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 144
    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»



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


Archived thread
2013-03-19 03:12:42 PM
13 votes:

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 01:16:02 PM
12 votes:
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 01:44:13 PM
10 votes:
Authoritarians love their privacy. They just don't give a shiat about yours.
2013-03-19 03:15:01 PM
8 votes:
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 01:36:18 PM
7 votes:
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 01:34:20 PM
7 votes:
Meanwhile, they're still all for seizing assets without going to court to prove guilt first.
2013-03-19 03:13:48 PM
6 votes:
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 02:15:22 PM
5 votes:
I wish I could tell my boss that I think his policies are bullshiat and just refuse to do my job.
2013-03-19 03:20:35 PM
4 votes:

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 03:13:46 PM
4 votes:
"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 06:47:48 PM
3 votes:

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 04:04:45 PM
3 votes:

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 03:58:57 PM
3 votes:
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 03:32:55 PM
3 votes:
On another note....

Subby doesn't really get the "Yeah, about that..." meme.
2013-03-19 03:32:16 PM
3 votes:
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 03:31:31 PM
3 votes:
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 03:27:20 PM
3 votes:

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 03:12:15 PM
3 votes:
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 01:58:08 PM
3 votes:
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 11:45:55 PM
2 votes:

Satanic_Hamster: Verzio: The job (like every other government office in the US) includes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That inherently requires the sheriff to judge what acts on his part uphold it and what acts do not. Refusing to take actions to enforce what he believes to be an unconstitutional law is, in fact, part of his job.

No, it's not.  There's a legal course of action if you think something isn't legal or Constitutional.  Random hicks declaring it unconstitutional isn't one of them.


Go ahead, show me where in the US Constitution that lays out this "legal course of action", and says individual officials must defer their own judgments to it.  Article and section, please.

The fact that the courts have the implicit power to review the constitutionality of laws does not, in any way, actually relieve persons who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution from their oath to uphold the Constitution.  By the fact that it's an obligation on the individual, the individual must make a judgment.  If the judgment that individual makes is to assume constitutionality until a court rules, that is still a decision he made.  Making the judgment is inescapable.

Biological Ali: The famous "Fire in a crowded theater" phrase was actually coined in a case that related to a man distributing leaflets (which I'm sure you'll agree are similar enough to books as far as "speech" is concerned. The case didn't turn out very well for the guy arguing "free speech"


Yeah, because Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr., was a fascist asshole who used the Constitution for toilet paper.  And that a later Supreme Court held that it was okay to round up Japanese-Americans who had committed no crimes and detain them in concentration camps didn't make that actually constitutional either.
2013-03-19 11:10:50 PM
2 votes:
I think most people here HAVE NO FARKING CLUE what this new Colorado law does and why it is unenforceable. It is an EXTREMELY poorly worded law that effectively outlaws about 70% of all guns in Colorado.

First, the guns it applies too:
All pistols, shotguns, and rifles that use, or can be modified to use, magazines, because effectively all magazines can be modified to hold more than 15 rounds. Only exception would be if you permanently disable modification in some way, but that isn't possible or practical with the vast majority of magazines. Total this probably applies to about 60% of all guns in Colorado.
All pump action shotguns that hold, or can he modified to hold, more than 5 rounds in the tube, which is about 90% of all pump shotguns. Probably close to another 10% of all Colorado guns.

