheriffs don't enforce laws they disagree with already.

Furthermore, the issues mentioned wouldn't be enforced by the Sheriffs. These are ATF issues.


There's a difference between enforcing laws and refusing to report crimes one has discovered, if one has a legal duty to report such crimes.  Under federal law, all citizens have a duty to report felonies unless they have certain relationships with the offenders.  IDK if sheriffs have any stricter duty.  I do know that "the offender elected me" is not among the exempted relationships.
 
2013-03-19 04:34:38 PM

tricycleracer: GUTSU: So it's okay to be forced to pay to exercise you're constitutional rights?

If I had to pay to register to pay to vote, then you'd have a point.

Your argument is tantamount to saying that sales tax on guns in unconstitutional because they force you to pay the state to exercise your constitutional right.


I'm not talking about sales tax, since you can purchase firearms from other private party and aren't subject to sales tax. However having to pay for a background check, is a restriction. But hey, fark poor people right?
 
2013-03-19 04:34:45 PM

pudding7: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?

What is the fee to apply for a permit that allows you to hold a concert in Central Park?


Why would something held in a public venue be applicable or comparable to something owned and held at home? Now if you want to compare carrying a gun in public to holding  a concert in public, go ahead.
 
2013-03-19 04:35:04 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?


Think Poll Tax.
 
2013-03-19 04:35:21 PM

way south: lilplatinum: Bravo Two: Background checks aint the problem. The mag restriction legislation does absolutely nothing functionally, and by the wording, basically restricts virtually all magazines.

But yes, let's keep not saying anything as they chip away at our freedoms. After all, if you don't use your right to own a weapon, it doesn't affect you and isn't important, right?

Inoright?  This is just like when it was decided you couldn't shout fire in a crowded theater and then the right to free speech disappeared.

If you had to get a background check before freely speaking then I'd say its an analogy worth considering.


Limits on two fundamentally different things are going to be demonstratively different in effect.  The argument I was responding to was implying that any limit is going to lead to the destruction of that right.  Even Scalia agrees the 2nd amendment can be limited.
 
2013-03-19 04:35:59 PM

Fano: Would they go sans sherif?


+1
 
2013-03-19 04:37:34 PM

semiotix: You can decide for yourself if these people are "shady," or patriotic defenders of our Second Amendment rights.


For the most part they are neither. They're just people looking to buy and sell stuff.

Marcintosh: Or we could give something a try and see if it works, if it doesn't and proves unworkable then fine lets move to something that is workable.


I carry a magic rock, and I've never been shot. Clearly, distributing magic rocks is a worthwhile endeavor, because why not?

/Since when is "Let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" a valid form of lawmaking?
 
2013-03-19 04:37:43 PM

redmid17: pudding7: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?

What is the fee to apply for a permit that allows you to hold a concert in Central Park?

Why would something held in a public venue be applicable or comparable to something owned and held at home? Now if you want to compare carrying a gun in public to holding  a concert in public, go ahead.


My point was that we already have to sometimes pay to exercise our rights.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it already happens a whole lot.
 
2013-03-19 04:37:58 PM

coeyagi: Giltric: coeyagi: Rose McGowan Loveslave: I am not a gun owner so I guess I am not seeing the issue with the 2 Colorado laws in question.  What is the big deal with having people pay for the background checks?  If you want to own the gun pay for the checks.  And what the issue on a 15 round limit on the magizine?  If you kill the guy (let's assume home invader) then what do you need the other 14 or more rounds for?  To make sure?

I guess I just do not get it.

Because granny with bad eyesight needs more than 6 rounds.  Or something about like a gang of people invading the house.  You know, real statistical worries.

This whole push for more gun control legislation is based on that......They have to go back 10 years and total up all the mass shootings to inflate the number  and make it scary enough to try to do something about via legislation

The whole push for less gun control is based on that too.  Cherry picking data.  Don't get me wrong, I am not a gun control advocate, but I favor their position on actually wanting to do something about the issue.  The other side only gives a f*ck about themselves, and anyone who says that expanding gun rights will help the situation is a lying f*ck shill for the gun lobby.


Body armor and high cap magazines seem to work well in protecting police officers. That was their justification in going from 6 round wheel guns to high cap semi autos.

Shouldnt civillians be allowed the same protective gear as police officers?
 
2013-03-19 04:38:02 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: DROxINxTHExWIND: Sheriff: I will NOT be supporting these gun control laws that will cause undue harm to law-abiding citizens by requiring them to pay a $12 registration fee...

...but if your ass gets caught with so much as a gram of marijuana, so help me GOD, I will use every tool at my disposal to make sure that the prosecutor can bury your ass under years of supervised probation. I'll also be there to honor the warrant for your arrest if you miss ONE payment to the court for your probation costs and court costs. I don't give a shiat how the missed days from work affects your ability to pay. Die, hippy.

He is a sheriff in Colorado.  Think about that and your comment for a second.


The SHERIFFS didn't legalize marijuana in Colorado. Elected officials did. The same elected officials that this sheriff plans to ignore regarding gun control. Whats stopping him from deciding that MJ should remain illegal and going on a rampage to round up smokers?
 
2013-03-19 04:38:04 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.


L
 
2013-03-19 04:38:05 PM

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.


What does the FBI have to do with enforcement of state-level laws?
 
2013-03-19 04:38:28 PM

pudding7: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?

What is the fee to apply for a permit that allows you to hold a concert in Central Park?


Is Central Park owned by you, or if it's public land, would your concert impede other citizens use of the park? Last time I checked, you could hold your drum circle or kazoo jam on your own land without charge.
 
2013-03-19 04:38:47 PM

pudding7: redmid17: pudding7: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?

What is the fee to apply for a permit that allows you to hold a concert in Central Park?

Why would something held in a public venue be applicable or comparable to something owned and held at home? Now if you want to compare carrying a gun in public to holding  a concert in public, go ahead.

My point was that we already have to sometimes pay to exercise our rights.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it already happens a whole lot.


That's fine. Your comparison was just off. Public application of rights is totally different than private application of rights, even if the gun can obviously be used in a public setting.
 
2013-03-19 04:38:52 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: semiotix: You can decide for yourself if these people are "shady," or patriotic defenders of our Second Amendment rights.

For the most part they are neither. They're just people looking to buy and sell stuff.

Marcintosh: Or we could give something a try and see if it works, if it doesn't and proves unworkable then fine lets move to something that is workable.

I carry a magic rock, and I've never been shot. Clearly, distributing magic rocks is a worthwhile endeavor, because why not?

/Since when is "Let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" a valid form of lawmaking?


Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
 
2013-03-19 04:39:24 PM
How is this any different than a pharmacist who refuses to dispense birth control?  If you won't do your job, you shouldn't have that job, regardless of your personal beliefs.
 
2013-03-19 04:39:29 PM

Giltric: 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!!


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?



That or wall the cities off.
 
2013-03-19 04:39:39 PM

Giltric: Communist_Manifesto: As a gun owner in Colorado I am not impacted by either of these measures so it doesn't matter to me at all.

When they came for the jews...I was not a jew so I did not care.

+1 for boot licking.


Small difference between limiting capacity sizes and the holocaust. The only bad thing that happened is that you have to reload more often and you now have to prove that a mag of over 15 rounds was yours prior to the ban which isn't that big of a deal for a law abiding gun owner. I have no illusions about the guns I own, they're their in case someone breaks into my house and that's it. You might have a fantasy where you're going to go fight tyranny along with all of your other viking warrior brethren when the government comes around to take your gun, I have however watched the videos of drones blowing people away with assault rifles in Afghanistan and know who is going to win that fight when it comes.

+1 for being a moron with no understanding of nuance
 
2013-03-19 04:39:45 PM

EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: 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?

You chose to ignore the "as relating to this text" part of my question, how surprising.  Why shouldn't someone own a Tommy gun, again?  As for the grenade, it's cute how you threw in an explosive to make your argument seem even scarier.  A person wishing to utilize an explosive device to harm others can make ones that are far, far more powerful than a grenade and you aren't going to run around banning cleaning chemicals or raw black powder, are you?  Ban fireworks so a criminal couldn't tear them all apart and take the powder?


Exactly, they don't ban the chemicals used to make homemade bombs, but they do make getting large quantities of the chemicals difficult.  The ATF, ICE, and Homeland Security track the sale of all those things and regularly bust people if they are ordering large quantities of the stuff.  Where are you?  Fireworks ARE banned in certain places because of the destructive nature of them.  How does adding a tommy gun to the argument make it appear scary.  They ARE illegal guns because of their killing capacity.  The country learned all about that in the "glory days" of the mafia.  And yet, according to gun fans, that should be unconstitutional, but it does not bother you guys because you've never played with one, so you have no feelings about tommy guns.
 
2013-03-19 04:39:47 PM

Giltric: 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?


Absolutely not.  The act prevents the government from maintaining such a database. The gun shop is not the government.
 
2013-03-19 04:39:47 PM

redmid17: pudding7: redmid17: pudding7: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?

What is the fee to apply for a permit that allows you to hold a concert in Central Park?

Why would something held in a public venue be applicable or comparable to something owned and held at home? Now if you want to compare carrying a gun in public to holding  a concert in public, go ahead.

My point was that we already have to sometimes pay to exercise our rights.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it already happens a whole lot.

That's fine. Your comparison was just off. Public application of rights is totally different than private application of rights, even if the gun can obviously be used in a public setting.


Good point.  My bad.
 
2013-03-19 04:40:44 PM

tom baker's scarf: Please. the cops are already not looking to arrest anyone over this. Could most mags be modified to hold more than 15 rounds sure, if you cut out the bottom, wield or tape on another mag with a longer feeder spring etc but that's like saying if I'm transporting two cases of liquor I'm under suspicion of selling it without a license.


That's the language of the law. Of course, if it were only selectively enforced...

If on the other hand officer Lou opens your trunk and finds a bunch of mags with the bottoms cut off or there is just a removable plug so the 100 round drum can only hold 15 rounds while the plug is installed then you're obviously violating the law and should be detained.

Or they are grandfathered magazines. So there would have to be an investigation to see if they are legal. Which is also true if you didn't selectively enforce the law and saw anyone with a magazine fed gun.

So yes, lots of manpower is required to investigate those things if you follow the letter of the law.
 
2013-03-19 04:41:12 PM

pudding7: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.


Go to hell, I don't want to get shot. Find your own rock.
 
2013-03-19 04:42:45 PM

Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: 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?

You chose to ignore the "as relating to this text" part of my question, how surprising.  Why shouldn't someone own a Tommy gun, again?  As for the grenade, it's cute how you threw in an explosive to make your argument seem even scarier.  A person wishing to utilize an explosive device to harm others can make ones that are far, far more powerful than a grenade and you aren't going to run around banning cleaning chemicals or raw black powder, are you?  Ban fireworks so a criminal couldn't tear them all apart and take the powder?

Exactly, they don't ban the chemicals used to make homemade bombs, but they do make getting large quantities of the chemicals difficult.  The ATF, ICE, and Homeland Security track th ...


That's the point I was trying to make earlier.  Constitutionally, what's the difference between a 30-round limit and a 15-round limit.  Either the Constitution allows for limits or it doesn't.  I don't see anyone taking California's annoying 10-round limit to the Supreme Court, so I guess limits are Constitutional.

The "unenforceable" argument sounds like it has merit.  The "unconstitutional" argument does not.
 
2013-03-19 04:43:30 PM
themindoftefft.com
 
2013-03-19 04:43:34 PM

GUTSU: Earl of Chives: GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?


Someone is gonna pay for the background check - might as well be the user. I have no problem throwing it on a sliding scale so the poor can get a break, but it isn't tearing the constitution asunder if we don't. I'd like a free passport, but I have to pay for that thing. The accused have a right to counsel, doesn't mean everyone gets it free. Just because something is a right, that doesn't mean it's free, that's a well established principal of law.
 
2013-03-19 04:43:36 PM

Nadie_AZ: cman: cman: 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!!

Sheriffs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sheriff from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the Sheriff were convicted of a crime

WOW did I fark that up.

Fixt spelling

And here I thought the only way to remove a sheriff was to have him die.

/lives in sheriff joe's county
//i do remember his predecessor, however


If it wasn't for him to screw up the Buddhist(?) temple murders we wouldn't have Sheriff "Nickle Bag Joe" Arpaio.
 
2013-03-19 04:43:41 PM

Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: 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?

You chose to ignore the "as relating to this text" part of my question, how surprising.  Why shouldn't someone own a Tommy gun, again?  As for the grenade, it's cute how you threw in an explosive to make your argument seem even scarier.  A person wishing to utilize an explosive device to harm others can make ones that are far, far more powerful than a grenade and you aren't going to run around banning cleaning chemicals or raw black powder, are you?  Ban fireworks so a criminal couldn't tear them all apart and take the powder?

