If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

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



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-19 03:34:46 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 658 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report