Second, the affect on individuals (in reference to use of the guns above):
If you own any of the above guns you can not leave the magazines in the possession or constructive possession of ANYONE ELSE EVER. Among other things, this means that if anyone else lives in your house you have to keep your magazines locked up at all times when not on your person. This effectively means you have to use a combination only safe and only you can know the combination.
You can not loan (let them touch when you aren't also touching) your gun to anyone else if it has a magazine in it, nor leave it or the magazines where someone else has constructive possession, even for a minute. Even at the range with you standing right there the only way someone could shoot the gun is if you load in a magazine, cycle the round into the chamber, remove the magazine, hand it to them, let them shoot, take it back, and repeat. Effectively it makes it a single shot with a dangerous handoff process required between each shot.
If someone else does ever gain possession of your magazine from that point on ANYONE who possess that magazine is a criminal, including yourself.
If you are at a range and the gun jams with the magazine in it the Range Safety Officer can not assist you in clearing the jam except by giving verbal instructions.
If you are at a range, hunting, or just going about your life while carrying, and become sick or injured nobody can assist you with your firearms even if you are physically incapable of moving them. If the paramedics have to remove your belt with they, and even your wife, has to leave the firearm on the ground where it is, and it is illegal for you to every pick up the magazine ever again. A police officer could remove the magazine and return the gun to you though.
Selling or buying any of the above firearms with a magazine anywhere in the state is of course then illegal. If you don't already have magazines for a given gun before July 1st there is no point in buying the gun because you can't purchase magazines for it unless the magazines are effectively impossible to expand to hold 16 rounds.
If you need your firearm repaired you can't leave your magazines with the gunsmith (or ship them with the gun) so they may not be able to repair it, or if they can they may not be able to test it properly (they would have to have a magazine for that gun from before this law became active). Pump action shotguns become effectively unrepairable by anyone but yourself.

In effect this law will effectively make probably more than 99% of gun owners, and their family members, into criminals. It will make owning a gun shop or manufacturing almost all guns or gun accessories effectively impossible in the state of Colorado.

In practice it won't be enforced this way of course, but that is how the law is WRITTEN....This is one of the biggest problems with anti-gun legislators. They are generally the least qualified people imaginable to make laws about guns. They don't know what they are talking about, why the hell are they writing the laws?
2013-03-19 06:29:56 PM
2 votes:

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
rka
2013-03-19 05:46:22 PM
2 votes:

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 05:12:03 PM
2 votes:

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 04:50:41 PM
2 votes:

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 04:15:22 PM
2 votes:

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 03:38:54 PM
2 votes:

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 03:32:01 PM
2 votes:

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 03:31:00 PM
2 votes:
urbanhabitat.org

Refusing to enforce "unjust" laws isn't anything new to conservatives.
2013-03-19 03:28:12 PM
2 votes:

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 03:20:28 PM
2 votes:

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 03:20:19 PM
2 votes:
A real news article about this issue and why the sheriff is right and justified. Link
2013-03-19 03:17:56 PM
2 votes:
Well, good.

I'm gonna follow their example and not obey any law I feel is unconstitutional.
2013-03-19 03:15:04 PM
2 votes:
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 01:18:20 PM
2 votes:
Well, I guess we can disband the Supreme Court now. This brilliant legal scholar has it all under control
2013-03-20 09:09:12 PM
1 votes:

Marcintosh: Farkage: Marcintosh: Noticeably F.A.T.: Marcintosh: what else has worked?
According to the violent crime statistics, whatever we've been doing up until now has been working.
Marcintosh: A good plan today is better than a great plan tomorrow at least according to the capitalists.
Unenforceable laws are not part of "a good plan". In fact, that would be the exact opposite of a good plan. Tack on the fact that even if they had been enforceable they still wouldn't even slow down criminals, and you've made laws that not only can't help, but actually hurt.
do something then, come up with something else that works like background checks, annual range day something -
at any rate if you just can't think of anything at all just don't be obstructionist.
Unenforceable laws - have you perhaps seen how the BATFE has been hobbled by the NRA and other lobbyist organizations (abetted by bought and paid for congress) by inserting language making many laws unenforceable against those that would do us harm?  That is an outrage.
Why does the BATFE have the same staffing numbers as they had in 1973?  Why is that I wonder.  How is it that in 1996 the CDC was stopped from investigating gun violence?  1996-2013 ban on it how come?
But-
The fix is in and I think the best we can do is to keep asking the hard questions because when even members of congress and presidents and LITTLE KIDS get shot and killed nothing happens.