Exactly, they don't ban the chemicals used to make homemade bombs, but they do make getting large quantities of the chemicals difficult.  The ATF, ICE, and Homeland Security track th ...


Tommy Guns aren't illegal on a federal level, just highly regulated. They are illegal in some states though, since the states have a ban on NFA weapons. However tommy guns were theoretically banned because they were not in common use and of no use to the militia, not because they looked scary.
 
2013-03-19 04:44:22 PM
Evil High Priest:
"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.


So you're advising that he just follows orders?
 
2013-03-19 04:44:24 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Ow! That was my feelings!: DROxINxTHExWIND: Sheriff: I will NOT be supporting these gun control laws that will cause undue harm to law-abiding citizens by requiring them to pay a $12 registration fee...

...but if your ass gets caught with so much as a gram of marijuana, so help me GOD, I will use every tool at my disposal to make sure that the prosecutor can bury your ass under years of supervised probation. I'll also be there to honor the warrant for your arrest if you miss ONE payment to the court for your probation costs and court costs. I don't give a shiat how the missed days from work affects your ability to pay. Die, hippy.

He is a sheriff in Colorado.  Think about that and your comment for a second.

The SHERIFFS didn't legalize marijuana in Colorado. Elected officials did. The same elected officials that this sheriff plans to ignore regarding gun control. Whats stopping him from deciding that MJ should remain illegal and going on a rampage to round up smokers?


I guess nothing except that voters in his district don't want him too.  The voters in his district don't support the current gun control push either, he is being responsive to their wishes.
 
2013-03-19 04:44:48 PM

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.


All right, I'll explain it for you:

How does a police officer, who just happens to come across a citizen with a firearm, have probable cause to know that the firearm that citizen is carrying was or was not transferred according to this universal background check law?

The citizen has Fifth Amendment protection against incriminating himself, so he can just clam up.

The citizen has Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, unless the officer has probable cause, which the officer could not have without doing an illegal search.

Let's suppose that the officer has some reasonable reason to stop and search the citizen that will hold up in a court of law.  The office finds that the firearm in the citizen's possession was not transferred via the Universal Background Check.  What probable cause does the officer have that the firearm was transferred after the effective date of the law in the state of Colorado?

If the firearm was transferred before the effective date, it was not a criminal act.

If it was transferred to the individual in another state without the universal background check requirement and he subsequently moved to Colorado, this was not a criminal act.

Hypothetically, the firearm may be the property of a trust, of which the citizen is a trustee.  The trustee can use, carry and possess any firearm in the trust in his role as a trustee, and turn them over to another trustee without there being a transfer involved.  (I have this kind of arrangement.)

 As there are entirely plausible explanations for the circumstances, which cannot be disproven by the information that the officer has at hand, he does not have probable cause that a crime has occurred.  If Officer Hard-ass has been trained by his department to arrest anyone with a firearm that isn't recorded as being transferred through the UBC system, there will be high proportion of arrests where the burden of probable cause can't be upheld, and the department will be sued into bankruptcy.

That's what the sheriff means by unenforceable.  Even with instant access to the state UBC record system for the police officer on the street, the officers can't make an arrest that will support a prosecution that has any chance of resulting in a conviction.

Furthermore, if the person in possession of the firearm is a prohibited person, he can't be prosecuted for not going through a background check.  That's already established US Supreme Court precedent, Haynes vs US (1968).  You can prosecute him for being a prohibited person in possession, but you can't prosecute him for not going through a background check.
 
2013-03-19 04:45:12 PM

Giltric: Communist_Manifesto: As a gun owner in Colorado I am not impacted by either of these measures so it doesn't matter to me at all.

When they came for the jews...I was not a jew so I did not care.

+1 for boot licking.


You do realize that if you say things like this, nobody will take you seriously, right? I mean, I'm actually against most gun control and even I cringe at this melodrama.
 
2013-03-19 04:45:40 PM

Caffandtranqs: How does adding a tommy gun to the argument make it appear scary.  They ARE illegal guns because of their killing capacity.


An automatic Thompson with a 50 round magazine has the same "killing capacity" as a 50 round semi-automatic Thompson. Just because something is "automatic" doesn't magically enchant the bullets into +5 bullets of killing. Automatic weapons aren't used for gunning down huge swaths of people, but for suppression. I'd argue that you'd be able to full far more people with a semi-automatic weapon since they are much more accurate than just fully-automatic weapons.
 
2013-03-19 04:47:00 PM

stampylives: it didnt work out that great for bunny.


Well, of course not.  Aunt Bunny is a Bigfoot.

\why you bring a Bigfoot into my house, Gus?
\\wif my chidri??
 
2013-03-19 04:47:18 PM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-03-19 04:47:29 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: The SHERIFFS didn't legalize marijuana in Colorado. Elected officials did. The same elected officials that this sheriff plans to ignore regarding gun control. Whats stopping him from deciding that MJ should remain illegal and going on a rampage to round up smokers?


One situation would be ignoring an existing law, the other would be enforcing a law that doesn't exist.  They are not really the same.
 
2013-03-19 04:47:39 PM

sirgrim: WippitGuud: Wait, so, there's a limit of 15 round in a magazine?

Uh...

Can I have more than one magazine?

And if even a single child manages to escape while you're swapping magazines then it was worth it.


1000/1000

That's how you do it folks!
 
2013-03-19 04:48:54 PM

Giltric: WippitGuud: I want to know why people are whining that they have to carry two 15-round clips instead of one 30-round clip.

The criminal can rush them during a mag swap......the same concept (rushing the attacker) can be used against the person defending themself with a firearm.


What kind of gun owner, in America, requires 30 rounds to defend against a home invasion? Are they that bad of a shot? Or do typical US home invasions involve 10 intruders?
 
2013-03-19 04:49:16 PM
SO nice of them to compile a list of asshats that I will never vote for.
 
2013-03-19 04:49:55 PM
I approve of this story. I disapprove of anyone taking my rights to own high-powered weapons, high-capacity magazines, and my AP and HP ammo. I hunt deer, duck, quail, and bears. I *need* all of this stuff!
 
2013-03-19 04:50:30 PM

pudding7: Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: 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?

You chose to ignore the "as relating to this text" part of my question, how surprising.  Why shouldn't someone own a Tommy gun, again?  As for the grenade, it's cute how you threw in an explosive to make your argument seem even scarier.  A person wishing to utilize an explosive device to harm others can make ones that are far, far more powerful than a grenade and you aren't going to run around banning cleaning chemicals or raw black powder, are you?  Ban fireworks so a criminal couldn't tear them all apart and take the powder?

Exactly, they don't ban the chemicals used to make homemade bombs, but they do make getting large quantities of the chemicals difficult.  The ATF, ICE, and Homeland Se ...


I'd be okay with saying that common use limits in accordance with Miller are fine. If a gun is in common use, the standard militia magazine size makes sense. Semi-auto rifles like the AR-15 have had 30 round capacities since they were introduced. Handguns routinely come with capacities of 15+
 
2013-03-19 04:50:41 PM

Earl of Chives: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?

Someone is gonna pay for the background check - might as well be the user. I have no problem throwing it on a sliding scale so the poor can get a break, but it isn't tearing the constitution asunder if we don't. I'd like a free passport, but I have to pay for that thing. The accused have a right to counsel, doesn't mean everyone gets it free. Just because something is a right, that doesn't mean it's free, that's a well established principal of law.


So if the government signed into law declaring that you'd need to pay $100 to vote, that'd be constitutional to you? You know, because something is a right, that doesn't mean it's free.
 
2013-03-19 04:51:04 PM
scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com


Obligatory
 
2013-03-19 04:53:31 PM
It's nice to see that all of you libitards have found your soul mates. The rest of us prefer you keep to your sunshine and unicorn infested paradise and away from the rest of us who have grown up stuff to talk about.

//lude
 
2013-03-19 04:54:34 PM

GUTSU: You have never been to a gun show, and I doubt you are any sort of reasonable person. Why do you demonize people you've never met? Why do you assume people selling firearms are shady characters? Do you assume the same thing about people having yard sales, or selling a used car? Or should people not be allowed to sell their own property without government intervention?


Anti-gun hysteria is the new Reefer Madness. In both cases you have a group that has never personally seen or used the item in question but loudly and ignorantly make outrageous claims about how it will turn you into a homicidal rapist if you use it.

Hopefully it will work out the same way and fifty years from now we will be laughing our asses off at these tards.
 
2013-03-19 04:55:13 PM

redmid17: pudding7: Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: 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?

You chose to ignore the "as relating to this text" part of my question, how surprising.  Why shouldn't someone own a Tommy gun, again?  As for the grenade, it's cute how you threw in an explosive to make your argument seem even scarier.  A person wishing to utilize an explosive device to harm others can make ones that are far, far more powerful than a grenade and you aren't going to run around banning cleaning chemicals or raw black powder, are you?  Ban fireworks so a criminal couldn't tear them all apart and take the powder?

Exactly, they don't ban the chemicals used to make homemade bombs, but they do make getting large quantities of the chemicals difficult.  The ATF, ICE, and H ...


So then you would argue that California's 10-round magazine limit is unconstitutional?
 
2013-03-19 04:55:25 PM
wisconsingunowners.org
 
2013-03-19 04:55:30 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!!


Heh dumbass...

Sanctuary cities anyone? Burlington, VT refuses to enforce the law. Why should you be angry when someone wants to refuse a law that is against the constitution?
 
2013-03-19 04:58:48 PM

lude: It's nice to see that all of you libitards have found your soul mates. The rest of us prefer you keep to your sunshine and unicorn infested paradise and away from the rest of us who have grown up stuff to talk about.

//lude


I'd prefer if cities were more like city states, were senators from them affected only those cities, while the rural parts governed themselves.
Then they'd get their gun free utopias, and I could buy myself as many moist nuggets as my heart desired.
Moist nugget = Mosin-Nagant
 
2013-03-19 04:59:28 PM

umad: GUTSU: You have never been to a gun show, and I doubt you are any sort of reasonable person. Why do you demonize people you've never met? Why do you assume people selling firearms are shady characters? Do you assume the same thing about people having yard sales, or selling a used car? Or should people not be allowed to sell their own property without government intervention?

Anti-gun hysteria is the new Reefer Madness. In both cases you have a group that has never personally seen or used the item in question but loudly and ignorantly make outrageous claims about how it will turn you into a homicidal rapist if you use it.

Hopefully it will work out the same way and fifty years from now we will be laughing our asses off at these tards.


You're not kidding.  A friend of mine had a neice that was killed at Sandy Hook.  She (the friend) is a lawyer and she's a tiny bit well-connected in state politics.  Since Sandy Hook, she's been on a tear to adopt more gun control laws.  When she started talking about her plans, the first thing I told her was that she needed to seriously educate herself about guns.  Guns, guns, guns, all things guns.

Buy gun magazines, read gun blogs, go shoot guns.  Because the first time she makes a mistake and calls a magazine a clip, or demonstrates that she doesn't know know the difference between full and semi-auto, every comment or argument she makes will be instantly dismissed by any gun-rights advocate she's talking to.
 
2013-03-19 04:59:51 PM

GUTSU: Earl of Chives: GUTSU: Earl of Chives: GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?

Someone is gonna pay for the background check - might as well be the user. I have no problem throwing it on a sliding scale so the poor can get a break, but it isn't tearing the constitution asunder if we don't. I'd like a free passport, but I have to pay for that thing. The accused have a right to counsel, doesn't mean everyone gets it free. Just because something is a right, that doesn't mean it's free, that's a well established principal of law.

So if the government signed into law declaring that you'd need to pay $100 to vote, that'd be constitutional to you? You know, because something is a right, that doesn't mean it's free.


I see. Your beef is going to be with the Supreme Court then. Good luck taking it up with them..
 
2013-03-19 05:00:51 PM
Where's the hero tag?
 
2013-03-19 05:01:03 PM

Glancing Blow: [scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com image 500x250]


Obligatory


The Nazis never had a general policy of confiscating any guns. The average German gun owner was perfectly happy & supportive of the Nazis.

Note: One group the Nazis did confiscate guns from were the Jews. Not because they were gun owners, but because they were Jews. The Nazis confiscated everything from the Jews.

Gun owners are not the "new Jews", no matter how much they try to convince themselves that they're being persecuted.
 
2013-03-19 05:01:20 PM

pudding7: redmid17: pudding7: Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: 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?