And exactly how do you enforce a an on a magazine that can hold, or be modified to hold more than an arbitrary number of rounds?  Tell me.  I'm waiting.  Have you ever seen one?  Held one???  Taken one apart?  It's a farking sheet metal box (or polymer) with a spring in it.  I can make one in my garage.  And the POS Virginia Tech shooter did what he did with 2 handguns and STANDARD (not high) capacity magazines.  So, obviously restricting what law abiding non-psychotic killers to what he had when he killed OVER 30 PEOPLE will prevent someone from doing exactly what he did all ...

Matter of fact I have thankyouverymuch.  All it takes is duct tape and a pair of pliers to make an extended magazine.  There's no trick to it.  Standard mags run between 7 & 10 rounds.  From your text I think you have a bit of adrenaline cranking out now.  Imagine how swiftly you can change a magazine with shaking hands from an adrenaline over load.  You might just consider not making them any more.  Ms. Lanza isn't about to make an extended mag for her son Adam so there's a win.

Some how there aren't a lot of silencers (or suppressors as they're called around here). Though I see them for sale all over.

One place to start might not to be to permit further Kitchen Table gun stores.  Where someone gets an FFL but doesn't run a shop per se. They typically do it for the wholesale pricing on ammunition and weapons.  That would be a start.

Or do you think we should just leave things as they are, dead kids and all?  If you aren't working for a solution you're part of the problem sort of thing.


Given the fact you haven't come up with a single thing that would actually do anything to solve the problem, I'd say you're doing nothing but grasping at straws. Unfortunately, those are straws that will do nothing but make things difficult for those of us that will never cause harm to anyone else, so I guess a hearty "screw you" is in order.
2013-03-20 02:08:56 PM
1 votes:

Marcintosh: what else has worked?


According to the violent crime statistics, whatever we've been doing up until now has been working.

Marcintosh: A good plan today is better than a great plan tomorrow at least according to the capitalists.


Unenforceable laws are not part of "a good plan". In fact, that would be the exact opposite of a good plan. Tack on the fact that even if they had been enforceable they still wouldn't even slow down criminals, and you've made laws that not only can't help, but actually hurt.
2013-03-20 07:23:04 AM
1 votes:
Liberals around the country openly flaunt that they do not enforce federal laws regarding immigration and drugs, because they don't feel like it. Liberals cheer.

Conservatives say they will not violate the 2nd amendment by enforcing stupid laws. Liberals boo.

Hippiecrits, how do they work?
2013-03-20 06:26:41 AM
1 votes:
ciberido: way south: Evil High Priest: Canons is the way to go, obviously. They should be mandatory if you want to vote.


I thought they were, especially in places like Chicago and New York...
[dl.dropbox.com image 450x406] [dl.dropbox.com image 650x443]

You do realize that voter fraud is basically a dogwhistle for efforts to disenfranchise voters, right?


If that's the case then the people who hear it are easily fooled by politicians.
It should be a call for transparency and more public involvement in verification of the vote. Even by force, if necessary.

/But if we're to accept the argument that all gun owners must be carded, for the greater good, I guess its only natural that they'll card voters too.
2013-03-19 11:59:51 PM
1 votes:

Verzio: Satanic_Hamster: Verzio: The job (like every other government office in the US) includes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That inherently requires the sheriff to judge what acts on his part uphold it and what acts do not. Refusing to take actions to enforce what he believes to be an unconstitutional law is, in fact, part of his job.

No, it's not.  There's a legal course of action if you think something isn't legal or Constitutional.  Random hicks declaring it unconstitutional isn't one of them.

Go ahead, show me where in the US Constitution that lays out this "legal course of action", and says individual officials must defer their own judgments to it.  Article and section, please.