You chose to ignore the "as relating to this text" part of my question, how surprising.  Why shouldn't someone own a Tommy gun, again?  As for the grenade, it's cute how you threw in an explosive to make your argument seem even scarier.  A person wishing to utilize an explosive device to harm others can make ones that are far, far more powerful than a grenade and you aren't going to run around banning cleaning chemicals or raw black powder, are you?  Ban fireworks so a criminal couldn't tear them all apart and take the powder?

Exactly, they don't ban the chemicals used to make homemade bombs, but they do make getting large quantities of the chemicals difficult.  The ATF, ...


If you could get the courts to recognize Miller, I think you could advance the argument pretty far. They are clearly in common use and the Army uses those size of magazines for a reason.
 
2013-03-19 05:01:30 PM

muck4doo: Where's the hero tag?


Gunned down in cold blood.
 
2013-03-19 05:01:36 PM

Darth_Lukecash: 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.


Clip limit does not infringe on an ownership of a weapon. You an Scalia can ignore the "Well Regulated Militia" part.


We can argue what that comma in the 2nd Amendment meant, all day.  I personally don't believe it meant you had or have to be in a militia to own a firearm.

Magazine (see clip) limits may infringe, as gun magazine is considered to be part of the firearm itself.  For example, if you have your magazine loaded but removed from the rest of the firearm and are found with both inside the car - you can be charged with transporting a loaded firearm. At least here in California.

I think you'll need an Amendment to the Constitution / Bill of Rights here.
 
2013-03-19 05:02:33 PM
Earl of Chives:
I see. Your beef is going to be with the Supreme Court then. Good luck taking it up with them..

Hey, you agreed that there is a price for exercising your rights, all that we're doing is talking about the price. I myself won't have to take it up, there are plenty of other people willing to carry that torch.
 
2013-03-19 05:02:34 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.


THIS.

I don't buy for a moment that the people in this thread saying "ohh these sheriffs choosing to not enforce CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws are bad bad men, we should recall them" are real people at all. On the contrary I'm pretty sure that they're a bunch of government plants that are simply trying to stear the tone of this thread by having the same opinions repeated endlessly in an echo chamber.

The fact is, most people  are smart enough to realize that making guns harder to get for legal citizens does NOTHING to deter criminals. Ya see here's the thing, criminals... they break laws... it's sorta what they do. That's why they're criminals.

So will laws that target law abiding citizens... they really won't do shiat to deter criminals acquiring guns.

The sheriffs realize this... and they are doing the intelligent thing, they are choosing to take the teeth out of the law at the source, by refusing to enforce them.

Those of you calling for them to enforce these laws... well then hell... lets force ICE to do ITS farking job too. Deport all illegals. After all theyre choosing not to enforce the law when they don't seize all illegals and deport them. Oh wait, you've got no problem with them not enforcing this law, me either... so gee... maybe them not enforcing some laws is a good thing eh?
 
2013-03-19 05:03:32 PM

coeyagi: GoldSpider: FreetardoRivera: GUTSU: 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?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

[murlocparliament.com image 695x535]

A poll tax is a reasonable restriction on the right to vote.  Reasonable.

Is it justified? It needs to be justifiable to be reasonable (I mean, other than to give a favorable Math outcome to the GOP to make themselves feel better).


Sure it is justified. Voter fraud happens a Hell of a lot more often than mass shootings do. We have to do something. A poll tax is something, so we should do that.
 
2013-03-19 05:03:55 PM
Are we supplying assault weapons to Syrian rebels?
 
2013-03-19 05:03:55 PM

odinsposse: tom baker's scarf: Please. the cops are already not looking to arrest anyone over this. Could most mags be modified to hold more than 15 rounds sure, if you cut out the bottom, wield or tape on another mag with a longer feeder spring etc but that's like saying if I'm transporting two cases of liquor I'm under suspicion of selling it without a license.

That's the language of the law. Of course, if it were only selectively enforced...


they are allowed to use logic and common sense. Just as  transporting a couple of case of liquor doesn't automatically trigger "he's an illegal vendor" carrying two legal, unmodified mags wouldn't trigger "OMG he's gonna make a 30 round mag because he could, maybe, someday, let's get him."


If on the other hand officer Lou opens your trunk and finds a bunch of mags with the bottoms cut off or there is just a removable plug so the 100 round drum can only hold 15 rounds while the plug is installed then you're obviously violating the law and should be detained.

Or they are grandfathered magazines. So there would have to be an investigation to see if they are legal. Which is also true if you didn't selectively enforce the law and saw anyone with a magazine fed gun.


Which is a problem the gun junkies bring on themselves. If the law makers had said, "bring in your old mags and we'll stamp them (or exchange them for a stamped version) so we know they are grandfathered. You've got 240 days, after that it's as if you own a gun with the SN filed off." the tinfoil hat crowd would scream "OMG Obama is monitoring my every move!!!"  Or the law could have been written such that possession of the mags is against the law period. It's been done before.  Sometimes quasi-legal things become illegal and you don't get to keep them, even if you really, really like them.

Since the gun junkies can't get behind even the most simple, logical, reasonable reforms they are getting left behind. Keep biatching about easy to live with laws and eventually the possession of unregistered item X laws will start to come on the books.



So yes, lots of manpower is required to investigate those things if you follow the letter of the law.

Yes if you insist on doing things the hard way it is, wait for it, hard.

/phrasing
 
2013-03-19 05:04:37 PM

WippitGuud: muck4doo: Where's the hero tag?

Gunned down in cold blood.


I bet it was in a gun free zone.
 
2013-03-19 05:05:38 PM

pudding7: Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: 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?

You chose to ignore the "as relating to this text" part of my question, how surprising.  Why shouldn't someone own a Tommy gun, again?  As for the grenade, it's cute how you threw in an explosive to make your argument seem even scarier.  A person wishing to utilize an explosive device to harm others can make ones that are far, far more powerful than a grenade and you aren't going to run around banning cleaning chemicals or raw black powder, are you?  Ban fireworks so a criminal couldn't tear them all apart and take the powder?

Exactly, they don't ban the chemicals used to make homemade bombs, but they do make getting large quantities of the chemicals difficult.  The ATF, ICE, and Homeland Se ...


THIS  Thank you, that's what I was trying to say.
 
2013-03-19 05:05:48 PM

Glancing Blow: [wisconsingunowners.org image 360x270]


ct.weirdnutdaily.com
 
2013-03-19 05:05:50 PM
In other breaking gun news:  Senate Democrats dropped AWB from the gun bill today.  Anyone surprised?
 
2013-03-19 05:07:21 PM

Richard Flaccid: In other breaking gun news:  Senate Democrats dropped AWB from the gun bill today.  Anyone surprised?


They realized they'd lose their jobs if they voted for it. Seems as if they learned from '94.
 
2013-03-19 05:07:48 PM
Deciding that certain laws are not worth enforcing sounds like common sense. Very liberal, actually.

/I'm okay with this,
 
2013-03-19 05:08:42 PM

Thunderpipes: 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!!

Heh dumbass...

Sanctuary cities anyone? Burlington, VT refuses to enforce the law. Why should you be angry when someone wants to refuse a law that is against the constitution?


Thanks, dickhead!
 
2013-03-19 05:09:27 PM

GUTSU: Caffandtranqs: How does adding a tommy gun to the argument make it appear scary.  They ARE illegal guns because of their killing capacity.

An automatic Thompson with a 50 round magazine has the same "killing capacity" as a 50 round semi-automatic Thompson. Just because something is "automatic" doesn't magically enchant the bullets into +5 bullets of killing. Automatic weapons aren't used for gunning down huge swaths of people, but for suppression. I'd argue that you'd be able to full far more people with a semi-automatic weapon since they are much more accurate than just fully-automatic weapons.


That is scary.
 
2013-03-19 05:10:04 PM

GUTSU: So if the government signed into law declaring that you'd need to pay $100 to vote, that'd be constitutional to you? You know, because something is a right, that doesn't mean it's free.


Why, in order to have this debate, must we pretend like the right to vote is the same as the right to keep and bare arms? Voting can't be done irresponsibly and recklessly. Casting a vote is always harmless and peaceful. There is some regulation of voting to prevent fraud, but no one's life is in danger by the casting of a vote. Purchasing a gun that is designed to kill humans and animals is potentially done with malicious intent. Making a comparison between poll tax and charging someone a SMALL FEE on TOP of the purchase of their boom stick are completely different. The purpose of a poll tax is discriminate against the poor. The purpose of making someone pay for their background check is to finance a system that will keep guns out of the hands of people with criminal records. Responsible gun ownership comes with a cost. Even if you obtained a gun as a gift or a family heirloom, ammunition, target practice, maintenance of your firearm, etc. all cost money. Maybe the background check fee will be some sign of financial responsibility that should go hand in hand with firearm ownership.

Concealed Handgun Classes cost money. Are we fine with that? Or is that another infringement upon "bearing" arms?
 
2013-03-19 05:11:02 PM

Nadie_AZ: /lives in sheriff joe's county
//i do remember his predecessor, however


Which one?  I used to live across the street from one and went to HS with his kid.
 
2013-03-19 05:11:14 PM

GUTSU: Richard Flaccid: In other breaking gun news:  Senate Democrats dropped AWB from the gun bill today.  Anyone surprised?

They realized they'd lose their jobs if they voted for it. Seems as if they learned from '94.


It was there as a bargaining chip from the beginning, so no, I am not surprised.

Well, maybe surprised they learned to start by offering something you know won't pass in order to get an incremental step towards that thing to pass.
 
2013-03-19 05:12:03 PM

tylerdurden217: the right to keep and bare arms


lulz... bare arms. Well, if the weather permits, I guess. I'm an idiot.
 
2013-03-19 05:12:03 PM

tom baker's scarf: they are allowed to use logic and common sense. Just as  transporting a couple of case of liquor doesn't automatically trigger "he's an illegal vendor" carrying two legal, unmodified mags wouldn't trigger "OMG he's gonna make a 30 round mag because he could, maybe, someday, let's get him."


So the law is poorly written since the most straight forward interpretation flies in the face of common sense and logic. It's sounding more and more like you agree that the law as written is unenforceable.

Which is a problem the gun junkies bring on themselves.

Of course. It's the opponents of the law that are at fault for a bad law. Why didn't I see that before?
 
2013-03-19 05:12:26 PM
At this point, I think that they should pass a whole bunch of absurd gun laws, just to troll these assholes and make the lose their minds. This country is sick anyway - time to give it an enema.
 
2013-03-19 05:12:48 PM

Richard Flaccid: In other breaking gun news:  Senate Democrats dropped AWB from the gun bill today.  Anyone surprised?


Standard politics, If you're trying to get an inch, ask for a mile, then act pouty and make a bill for the inch and say you compromised.

I say let's not give the inch. How about we extend constitutional carry (Arizona) and equal access to NFA/Class III (Florida, etc.) and then we'll go along with the universal background checks if there are no records of sale kept.
 
2013-03-19 05:16:15 PM

jso2897: At this point, I think that they should pass a whole bunch of absurd gun laws, just to troll these assholes and make the lose their minds. This country is sick anyway - time to give it an enema.


They are already doing that.
 
2013-03-19 05:17:10 PM

jso2897: At this point, I think that they should pass a whole bunch of absurd gun laws, just to troll these assholes and make the lose their minds. This country is sick anyway - time to give it an enema.


Sounds like you don't really fear a bunch of people with firearms. You must realize that they are law abiding and peaceful.
 
2013-03-19 05:18:31 PM
"They are putting politics above their job," Said a state senator. <Irony tag>
 
2013-03-19 05:19:26 PM

muck4doo: jso2897: At this point, I think that they should pass a whole bunch of absurd gun laws, just to troll these assholes and make the lose their minds. This country is sick anyway - time to give it an enema.

They are already doing that.

 
2013-03-19 05:19:49 PM

jso2897: At this point, I think that they should pass a whole bunch of absurd gun laws, just to troll these assholes and make the lose their minds. This country is sick anyway - time to give it an enema.


Yes, I think this is a good idea. If you buy a gun and at any point after you bring it home, pose in front of the mirror with it, you should have your gun confiscated and your name put on a list of people that buy guns for the wrong reasons. Forever prohibited from owning a gun.

Talk about hard to enforce. I wish there was some way.
 
2013-03-19 05:24:01 PM
 
2013-03-19 05:24:29 PM

Giltric: 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!!


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?


That's because most immigration laws ARE unenforceable, without breaking a lot of individuals' rights.
 
2013-03-19 05:25:15 PM

WippitGuud: Giltric: WippitGuud: I want to know why people are whining that they have to carry two 15-round clips instead of one 30-round clip.

The criminal can rush them during a mag swap......the same concept (rushing the attacker) can be used against the person defending themself with a firearm.

What kind of gun owner, in America, requires 30 rounds to defend against a home invasion? Are they that bad of a shot? Or do typical US home invasions involve 10 intruders?


Typical home nvasion involves multiple people inside the home and a person outsde. There used to be a site with cites but the domain is up for sale and there is no content...FBI was the cite given and the FBI claimed 4-5 home invaders IIRC.

Also...a homeonwner might only ever have to come under fire once in their life, where as criminals who do criminal things may have already been under fire so the adrenaline rush isn't there or isn't an obstcle to overcome.

Why would you want to limit the homeowners ability to survive a crime in their home....the criminal certainly will not restrict themself to legal capacity magazines.
 
2013-03-19 05:26:03 PM

Bell-fan: CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL


When I was in college, some of my good friends were law students. I wasn't in law school myself, but we did occasionally have some spirited discussions.

One day, one of them complained about what she felt to be the gross misuse of the term "unconstitutional" by laypeople. While I understood her frustration, I explained to her that this wasn't really a misuse of the term, but rather, a change in the very meaning of the term as it is understood in common conversation. This happens to a lot of words - "terrific", for instance, was once used to essentially mean "very bad", whereas now it basically means "very good".

Terms like "constitutional" and "unconstitutional", I told her, have gone through a similar transformation. In the language of the layperson, they no longer refer to the judicially-interpreted limits of what a government can and cannot do, but rather, are used simply as synonyms for "good" and "bad". Hence, you'll see statements like "Ugh, rap music is so unconstitutional these days" and "These gun laws are clearly unconstitutional".
 
2013-03-19 05:26:25 PM

R.A.Danny: Sounds like you don't really fear a bunch of people with firearms. You must realize that they are law abiding and peaceful.


Actually, I believe those holding CCW's are some of the most law-abiding members of society. I would dare to say that legal gun owners would probably be more than your non-gun owner, but there are no statistics that I can find for that. Each state collects it's own, but for instance, Florida has issued over 2 million CCW's in the past 16 years and about .003% have ever been revoked (with 10% of that number reinstated) and only 0.00008% of CCW's ever committing a crime with a firearm. I'm willing to look at other states information if people are more evil in other areas or even if you have a country wide one, but please, go on telling me about how gun owners are the bad people.
 
2013-03-19 05:27:44 PM

Biological Ali: Giltric: Communist_Manifesto: As a gun owner in Colorado I am not impacted by either of these measures so it doesn't matter to me at all.

When they came for the jews...I was not a jew so I did not care.

+1 for boot licking.

You do realize that if you say things like this, nobody will take you seriously, right? I mean, I'm actually against most gun control and even I cringe at this melodrama.


It's not melodrama. It is one person claiming that they are not affected by somehting so they do not care if other people are affected by something. Neimollers statement is the best analogy.

Would claiming that I am not affected by trans vaginal ultrasounds so I do not care if a woman seeking an abortion has to submit to one be a better choice?
 
2013-03-19 05:28:35 PM

MacWizard: Deciding that certain laws are not worth enforcing sounds like common sense. Very liberal, actually.

/I'm okay with this,


Me too! Deciding some laws are unconstitutional is waaaay above Mr. Sheriff's pay grade.
 
2013-03-19 05:28:45 PM

Giltric: WippitGuud: Giltric: WippitGuud: I want to know why people are whining that they have to carry two 15-round clips instead of one 30-round clip.

The criminal can rush them during a mag swap......the same concept (rushing the attacker) can be used against the person defending themself with a firearm.

What kind of gun owner, in America, requires 30 rounds to defend against a home invasion? Are they that bad of a shot? Or do typical US home invasions involve 10 intruders?

Typical home nvasion involves multiple people inside the home and a person outsde. There used to be a site with cites but the domain is up for sale and there is no content...FBI was the cite given and the FBI claimed 4-5 home invaders IIRC.

Also...a homeonwner might only ever have to come under fire once in their life, where as criminals who do criminal things may have already been under fire so the adrenaline rush isn't there or isn't an obstcle to overcome.

Why would you want to limit the homeowners ability to survive a crime in their home....the criminal certainly will not restrict themself to legal capacity magazines.


I'm suddenly glad I don't live in the US... I'd hate to live under that kind of fear.
 
2013-03-19 05:29:14 PM
Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?
 
2013-03-19 05:29:53 PM
Ah yes, like the legal scholars in Mississippi that didn't believe those murders of uppity folks needed investigating.

Send in the FBI.
 
2013-03-19 05:30:51 PM
If we just kill all the lawyers, things would be OK.
 
2013-03-19 05:31:49 PM

tylerdurden217: Casting a vote is always harmless and peaceful. There is some regulation of voting to prevent fraud, but no one's life is in danger by the casting of a vote


Say that to the families of the Iraq war dead....In their faces even.


That was the DNCs/Obamas platform against McCain though....a vote for him was a vote to kill your child in war.
 
2013-03-19 05:32:00 PM
My guess:

Gets a boner over 2nd amendment.
Wipes his ass with the 4th.
 
2013-03-19 05:32:05 PM

bigbadideasinaction: Ah yes, like the legal scholars in Mississippi that didn't believe those murders of uppity folks needed investigating.

Send in the FBI.


W....what?

Were you trying to say this is about racism?
 
2013-03-19 05:32:32 PM

theurge14: When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?


Is practicing prudence when enforcing a law a crime? Nope

theurge14: Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?


We do that just about every time we get behind the wheel. Once again, would a cop giving someone doing 10 over a pass be subject to arrest and conviction if the speeder goes on to run over 20 kids?
 
2013-03-19 05:32:57 PM

tylerdurden217: GUTSU: So if the government signed into law declaring that you'd need to pay $100 to vote, that'd be constitutional to you? You know, because something is a right, that doesn't mean it's free.

Why, in order to have this debate, must we pretend like the right to vote is the same as the right to keep and bare arms? Voting can't be done irresponsibly and recklessly. Casting a vote is always harmless and peaceful. There is some regulation of voting to prevent fraud, but no one's life is in danger by the casting of a vote. Purchasing a gun that is designed to kill humans and animals is potentially done with malicious intent. Making a comparison between poll tax and charging someone a SMALL FEE on TOP of the purchase of their boom stick are completely different. The purpose of a poll tax is discriminate against the poor. The purpose of making someone pay for their background check is to finance a system that will keep guns out of the hands of people with criminal records. Responsible gun ownership comes with a cost. Even if you obtained a gun as a gift or a family heirloom, ammunition, target practice, maintenance of your firearm, etc. all cost money. Maybe the background check fee will be some sign of financial responsibility that should go hand in hand with firearm ownership.

Concealed Handgun Classes cost money. Are we fine with that? Or is that another infringement upon "bearing" arms?


So you're saying there is a fundamental difference between paying the government to vote discriminating against the poor, and paying the government to own a firearm discriminating against the poor? Or are some rights more unalienable than others?
 
2013-03-19 05:33:26 PM

tylerdurden217: jso2897: At this point, I think that they should pass a whole bunch of absurd gun laws, just to troll these assholes and make the lose their minds. This country is sick anyway - time to give it an enema.

Yes, I think this is a good idea. If you buy a gun and at any point after you bring it home, pose in front of the mirror with it, you should have your gun confiscated and your name put on a list of people that buy guns for the wrong reasons. Forever prohibited from owning a gun.

Talk about hard to enforce. I wish there was some way.


I propose that people should be allowed to purchase and carry any kind of gun they want, but that it should be illegal to manufacture or sell any gun that is not either pink or baby-blue, and cartoon themed in design.
Also, any gas-actuated semi-automatic weapons must be configured so as to make loud fart noises when they are fired. Also, violent felons are to be REQUIRED to own guns as a condition of their parole.
Give me time - I'll think of more.
 
2013-03-19 05:34:08 PM

WippitGuud: Giltric: WippitGuud: Giltric: WippitGuud: I want to know why people are whining that they have to carry two 15-round clips instead of one 30-round clip.

The criminal can rush them during a mag swap......the same concept (rushing the attacker) can be used against the person defending themself with a firearm.

What kind of gun owner, in America, requires 30 rounds to defend against a home invasion? Are they that bad of a shot? Or do typical US home invasions involve 10 intruders?

Typical home nvasion involves multiple people inside the home and a person outsde. There used to be a site with cites but the domain is up for sale and there is no content...FBI was the cite given and the FBI claimed 4-5 home invaders IIRC.

Also...a homeonwner might only ever have to come under fire once in their life, where as criminals who do criminal things may have already been under fire so the adrenaline rush isn't there or isn't an obstcle to overcome.

Why would you want to limit the homeowners ability to survive a crime in their home....the criminal certainly will not restrict themself to legal capacity magazines.

I'm suddenly glad I don't live in the US... I'd hate to live under that kind of fear.


Actually the gn control crowd is the one pushing things based on fear.....you wouldn't want another statistical anomoly to happen to your children would you? Or that you are more likely to die to a gun if you own a gun.

Some of us are OK with risk.
 
2013-03-19 05:36:03 PM
I didn't take the time to read every comment, good and horrible, so I will go ahead and assume that someone finally noted that almost all laws are selectively enforced.

In case no one did note that, then let me just say that almost all laws are selectively enforced.
 
2013-03-19 05:37:57 PM

Giltric: tylerdurden217: Casting a vote is always harmless and peaceful. There is some regulation of voting to prevent fraud, but no one's life is in danger by the casting of a vote

Say that to the families of the Iraq war dead....In their faces even.


That was the DNCs/Obamas platform against McCain though....a vote for him was a vote to kill your child in war.


If only that worked when it mattered in 04
 
2013-03-19 05:38:20 PM

Giltric: Some of us are OK with risk.


Or even realize that there is no way to totally avoid risk, putting the onus on personal protection on The People.
 
2013-03-19 05:39:04 PM

Giltric: WippitGuud: 
I'm suddenly glad I don't live in the US... I'd hate to live under that kind of fear.

Actually the gn control crowd is the one pushing things based on fear.....you wouldn't want another statistical anomoly to happen to your children would you? Or that you are more likely to die to a gun if you own a gun.

Some of us are OK with risk.


Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with people owning guns. I don't have any myself (I do have two bows, however). But I read how gun owners want to be outfitted as if they were a light infantryman on deployment to defend their homes... they talk as if they live in a war zone.
 
2013-03-19 05:39:12 PM

R.A.Danny: theurge14: When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?

Is practicing prudence when enforcing a law a crime? Nope

theurge14: Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

We do that just about every time we get behind the wheel. Once again, would a cop giving someone doing 10 over a pass be subject to arrest and conviction if the speeder goes on to run over 20 kids?


Your imaginary sheriff has publicly stated that he doesn't believe it is constitutional to write that ticket, and WILL NOT do so, in any circumstance. Do you really not see the distinction here?
 
2013-03-19 05:40:14 PM

theurge14: Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?


Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.
 
2013-03-19 05:41:38 PM

Evil High Priest: Do you really not see the distinction here?


I am positive that part of their oath of office is to uphold The Constitution. One refusing to enforce a law may be seen as a nutjob. 340 is a mandate.
 
2013-03-19 05:43:33 PM

R.A.Danny: jso2897: At this point, I think that they should pass a whole bunch of absurd gun laws, just to troll these assholes and make the lose their minds. This country is sick anyway - time to give it an enema.

Sounds like you don't really fear a bunch of people with firearms. You must realize that they are law abiding and peaceful.


You are right - I don't fear them. A pussy with a gun in his hand is still a pussy.
Conversely -there are people I fear - but they don't need guns to be scarey, and guns won't keep me safe from them.
 
2013-03-19 05:43:55 PM

Giltric: It's not melodrama. It is one person claiming that they are not affected by somehting so they do not care if other people are affected by something. Neimollers statement is the best analogy.


It seems to me that you don't really understand why people who go out of their way to Godwin arguments are regarded universally as the butt of a joke. Hint: it doesn't have to do with whether their analogies are technically valid (they usually are, in fact).

But even in the technical sense, your analogy was extremely weak. Had the person said "I don't care because I'm not a gun owner", your response (while still being silly) would at least have lined up the relevant categories in a more meaningful way.
 
2013-03-19 05:44:49 PM

GUTSU: So you're saying there is a fundamental difference between paying the government to vote discriminating against the poor, and paying the government to own a firearm discriminating against the poor? Or are some rights more unalienable than others?


Both your right to vote and possess firearms are already "alienable" (in that you can lose them)

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

http://www.gunlawsbystate.com/felons-and-firearms/

It's intellectually dishonest to compare voting to buying a gun. Get real. It's more like buying a car in that it requires some financial means and you have to pay TTL.
 
2013-03-19 05:46:13 PM

tylerdurden217: jso2897: At this point, I think that they should pass a whole bunch of absurd gun laws, just to troll these assholes and make the lose their minds. This country is sick anyway - time to give it an enema.

Yes, I think this is a good idea. If you buy a gun and at any point after you bring it home, pose in front of the mirror with it, you should have your gun confiscated and your name put on a list of people that buy guns for the wrong reasons. Forever prohibited from owning a gun.

Talk about hard to enforce. I wish there was some way.


Heh. The Facebook-Feinstein act of 2014..
 
rka
2013-03-19 05:46:22 PM

WippitGuud: Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with people owning guns. I don't have any myself (I do have two bows, however). But I read how gun owners want to be outfitted as if they were a light infantryman on deployment to defend their homes... they talk as if they live in a war zone.


Because for some reason people have to constantly, and with ever increasing volume, defend their right to own guns. Year after year.

30 years ago, if you would have asked all the male members of my family why they each needed half a dozen shotguns and rifles they would have said "Because Shut the fark Up, that's why" and the matter would have been dropped because you were too ashamed at having asked such a stupid question in the first place that you would have slunk back to whatever place you crawled out of.

Nowaday's we seemingly have to fight the same fights over and over again. It isn't enough to say "STFU and mind you own business" anymore I guess. Now people have to swaddle the 2nd Amendment in harrowing tales of self-defense, and paint lurid pictures of rape and murder in order to have anyone listen.
 
2013-03-19 05:46:22 PM

R.A.Danny: theurge14: When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?

Is practicing prudence when enforcing a law a crime? Nope


Law enforcement exists to enforce laws.  The concept of "law enforcement discretion" is wrong.

theurge14: Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

We do that just about every time we get behind the wheel. Once again, would a cop giving someone doing 10 over a pass be subject to arrest and conviction if the speeder goes on to run over 20 kids?


I'll take that as an applicable analogy the next time a local police department writes a letter to the president to let him know that he's not going to stop any speeders in his town.
 
2013-03-19 05:47:13 PM

muck4doo: theurge14: Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.


Yes, keep repeating this tired bullshiat right wing snark.  Laws get broken, so let's throw all the laws out because they're absurd and useless!  Shut up.
 
2013-03-19 05:47:45 PM

R.A.Danny: Evil High Priest: Do you really not see the distinction here?

I am positive that part of their oath of office is to uphold The Constitution. One refusing to enforce a law may be seen as a nutjob. 340 is a mandate.


Or 340 nutjobs..
 
2013-03-19 05:48:14 PM

theurge14: Law enforcement exists to enforce laws.  The concept of "law enforcement discretion" is wrong.


You really have no idea what you are talking about. Cops have tons of leeway by design.
 
2013-03-19 05:48:34 PM

tylerdurden217: GUTSU: So you're saying there is a fundamental difference between paying the government to vote discriminating against the poor, and paying the government to own a firearm discriminating against the poor? Or are some rights more unalienable than others?

Both your right to vote and possess firearms are already "alienable" (in that you can lose them)

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

http://www.gunlawsbystate.com/felons-and-firearms/

It's intellectually dishonest to compare voting to buying a gun. Get real. It's more like buying a car in that it requires some financial means and you have to pay TTL.


With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.

Also, I wasn't talking about felons, but good job deflecting though.
 
2013-03-19 05:48:43 PM
Marijuana doesn't kill people, Guns do.  Whats that? Guns don't kill people - people do? Then do the gdamn background check you farking moron. Right-wing idiocy is literally killing me.
 
2013-03-19 05:50:42 PM

GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly

.


You'd still need to register the car.
Do you need to register a firearm?

/honest question, that.
 
2013-03-19 05:50:53 PM

GUTSU: If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.


I get your point but even a home-made car would have to be titled and the title would have to be transferred when sold, and in most states there are fees for that.
 
2013-03-19 05:50:59 PM

Dr Dreidel: Do they swear to uphold the Constitution and all the duly-passed laws of their state?


Hint: the 'Constitution' part comes first.
 
2013-03-19 05:52:33 PM

theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.

Yes, keep repeating this tired bullshiat right wing snark.  Laws get broken, so let's throw all the laws out because they're absurd and useless!  Shut up.


U MAD
 
2013-03-19 05:52:43 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.


You'd still need to register the car.
Do you need to register a firearm?

/honest question, that.


You don't need to register a car if you don't use it on public roads.
 
2013-03-19 05:54:02 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.


You'd still need to register the car.
Do you need to register a firearm?

/honest question, that.


R.A.Danny: GUTSU: If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.

I get your point but even a home-made car would have to be titled and the title would have to be transferred when sold, and in most states there are fees for that.


Well, if it were a track-only car or for use on private land, it wouldn't need to be registered. Not to take sides, just to make a point.
 
2013-03-19 05:54:16 PM

R.A.Danny: I am positive that part of their oath of office is to uphold The Constitution. One refusing to enforce a law may be seen as a nutjob. 340 is a mandate.


It's up to the courts to interpret the Constitution. Of course, this guy has the freedom to talk however passionately he wants about what he Imagines The Constitution To Be, but refusing to enforce a law because he's personally deemed it "unconstitutional" is a different matter.

Or, to put it another way, in the years immediately following Brown, how many local sheriffs would have to refuse to comply with integration before it became a "mandate"?
 
2013-03-19 05:54:18 PM

GUTSU: You don't need to register a car if you don't use it on public roads.


So if I don't use a gun in public....?
 
2013-03-19 05:54:27 PM

rka: WippitGuud: Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with people owning guns. I don't have any myself (I do have two bows, however). But I read how gun owners want to be outfitted as if they were a light infantryman on deployment to defend their homes... they talk as if they live in a war zone.

Because for some reason people have to constantly, and with ever increasing volume, defend their right to own guns. Year after year.

30 years ago, if you would have asked all the male members of my family why they each needed half a dozen shotguns and rifles they would have said "Because Shut the fark Up, that's why" and the matter would have been dropped because you were too ashamed at having asked such a stupid question in the first place that you would have slunk back to whatever place you crawled out of.

Nowaday's we seemingly have to fight the same fights over and over again. It isn't enough to say "STFU and mind you own business" anymore I guess. Now people have to swaddle the 2nd Amendment in harrowing tales of self-defense, and paint lurid pictures of rape and murder in order to have anyone listen.


This is what I don't get. I own an old rifle, and when I move back to the country, I'll probably take it out of mothballs in case the coyotes come after my chickens or some shiat. But I don't need some lofty f**king superhero bullshiat story to justify it. It's my gun, I own it, and f**k you that's why. I don't need it to feel safe, or to defend America, or to shoot it out with the jackbooted thugs in black helicopters. Actually, I don't want to shoot anybody, and never will. Does everybody think they're f**king Rambo anymore?
 
2013-03-19 05:54:28 PM

manimal2878: 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.


so the person they focus their new scrutiny is a guy named Haddad

i'm going out on a limb here; is he brown?
 
2013-03-19 05:54:30 PM

R.A.Danny: theurge14: Law enforcement exists to enforce laws.  The concept of "law enforcement discretion" is wrong.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Cops have tons of leeway by design.


No, I'm pretty familiar with the concept of law enforcement discretion and I completely disagree with it.  I know everyone loves to tell stories about that nice cop who understood and let them go when they could've gotten a DUI, but it's wrong.  That leeway you speak of leads to inconsistent enforcement of laws which is where discrimination, corruption and racial profile all begin.  For every "that cop was cool he let me go when he could've busted me for DUI" story there's several bad ones.
 
rka
2013-03-19 05:55:01 PM

R.A.Danny: Evil High Priest: Do you really not see the distinction here?

I am positive that part of their oath of office is to uphold The Constitution. One refusing to enforce a law may be seen as a nutjob. 340 is a mandate.


The Oath of Office for any elected Colorado official is the same.

"I _______ do solemnly swear by the everliving God, that I will 
support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Colorado, and faithfully perform the duties of 
the office of _____________ that I am about to enter."

Pretty generic.
 
2013-03-19 05:55:18 PM

muck4doo: theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.

Yes, keep repeating this tired bullshiat right wing snark.  Laws get broken, so let's throw all the laws out because they're absurd and useless!  Shut up.

U MAD


And I'm not wrong.  Welcome to my ignore list.
 
rka
2013-03-19 05:56:37 PM

jso2897: Does everybody think they're f**king Rambo anymore?


And what happens after about 10 years of people trying to take your gun because killing coyotes isn't a good enough reason? Or because target shooting isn't good enough? Wouldn't you start to ratchet up the drama?
 
2013-03-19 05:56:45 PM
And when Chicago's police superintendent says his department will ignore a federal court ruling that overturns IL's concealed carry ban (effective in June) if the state doesn't come up with concealed carry legislation, and that judges should take into account public opinion when ruling on gun laws, and that his officers will shoot on sight anyone with a gun, he is lauded (or at least ignored) by the gun control crowd.
 
2013-03-19 05:57:04 PM

theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.

Yes, keep repeating this tired bullshiat right wing snark.  Laws get broken, so let's throw all the laws out because they're absurd and useless!  Shut up.

U MAD

And I'm not wrong.  Welcome to my ignore list.


Awww, you lost.
 
2013-03-19 05:57:05 PM

Man On Pink Corner: Dr Dreidel: Do they swear to uphold the Constitution and all the duly-passed laws of their state?

Hint: the 'Constitution' part comes first.


Yeah - but the only thing the Constitution says (especially as far as LEO are concerned) is what the courts say it says. The Constitution, uninterpreted, has no concrete meaning.
 
2013-03-19 05:57:20 PM
Once someone is willing to commit murder, no firearms law is going to stop them from carrying out that kind of evil.

And  - the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with hunting or self defense - it was trying to prevent the kind of armed vs. unarmed inequality that the british government was trying to use to impose the order of the british empire. So that in vein, trying to ban high-capacity mags or take away elements of equality between the citizens and the military sworn to protect them starts to re-create those sharp divides that have almost always been misused to pursue power by one side or the other.
 
2013-03-19 05:57:59 PM

R.A.Danny: theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.

Yes, keep repeating this tired bullshiat right wing snark.  Laws get broken, so let's throw all the laws out because they're absurd and useless!  Shut up.

U MAD

And I'm not wrong.  Welcome to my ignore list.

Awww, you lost.


Because you say so?  What are you, 12?
 
2013-03-19 05:59:13 PM

rka: jso2897: Does everybody think they're f**king Rambo anymore?

And what happens after about 10 years of people trying to take your gun because killing coyotes isn't a good enough reason? Or because target shooting isn't good enough? Wouldn't you start to ratchet up the drama?


No. In fact, pretending that anyone has ever tried to take my gun away would be drama-queen bullshiat in and of itself. I mean, if you are asking me, and I thought that was who you were asking.
 
2013-03-19 05:59:17 PM

theurge14: R.A.Danny: theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.

Yes, keep repeating this tired bullshiat right wing snark.  Laws get broken, so let's throw all the laws out because they're absurd and useless!  Shut up.

U MAD

And I'm not wrong.  Welcome to my ignore list.

Awww, you lost.

Because you say so?  What are you, 12?


You gonna ban me? Waaa
 
2013-03-19 05:59:21 PM

Giltric: Say that to the families of the Iraq war dead....In their faces even.


That was the DNCs/Obamas platform against McCain though....a vote for him was a vote to kill your child in war.


I knew someone would make this connection, it's pathetic and small minded for you to do so. No one directly votes for people to die. The act of voting kills no one in this country. And trying to pass this connection off on someone else is just immature.

I would venture to guess that many families of soldiers killed in action probably believe that their loved ones died trying to make the world a better place. That perhaps if a peaceful democracy could exist in Iraq or Afghanistan that the citizens of these countries would be more likely to thrive and enjoy the basic human rights that I enjoy. In other words, so their citizens could vote, peacefully. I'll bet they would take that over the right to bear arms, since guns are probably easy to get in Iraq anyway.
 
2013-03-19 05:59:31 PM

theurge14: R.A.Danny: theurge14: Law enforcement exists to enforce laws.  The concept of "law enforcement discretion" is wrong.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Cops have tons of leeway by design.

No, I'm pretty familiar with the concept of law enforcement discretion and I completely disagree with it.  I know everyone loves to tell stories about that nice cop who understood and let them go when they could've gotten a DUI, but it's wrong.  That leeway you speak of leads to inconsistent enforcement of laws which is where discrimination, corruption and racial profile all begin.  For every "that cop was cool he let me go when he could've busted me for DUI" story there's several bad ones.


I don't think I'd be comfortable with cops enforcing the letter of every law every single time they witness a violation. Way too many laws in this country for that to work well. And it takes reasonable warnings out of the equation. If someone unknowingly violates a minor local ordinance, law enforcement should rightfully be allowed to warn them of the offense and let them go.

/If you wanted to remove discretion from violent felony enforcement, then I'd be with you
//At one point I'd have said all felonies, but way too many non-violent crimes fit under that umbrella today
 
2013-03-19 05:59:49 PM
I am happy I moved to the south since it doesn't seem as though too many people around here really believe that feel good laws will actually produce any measurable results unlike the libtards up north. You people really are stupid and so stupid that you don't even realize that you are not seeing the whole picture.
 
2013-03-19 06:01:28 PM

R.A.Danny: GUTSU: You don't need to register a car if you don't use it on public roads.

So if I don't use a gun in public....?


You don't need to register firearms anyway, at least most firearms, besides using public roads is a privileged not a right.
If you make a firearm you don't have to register it, you don't need to inform the police or any one it's your own personal property. Would you like the government to tell you what you can or can not do with your own property?
 
2013-03-19 06:02:46 PM

inner ted: manimal2878: 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.

so the person they focus their new scrutiny is a guy named Haddad

i'm going out on a limb here; is he brown?


No.

http://www.gofundme.com/1tkukc
 
2013-03-19 06:03:04 PM
Wait... Some dude is buying a $1000 assault, sorry, "sporting" rifle, and they're quibbling about having to pay for the background check? How much does a driver's license cost?

However, while I basically agree with magazine capacity limits, they are essentially unenforceable on existing owners. How do you find them, and seize them, without being horribly intrusive?

Of course, aside (possibly) from the entertainment value, what is the need for 30, 50, or 100-round mags? Oh, and don't give me the "its my rights!" stuff. Owning a gun is constitutionally-protected. Owning removable mags at all, let alone enormous ones, is not.
 
2013-03-19 06:03:54 PM

lilplatinum: way south: lilplatinum: Bravo Two: Background checks aint the problem. The mag restriction legislation does absolutely nothing functionally, and by the wording, basically restricts virtually all magazines.

But yes, let's keep not saying anything as they chip away at our freedoms. After all, if you don't use your right to own a weapon, it doesn't affect you and isn't important, right?

Inoright?  This is just like when it was decided you couldn't shout fire in a crowded theater and then the right to free speech disappeared.

If you had to get a background check before freely speaking then I'd say its an analogy worth considering.

Limits on two fundamentally different things are going to be demonstratively different in effect.  The argument I was responding to was implying that any limit is going to lead to the destruction of that right.  Even Scalia agrees the 2nd amendment can be limited.




They seem pretty similar to me. The difference in this example is between the abuse of something you already own and the ability to own something. To even be a participant in a common experience.
You are, in effect, asking people to petition and pay a fee for their rights to be recognized by the government.
That goes against the grain of our other rights, with a rather convenient exception on the 2nd.
 
2013-03-19 06:05:57 PM

alberta_beef: How much does a driver's license cost?


Driving isn't a right.

Voting is, and poll taxes are illegal. Use the proper analogy.
 
2013-03-19 06:06:19 PM

alberta_beef: Wait... Some dude is buying a $1000 assault, sorry, "sporting" rifle, and they're quibbling about having to pay for the background check? How much does a driver's license cost?

However, while I basically agree with magazine capacity limits, they are essentially unenforceable on existing owners. How do you find them, and seize them, without being horribly intrusive?

Of course, aside (possibly) from the entertainment value, what is the need for 30, 50, or 100-round mags? Oh, and don't give me the "its my rights!" stuff. Owning a gun is constitutionally-protected. Owning removable mags at all, let alone enormous ones, is not.


Hey, why not restrict it to one round? Why would have one ever need more than one round? Every one knows bullets go straight through the heart every single time.
 
2013-03-19 06:06:32 PM

new_york_monty: theurge14: R.A.Danny: theurge14: Law enforcement exists to enforce laws.  The concept of "law enforcement discretion" is wrong.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Cops have tons of leeway by design.

No, I'm pretty familiar with the concept of law enforcement discretion and I completely disagree with it.  I know everyone loves to tell stories about that nice cop who understood and let them go when they could've gotten a DUI, but it's wrong.  That leeway you speak of leads to inconsistent enforcement of laws which is where discrimination, corruption and racial profile all begin.  For every "that cop was cool he let me go when he could've busted me for DUI" story there's several bad ones.

I don't think I'd be comfortable with cops enforcing the letter of every law every single time they witness a violation. Way too many laws in this country for that to work well. And it takes reasonable warnings out of the equation. If someone unknowingly violates a minor local ordinance, law enforcement should rightfully be allowed to warn them of the offense and let them go.


I understand this position, but I don't agree with the solution.  If the logistics of enforcing the laws are difficult, that's what law enforcement should be there to determine.  If they can't solve that problem then there should be a way within the system to resolve the problem other than saying "nope, won't do it".

/If you wanted to remove discretion from violent felony enforcement, then I'd be with you
//At one point I'd have said all felonies, but way too many non-violent crimes fit under that umbrella today


Perhaps that would be a place to start.
 
2013-03-19 06:07:04 PM

new_york_monty: WippitGuud: GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.


You'd still need to register the car.
Do you need to register a firearm?

/honest question, that.

R.A.Danny: GUTSU: If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.

I get your point but even a home-made car would have to be titled and the title would have to be transferred when sold, and in most states there are fees for that.

Well, if it were a track-only car or for use on private land, it wouldn't need to be registered. Not to take sides, just to make a point.


What about insurance?
Up here, off-road vehicles that are not registered still require a minimum $500 liability insurance.
 
2013-03-19 06:07:25 PM
It should not be whether or not HE likes the laws...it should be whether or not WE like the laws.

He does not work for himself. He does not work for the Federal government.
 
2013-03-19 06:09:02 PM

vernonFL: Prostitution laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.

Drug laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.

Traffic laws are stupid and unenforceable. So we won't bother.


In some places, you could run for sheriff on that platform and win.
 
2013-03-19 06:09:20 PM
The sheriff in the county where I'm originally from has said basically the same thing. Thing is, he said it before anyone at the city, county, or state level had even begun to discuss any kind of new firearms regulations. As far as I know, they still haven't proposed or enacted anything. But, I guess whatever it takes to get your rednecks constituents all fired up in the name of defendin' 'Murrica from whoever we're supposed to hate this week.

People were posting it all over Facebook with comments agreeing and cheering him on. If those idiots want their taxes to pay the salary of someone who refuses to do his job, that's their problem. Sometimes I'm so glad I moved away.
 
2013-03-19 06:09:21 PM
So what exactly is their plan for when the State / DOJ pulls all their funding support?
 
2013-03-19 06:09:25 PM

way south: They seem pretty similar to me. The difference in this example is between the abuse of something you already own and the ability to own something. To even be a participant in a common experience.
You are, in effect, asking people to petition and pay a fee for their rights to be recognized by the government.
That goes against the grain of our other rights, with a rather convenient exception on the 2nd.


This is the kind of silliness that results when a "right" is defined not in terms of axiomatically accepted concepts (as with, say, the first amendment and fifth amendment), but in terms of a specific category of products.
 
2013-03-19 06:09:35 PM

GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.

Also, I wasn't talking about felons, but good job deflecting though.


If you were in the business of building semi-automatic rifles for charity, then I would have no issue with you being required to pay $20 for your buddy's background check. It really is the least you could do. If you can't afford the $20, maybe you should build something other than guns as gifts or at least charge something to offset the chump change for the background check.

You were talking about alienation of rights as if voting and owning guns were exempt. I think felonies are a perfect example. If someone commits a crime, is convicted, serves time in a correctional facility, then I would be fine with the voting rights being restored. I would NOT be fine with letting them immediately go buy any type of firearm. I wasn't deflecting. I think that someone should have some basic rights restored after rehabilitation. Voting to me is harmless enough to restore, but firearm ownership is not. IMO
 
2013-03-19 06:09:42 PM

WippitGuud: new_york_monty: WippitGuud: GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.


You'd still need to register the car.
Do you need to register a firearm?

/honest question, that.

R.A.Danny: GUTSU: If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.

I get your point but even a home-made car would have to be titled and the title would have to be transferred when sold, and in most states there are fees for that.

Well, if it were a track-only car or for use on private land, it wouldn't need to be registered. Not to take sides, just to make a point.

What about insurance?
Up here, off-road vehicles that are not registered still require a minimum $500 liability insurance.


Not where I live.
 
2013-03-19 06:09:49 PM
That's a good start.

Next they need to declare unconstitutional all laws allowing police to seize your money, your car, boat or airplane because they think drugs might be involved.

They're all a bunch of punks anyway.
 
2013-03-19 06:09:55 PM

Giltric: tylerdurden217: Casting a vote is always harmless and peaceful. There is some regulation of voting to prevent fraud, but no one's life is in danger by the casting of a vote

Say that to the families of the Iraq war dead....In their faces even.


That was the DNCs/Obamas platform against McCain though....a vote for him was a vote to kill your child in war.


But that was McCain AND Romney's plan.  Both of them promised war against:
Iran
Syria
Iraq
The Soviet Union

I'm assuming that the last one would require Obama to give them the technology for his magic time machine.
 
2013-03-19 06:10:07 PM

JeffDenver: It should not be whether or not HE likes the laws...it should be whether or not WE like the laws.

He does not work for himself. He does not work for the Federal government.


He works for the people of Weld county, who do not like gun laws.
 
2013-03-19 06:11:40 PM

GUTSU: R.A.Danny: GUTSU: You don't need to register a car if you don't use it on public roads.

So if I don't use a gun in public....?

You don't need to register firearms anyway, at least most firearms, besides using public roads is a privileged not a right.


Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?
 
2013-03-19 06:13:29 PM
pciszek: He works for the people of Weld county, who do not like gun laws.

That was kinda my point.
 
2013-03-19 06:14:34 PM

tylerdurden217: GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.

Also, I wasn't talking about felons, but good job deflecting though.

If you were in the business of building semi-automatic rifles for charity, then I would have no issue with you being required to pay $20 for your buddy's background check. It really is the least you could do. If you can't afford the $20, maybe you should build something other than guns as gifts or at least charge something to offset the chump change for the background check.

You were talking about alienation of rights as if voting and owning guns were exempt. I think felonies are a perfect example. If someone commits a crime, is convicted, serves time in a correctional facility, then I would be fine with the voting rights being restored. I would NOT be fine with letting them immediately go buy any type of firearm. I wasn't deflecting. I think that someone should have some basic rights restored after rehabilitation. Voting to me is harmless enough to restore, but firearm ownership is not. IMO


Then we are at an impasse, I believe that felons should be able to earn back their right to own firearms. I also disagree with having to pay to exercise any right. I believe that people should have the freedom to smoke, drink, fark, and own pretty much anything they want. As long as it doesn't affect anyone else, why should people care?
 
2013-03-19 06:15:09 PM

WippitGuud: new_york_monty: WippitGuud: GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.


You'd still need to register the car.
Do you need to register a firearm?

/honest question, that.

R.A.Danny: GUTSU: If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.

I get your point but even a home-made car would have to be titled and the title would have to be transferred when sold, and in most states there are fees for that.

Well, if it were a track-only car or for use on private land, it wouldn't need to be registered. Not to take sides, just to make a point.

What about insurance?
Up here, off-road vehicles that are not registered still require a minimum $500 liability insurance.


Is that to ride on public lands, or for private-land-only use as well? I don't want to be snarky, just don't know. The only off road vehicles I've ever owned are mountain bikes.
 
2013-03-19 06:15:16 PM

theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: muck4doo: theurge14: Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.

Yes, keep repeating this tired bullshiat right wing snark.  Laws get broken, so let's throw all the laws out because they're absurd and useless!  Shut up.

U MAD

And I'm not wrong.  Welcome to my ignore list.


Oh noes!!!!
 
2013-03-19 06:16:20 PM

Satanic_Hamster: I'm assuming that the last one would require Obama to give them the technology for his magic time machine.


I think it was just a one time use time machine. He went back, planted evidence of his birth in Hawaii and then the machine disintegrated. If you ask me, that was quite a gamble. What if he lost the election? No one would have cared where he was born. I guess it paid off. I would have used it for something else.
 
2013-03-19 06:16:34 PM

JeffDenver: It should not be whether or not HE likes the laws...it should be whether or not WE like the laws.

He does not work for himself. He does not work for the Federal government.


No, it should be if the people of Weld County like the laws, which they don't.  What you think about it shouldn't and doesn't matter, unless you are a Weld County resident.
 
2013-03-19 06:18:31 PM

odinsposse: tom baker's scarf: they are allowed to use logic and common sense. Just as  transporting a couple of case of liquor doesn't automatically trigger "he's an illegal vendor" carrying two legal, unmodified mags wouldn't trigger "OMG he's gonna make a 30 round mag because he could, maybe, someday, let's get him."

So the law is poorly written since the most straight forward interpretation flies in the face of common sense and logic. It's sounding more and more like you agree that the law as written is unenforceable.

Which is a problem the gun junkies bring on themselves.

Of course. It's the opponents of the law that are at fault for a bad law. Why didn't I see that before?


So offer up and support a meaningful alternative. If your leaders aren't going to contribute in a useful way then you are going to get stuck with whatever comes down the pike.

The rest of the country is under no obligation to share your paranoia or live under the consequences of it.
 
2013-03-19 06:18:38 PM

new_york_monty: WippitGuud:What about insurance?
Up here, off-road vehicles that are not registered still require a minimum $500 liability insurance.

Is that to ride on public lands, or for private-land-only use as well? I don't want to be snarky, just don't know. The only off road vehicles I've ever owned are mountain bikes.


"...on land they do not own or occupy."

So if it's your own land, you're good. But going to a track or something, or a neighbor's land, you need insurance.
 
2013-03-19 06:19:54 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: R.A.Danny: GUTSU: You don't need to register a car if you don't use it on public roads.

So if I don't use a gun in public....?

You don't need to register firearms anyway, at least most firearms, besides using public roads is a privileged not a right.

Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?


You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.
 
2013-03-19 06:21:09 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: R.A.Danny: GUTSU: You don't need to register a car if you don't use it on public roads.

So if I don't use a gun in public....?

You don't need to register firearms anyway, at least most firearms, besides using public roads is a privileged not a right.

Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?


Only for traffic that doesn't require a license or endanger traffic. You can move across the country walking or on a bicycle on anything but the interstate. I'm not sure if the laws prohibiting interstate traffic under 45 mph (and walking, bikes ,etc..) are state or federal.
 
2013-03-19 06:22:45 PM

alberta_beef: Of course, aside (possibly) from the entertainment value, what is the need for 30, 50, or 100-round mags?


Because fark you, that's the need.
 
2013-03-19 06:23:00 PM

GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.


Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.
 
2013-03-19 06:24:07 PM

WippitGuud: new_york_monty: WippitGuud:What about insurance?
Up here, off-road vehicles that are not registered still require a minimum $500 liability insurance.

Is that to ride on public lands, or for private-land-only use as well? I don't want to be snarky, just don't know. The only off road vehicles I've ever owned are mountain bikes.

"...on land they do not own or occupy."

So if it's your own land, you're good. But going to a track or something, or a neighbor's land, you need insurance.


Sounds perfectly reasonable to me then.
 
2013-03-19 06:24:34 PM

GUTSU: tylerdurden217: GUTSU: With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.

Also, I wasn't talking about felons, but good job deflecting though.

If you were in the business of building semi-automatic rifles for charity, then I would have no issue with you being required to pay $20 for your buddy's background check. It really is the least you could do. If you can't afford the $20, maybe you should build something other than guns as gifts or at least charge something to offset the chump change for the background check.

You were talking about alienation of rights as if voting and owning guns were exempt. I think felonies are a perfect example. If someone commits a crime, is convicted, serves time in a correctional facility, then I would be fine with the voting rights being restored. I would NOT be fine with letting them immediately go buy any type of firearm. I wasn't deflecting. I think that someone should have some basic rights restored after rehabilitation. Voting to me is harmless enough to restore, but firearm ownership is not. IMO

Then we are at an impasse, I believe that felons should be able to earn back their right to own firearms. I also disagree with having to pay to exercise any right. I believe that people should have the freedom to smoke, drink, fark, and own pretty much anything they want. As long as it doesn't affect anyone else, why should people care?


I'd stop at any violent felon or someone convicted of domestic violence or something similar. There should be a fairly robust appeal mechanism in place though, and I'm not sure there is one. I've seen some posts here and there addressing it, but I will have to dig further.
 
2013-03-19 06:25:14 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.


Rights are not about needs. They never have been.
 
2013-03-19 06:27:20 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.


No, a more apt analogy would be restricting firearms in public places. Limiting magazines would be like restricting people from leaving a state.
 
2013-03-19 06:27:49 PM

redmid17: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

Rights are not about needs. They never have been.


If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?
 
2013-03-19 06:28:37 PM

tom baker's scarf: So offer up and support a meaningful alternative. If your leaders aren't going to contribute in a useful way then you are going to get stuck with whatever comes down the pike.

The rest of the country is under no obligation to share your paranoia or live under the consequences of it.


Said every advocate of the Patriot Act, NDAA, warrantless wire-tapping, and 4th-amendment-skirting drug laws.

WippitGuud: Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.


You don't need semi-automatic weapons to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need revolvers or lever-action weapons to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need cartridge-based ammunition to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need rifled barrels to exercise your right to bear arms.
 
2013-03-19 06:29:56 PM

HotWingConspiracy: We've already won industry opinion and it's only a matter of time until Lapierre self destructs. Universal checks are coming, and it doesn't matter how many sheriffs want to cry about it.


Are you absolutely sure about that?
http://news.yahoo.com/gun-control-suffers-two-setbacks-congress-2012 13 233.html
 
2013-03-19 06:30:33 PM

WippitGuud: If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?


If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of abortion-inducing drugs or machine vacuums for abortions, how does that infringe upon your rights?
 
2013-03-19 06:30:55 PM

WippitGuud: redmid17: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

Rights are not about needs. They never have been.

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?


How is not being allowed to use vowels infringe on your right to free speech? Who needs more than 21 letters anyway?
 
2013-03-19 06:32:05 PM

GUTSU: How is not being allowed to use vowels infringe on your right to free speech? Who needs more than 21 letters anyway?


Who needs an internet connection faster than dial-up?  The only people who want high-capacity broadband are child pornographers or pirates.
 
2013-03-19 06:32:40 PM

Fark It: WippitGuud: If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of abortion-inducing drugs or machine vacuums for abortions, how does that infringe upon your rights?


Are you asking if they banning just those methods of abortion, and leaving other options legal, or banning all methods of abortion? Obviously, if they ban all forms, it's infringing on your rights. Just as if they banned all firearms, it would be infringing on your rights.
 
2013-03-19 06:35:49 PM

WippitGuud: Fark It: WippitGuud: If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of abortion-inducing drugs or machine vacuums for abortions, how does that infringe upon your rights?

Are you asking if they banning just those methods of abortion, and leaving other options legal, or banning all methods of abortion? Obviously, if they ban all forms, it's infringing on your rights. Just as if they banned all firearms, it would be infringing on your rights.


Using break-action, single use, coat hangers with a 3 day waiting period would still be legal, if you got a $1000 one time use abortion permit.
 
2013-03-19 06:36:22 PM
heres the problem, the second one of those cops don't enforce the law and someone gets killed who's death could have possibly been prevented, there will be more lawsuits then they'll ever dream of and the govt may have the balls to say "the local police wont listen, we need to send in feds to keep the citizens safe" which could ultimately lead to less 2nd amendment rights
⬇ Drag and drop your images here to upload them.
 
2013-03-19 06:38:04 PM

GUTSU: WippitGuud: redmid17: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

Rights are not about needs. They never have been.

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?

How is not being allowed to use vowels infringe on your right to free speech? Who needs more than 21 letters anyway?


How does one speak without vowels?
 
2013-03-19 06:39:01 PM

jso2897: rka: WippitGuud: Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with people owning guns. I don't have any myself (I do have two bows, however). But I read how gun owners want to be outfitted as if they were a light infantryman on deployment to defend their homes... they talk as if they live in a war zone.

Because for some reason people have to constantly, and with ever increasing volume, defend their right to own guns. Year after year.

30 years ago, if you would have asked all the male members of my family why they each needed half a dozen shotguns and rifles they would have said "Because Shut the fark Up, that's why" and the matter would have been dropped because you were too ashamed at having asked such a stupid question in the first place that you would have slunk back to whatever place you crawled out of.

Nowaday's we seemingly have to fight the same fights over and over again. It isn't enough to say "STFU and mind you own business" anymore I guess. Now people have to swaddle the 2nd Amendment in harrowing tales of self-defense, and paint lurid pictures of rape and murder in order to have anyone listen.

This is what I don't get. I own an old rifle, and when I move back to the country, I'll probably take it out of mothballs in case the coyotes come after my chickens or some shiat. But I don't need some lofty f**king superhero bullshiat story to justify it. It's my gun, I own it, and f**k you that's why. I don't need it to feel safe, or to defend America, or to shoot it out with the jackbooted thugs in black helicopters. Actually, I don't want to shoot anybody, and never will. Does everybody think they're f**king Rambo anymore?


Let us know how well the "because FARK YOU, that's why" respone goes with the BATF agents when they show up on your doorstep to confiscate your guns because some neighbor thought you shouldn't have so many.

/the Ruby Ridge precedent might be worth reading
 
2013-03-19 06:39:58 PM

WippitGuud: Fark It: WippitGuud: If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of abortion-inducing drugs or machine vacuums for abortions, how does that infringe upon your rights?

Are you asking if they banning just those methods of abortion, and leaving other options legal, or banning all methods of abortion? Obviously, if they ban all forms, it's infringing on your rights. Just as if they banned all firearms, it would be infringing on your rights.


Maybe you should look up the meaning of infringe, cause....
www.chinahearsay.com
 
2013-03-19 06:41:48 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: redmid17: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

Rights are not about needs. They never have been.

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?

How is not being allowed to use vowels infringe on your right to free speech? Who needs more than 21 letters anyway?

How does one speak without vowels?


Ask the Welsh. They did it for awhile.
 
2013-03-19 06:42:55 PM

gittlebass: heres the problem, the second one of those cops don't enforce the law and someone gets killed who's death could have possibly been prevented, there will be more lawsuits then they'll ever dream of and the govt may have the balls to say "the local police wont listen, we need to send in feds to keep the citizens safe" which could ultimately lead to less 2nd amendment rights
⬇ Drag and drop your images here to upload them.


The courts have already found the police have no specific duty to defend people, and that they can't be sued for neglecting to protect the citizenry*. I imagine they would find similarly in such a case as you describe. I don't think the feds would involve themselves here; they tend to take that step only when local LE are actively repressing people (see: much of the civil rights movement).

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
 
2013-03-19 06:43:26 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: redmid17: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

Rights are not about needs. They never have been.

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?

How is not being allowed to use vowels infringe on your right to free speech? Who needs more than 21 letters anyway?

How does one speak without vowels?


It's a reasonable restriction, or do you support racial slurs and hurtful words? Why do you support the destruction of today's youth's self-esteem?
 
2013-03-19 06:43:42 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: I wish I could tell my boss that I think his policies are bullshiat and just refuse to do my job.


Well, technically, you can, there just might be some repercussions if you do

We have had Fark threads along similar lines where pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions because it conflicted with their morality.  This issue with the gun laws strikes me as basically the same deal.  If your job duties and your morality conflict, I am sympathetic to that.  But you may lose your job if you stick to your guns, and that is how it should be.
 
2013-03-19 06:44:47 PM

Fark It: tom baker's scarf: So offer up and support a meaningful alternative. If your leaders aren't going to contribute in a useful way then you are going to get stuck with whatever comes down the pike.

The rest of the country is under no obligation to share your paranoia or live under the consequences of it.

Said every advocate of the Patriot Act, NDAA, warrantless wire-tapping, and 4th-amendment-skirting drug laws.

WippitGuud: Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need semi-automatic weapons to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need revolvers or lever-action weapons to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need cartridge-based ammunition to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need rifled barrels to exercise your right to bear arms.


The founding fathers overthrew the government with (mostly) smooth bore and single shot weapons. Are you saying you aren't as patriotic as them? Is your belief on liberty so weak you can't walk in their footsteps?

If the slippery slope starts with "you can't have 30 round mags" and moves at its current pace we will be extinct long before we even get doing something useful about assault weapons.
 
2013-03-19 06:46:02 PM
"CNSNews.com is  not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is  not funded by the government like PBS.

CNSNews.com  relies 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. It'sfast,  easy and  secure."

Hahaha, it's amazing how "conservative" news sources never seem to be able to go ten minutes without making idiots of themselves....
 
2013-03-19 06:46:19 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: A real news article about this issue and why the sheriff is right and justified. Link


I just read through all of your posts. I like your style. No derp all substance.
 
2013-03-19 06:46:25 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!!


That's rich. I live in Los Angeles where the libtards rule, and the have selective law enforcement all the time.

The latest one being ignoring State Marujuana laws and busting pot smokers while letting the illegals go against federal law because of votes from the Mexicans.
 
2013-03-19 06:47:24 PM

dewright_ca: This is from the same lib-tard mentality that think its wrong to ask for a drug test for getting public assistance, or that don't care what you use you EBT card for.


Pro tip: don't use "lib-tard" if you want people to take anything you say seriously.
 
2013-03-19 06:47:48 PM

Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: We've already won industry opinion and it's only a matter of time until Lapierre self destructs. Universal checks are coming, and it doesn't matter how many sheriffs want to cry about it.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-control-suffers-two-setbacks-congress-201 213 233.html


From your link:

"A Democratic proposal to ban the sale of assault weapons officially ended on Tuesday, when a lack of bipartisan support doomed the ban in the Senate. Also, background checks appear to remain in limbo.

"March_on_Washington_for_Gun_Control_032Majority leader Harry Reid said he was withdrawing the assault weapons legislation after he couldn't get within 20 votes of the 60 needed to avoid a filibuster. In fact, Reid said he couldn't muster 40 votes, meaning that at least 15 Democrats or independents opposed the ban.

"Reid also indicated that universal background checks, including checks on private gun sales, needed help to make it to a floor vote after Easter.

END QUOTE


Today is a good day for freedom.

:-)
 
2013-03-19 06:50:58 PM

GUTSU: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: redmid17: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

Rights are not about needs. They never have been.

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?

How is not being allowed to use vowels infringe on your right to free speech? Who needs more than 21 letters anyway?

How does one speak without vowels?

It's a reasonable restriction, or do you support racial slurs and hurtful words? Why do you support the destruction of today's youth's self-esteem?


How do I answer that...
... Free Speech vs Anti-Bullying. Wouldn't they cancel each other out?
 
2013-03-19 06:51:22 PM

Krikkitbot: Ow! That was my feelings!: A real news article about this issue and why the sheriff is right and justified. Link

I just read through all of your posts. I like your style. No derp all substance.


I blame sobriety.  That and months of fighting this fight in the Colorado legislature.
 
2013-03-19 06:51:26 PM
Sheriffs have discretion, as does every LEO, to enforce or not to enforce. I wonder how many condemning this guy praised other sheriffs who refused to evict people from foreclosed homes not so long ago?

/dnrtfa... It might be douchebaggery but don't care to find out.
 
2013-03-19 06:51:48 PM

Shryke: 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.

Keep dreamin', comrade Police State. Keep dreamin'.


Funny how it's all "police state" when it's restricting a freedom YOU like, but "family values" when the freedom being restricted or denied is something you don't care for.
 
2013-03-19 06:52:46 PM

tom baker's scarf: Fark It: tom baker's scarf: So offer up and support a meaningful alternative. If your leaders aren't going to contribute in a useful way then you are going to get stuck with whatever comes down the pike.

The rest of the country is under no obligation to share your paranoia or live under the consequences of it.

Said every advocate of the Patriot Act, NDAA, warrantless wire-tapping, and 4th-amendment-skirting drug laws.

WippitGuud: Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need semi-automatic weapons to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need revolvers or lever-action weapons to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need cartridge-based ammunition to exercise your right to bear arms.

You don't need rifled barrels to exercise your right to bear arms.

The founding fathers overthrew the government with (mostly) smooth bore and single shot weapons. Are you saying you aren't as patriotic as them? Is your belief on liberty so weak you can't walk in their footsteps?

If the slippery slope starts with "you can't have 30 round mags" and moves at its current pace we will be extinct long before we even get doing something useful about assault weapons.


They also had cannons, warships, and no laws regarding the open or concealed carry of any type of weapon. Careful what bad arguments you try to bring into a debate.

/assault weapons aren't that big of a problem
//handguns are the huge problem in the room that no one is bothering to address
 
2013-03-19 06:52:59 PM

WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: redmid17: WippitGuud: GUTSU: WippitGuud: Doesn't the Privelege and Immunities Clause guarantee Freedom of Movement? Wouldn't that make it a right?

You don't need a car to exercise your Freedom of Movement. It's perfectly legal to walk across the country, and you don't need a license to own a horse.

Full circle: You don't need a 30 round clip exercise your right to bear arms.

Rights are not about needs. They never have been.

If the government enacts a ban against the manufacture or import of (in this case) a 30 round magazine, how does that infringe upon your rights?

How is not being allowed to use vowels infringe on your right to free speech? Who needs more than 21 letters anyway?

How does one speak without vowels?

It's a reasonable restriction, or do you support racial slurs and hurtful words? Why do you support the destruction of today's youth's self-esteem?

How do I answer that...
... Free Speech vs Anti-Bullying. Wouldn't they cancel each other out?


Would you rather be restricted in what you could say for fear that someone could be hurt, or would you rather have the freedom to make those mistakes in the first place?
 
2013-03-19 06:54:41 PM

Amos Quito: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: We've already won industry opinion and it's only a matter of time until Lapierre self destructs. Universal checks are coming, and it doesn't matter how many sheriffs want to cry about it.

Are you absolutely sure about that?
http://news.yahoo.com/gun-control-suffers-two-setbacks-congress-201 213 233.html


From your link:

"A Democratic proposal to ban the sale of assault weapons officially ended on Tuesday, when a lack of bipartisan support doomed the ban in the Senate. Also, background checks appear to remain in limbo.

"March_on_Washington_for_Gun_Control_032Majority leader Harry Reid said he was withdrawing the assault weapons legislation after he couldn't get within 20 votes of the 60 needed to avoid a filibuster. In fact, Reid said he couldn't muster 40 votes, meaning that at least 15 Democrats or independents opposed the ban.

"Reid also indicated that universal background checks, including checks on private gun sales, needed help to make it to a floor vote after Easter.

END QUOTE


Today is a good day for freedom.

:-)


What I wouldn't have given to have seen Feinstein's face after she heard the news.
 
2013-03-19 06:55:39 PM

ciberido: dewright_ca: This is from the same lib-tard mentality that think its wrong to ask for a drug test for getting public assistance, or that don't care what you use you EBT card for.

Pro tip: don't use "lib-tard" if you want people to take anything you say seriously.


In fact just stop talking altogether. Better to be thought a fool than speak up and remove all doubt.
 
2013-03-19 06:57:04 PM

GUTSU: What I wouldn't have given to have seen Feinstein's face after she heard the news.


cdn.breitbart.com
 
2013-03-19 06:57:21 PM
Gun control laws are so hilarious. They totally fail to take into account that we're about to have energy weapons (and you can build a pretty hefty 100w laser pistol for roughly the price of a good 1911.)

What're you going to do, limit us on battery size?

Morons.
 
2013-03-19 06:57:45 PM

GUTSU: Amos Quito: Farkage: HotWingConspiracy: We've already won industry opinion and it's only a matter of time until Lapierre self destructs. Universal checks are coming, and it doesn't matter how many sheriffs want to cry about it.

Are you absolutely sure about that?
http://news.yahoo.com/gun-control-suffers-two-setbacks-congress-201 213 233.html


From your link:

"A Democratic proposal to ban the sale of assault weapons officially ended on Tuesday, when a lack of bipartisan support doomed the ban in the Senate. Also, background checks appear to remain in limbo.

"March_on_Washington_for_Gun_Control_032Majority leader Harry Reid said he was withdrawing the assault weapons legislation after he couldn't get within 20 votes of the 60 needed to avoid a filibuster. In fact, Reid said he couldn't muster 40 votes, meaning that at least 15 Democrats or independents opposed the ban.

"Reid also indicated that universal background checks, including checks on private gun sales, needed help to make it to a floor vote after Easter.

END QUOTE


Today is a good day for freedom.

:-)

What I wouldn't have given to have seen Feinstein's face after she heard the news.


No kidding!  Dear god I hate that hypocritical self righteous biatch..
 
2013-03-19 06:58:02 PM

GUTSU: It's a reasonable restriction, or do you support racial slurs and hurtful words? Why do you support the destruction of today's youth's self-esteem?


Sure - try that in court and let us know how it works out.

Also, it's been a while since I read up on all this, but I'm pretty sure that in the US, a right being identified as a fundamental right doesn't magically invalidate any laws that restrict or regulate it. All it does is change the type of scrutiny that is applied when the law is being reviewed, and even under strict scrutiny such laws can be upheld if they meet certain criteria.

The differences between the gun laws being discussed and these silly hypotheticals about vowels and coat hangers become obvious when you start evaluating them based on those criteria.
 
2013-03-19 06:59:06 PM

Tatterdemalian: jso2897: rka: WippitGuud: Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with people owning guns. I don't have any myself (I do have two bows, however). But I read how gun owners want to be outfitted as if they were a light infantryman on deployment to defend their homes... they talk as if they live in a war zone.

Because for some reason people have to constantly, and with ever increasing volume, defend their right to own guns. Year after year.

30 years ago, if you would have asked all the male members of my family why they each needed half a dozen shotguns and rifles they would have said "Because Shut the fark Up, that's why" and the matter would have been dropped because you were too ashamed at having asked such a stupid question in the first place that you would have slunk back to whatever place you crawled out of.

Nowaday's we seemingly have to fight the same fights over and over again. It isn't enough to say "STFU and mind you own business" anymore I guess. Now people have to swaddle the 2nd Amendment in harrowing tales of self-defense, and paint lurid pictures of rape and murder in order to have anyone listen.

This is what I don't get. I own an old rifle, and when I move back to the country, I'll probably take it out of mothballs in case the coyotes come after my chickens or some shiat. But I don't need some lofty f**king superhero bullshiat story to justify it. It's my gun, I own it, and f**k you that's why. I don't need it to feel safe, or to defend America, or to shoot it out with the jackbooted thugs in black helicopters. Actually, I don't want to shoot anybody, and never will. Does everybody think they're f**king Rambo anymore?

Let us know how well the "because FARK YOU, that's why" respone goes with the BATF agents when they show up on your doorstep to confiscate your guns because some neighbor thought you shouldn't have so many.

/the Ruby Ridge precedent might be worth reading


See - this is the kind of bizarre, drama queen crap I don't get. Back in the sixties and seventies, gun laws were actually stricter than they are now. Far stricter ones were being proposed - hell, the NRA wanted to ban "saturday night specials". and there wasn't anywhere near the hysterical paranoia that you see now.
I mean seriously - what am I going to do in the event your fantasy scenario comes true (unlikely, since I am not a felonious nutbag who terrorizes his neighbors)? I'll give them my goddamn guns, just like I would my pot, and say "Gee, I'm sorry, ocifer!" Then, when they are gone, I'll just go get another one - like I would go get some more weed. Of course, that will never happen, since I do not advertise what I do or own to my neighbors, as I am not a drama queen attention whore and felon. This is why this whole debate has become a joke to me - you people may scare a few hysterical urban liberals - but you are a joke to me. You are silly, and funny, and all I can do is laugh at you.
 
2013-03-19 06:59:47 PM

MacWizard: Deciding that certain laws are not worth enforcing sounds like common sense. Very liberal, actually.


It's not even that (although it sounds like it could have been), he decided that certain laws are impossible to enforce. If you read his statements it's pretty plain that regardless of his feelings on the laws, he doesn't have the ability to enforce them even if he wanted to.

muck4doo: Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.


That theater was, that's why I stopped going to it. I can't say I regret that decision.

alberta_beef: Owning removable mags at all, let alone enormous ones, is not.


I'd like to see what the SCOTUS has to say on that one. They've already said that ammo restrictions are de facto gun restrictions because ammo is an integral part when it comes to using a gun (they worded it better), and IMO magazines are the same. If you ban a part of a gun that is required for it to function, you've banned the gun. CO's ban wouldn't necessarily ban my guns as the capacity is higher than the standard mags. I have pistols that would effectively be banned in NY because the standard mags are over their limit and I can't get anything smaller. It's not that low-cap mags for them are hard to find, it's that they don't farking exist.
 
2013-03-19 07:01:10 PM

GanjSmokr: GUTSU: What I wouldn't have given to have seen Feinstein's face after she heard the news.


cdn.breitbart.com


1.bp.blogspot.com

Apologies to Cloris Leachman.

/I LIKE Cloris Leachman
 
2013-03-19 07:01:30 PM
".....and we'll hang any n*gger we catch acting all uppity or leering at our white wimmun too!"