The fact that the courts have the implicit power to review the constitutionality of laws does not, in any way, actually relieve persons who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution from their oath to uphold the Constitution.  By the fact that it's an obligation on the individual, the individual must make a judgment.  If the judgment that individual makes is to assume constitutionality until a court rules, that is still a decision he made.  Making the judgment is inescapable.

Biological Ali: The famous "Fire in a crowded theater" phrase was actually coined in a case that related to a man distributing leaflets (which I'm sure you'll agree are similar enough to books as far as "speech" is concerned. The case didn't turn out very well for the guy arguing "free speech"

Yeah, because Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr., was a fascist asshole who used the Constitution for toilet paper.  And that a later Supreme Court held that it was okay to round up Japanese-Americans who had committed no crimes and detain them in concentration camps didn't make that actually constitutional either.


Fine; when I become sheriff of your county I'm going to declare that I consider any anti-rape laws to be unconstitutional and I will no longer be enforcing them because that's what I think the Founding Fathers intended.  I mean, they didn't even MENTION rape in the Constitutional, so how could it be legal or Constitutional to ban it?  And I know this is right, because I have a GED in Constitutional Law.
2013-03-19 11:56:11 PM
1 votes:

Biological Ali: The police aren't part of the "checks and balances" you're talking about. What you're thinking of is courts.


No, the citizens are the 4th and ultimate check and indeed the source of the government's power.

The president is an old guy in a nice suit.

The congress is a bunch of old people in cheaper suits.

The supreme court is a bunch of old people in black dresses.

Without the support of the people, they're just a bunch of over 30s sitting on their asses.

The same is true of the state level government. They pass an unenforceable law that makes all citizens criminals, the police have no mandate to enforce it and a moral obligation not to. It's the duty and the power of the 4th branch.
2013-03-19 11:46:12 PM
1 votes:

camelwalk: This kind of gun crime and mass shooting didn't exist in the 50's, 60's, etc and you're damn right the same firearms were around back then.

No, they existed.  Both sides seem to want to dismiss that mass shootings have been a problem for much of this century.  I guess the decision that needs to be made is a simple one, can we accept the level of morbidity and mortality that results from having access to these weapons (keeping in mind that plain old non-mass killings are far more common.)

There will still be many, many legal guns and there will still be many fatalities caused by people using them recklessly, (but, let's be honest, as designed.)


Yeah, pretty much this. They existed, it's just that in an era without live TV coverage on 500 channels, or the Internet, or cell phones or any of the instant communication we take for granted, nobody knew about it until well after it happened (if at all). It could take days or weeks for news of a guy killing his neighbors in some backwoods community to leak out to the rest of the state, never mind the country, and by then it wasn't news anymore.

Also, let's not forget a couple other things: First, "mass shootings" that involve the deaths of more than four or five people are still extremely rare. Again, we hear about them MORE because of the media echo chamber; but averaged over time, there are still very few of these large-scale massacres that occur outside war zones. Second, the reason they were less common in the 50's and 60's was that the firepower itself was less available. The M16/AK-47 style assault rifle wasn't even produced for military use until the 50's and wasn't available for civilian use until the 60's--so that's kind of going to prevent "mass shootings" using military hardware from occurring prior to that date. Charles Whitman used a sniper rifle and Lee Harvey Oswald used a deer rifle, if memory serves. You might as well observe that mass shootings were nonexistent in the 1870's. Of course, because the Maxim gun hadn't been invented yet.
2013-03-19 11:25:35 PM
1 votes:

Biological Ali: Because if that's the case, then the second half of the sentiment is that the "just man" must also be prepared to face the legal consequences for his actions.


Yeah, but what else do expect from a gay hermit writer who didn't pay taxes but a passive course of action? He was obviously into non-confrontation. Ideally there's no consequences at all.

These stupid knee jerk guns laws ARE stupid and knee jerk. It's in society's best interest that the already understaffed police do tell lawmakers to eat a bowl of dicks and refuse to enforce them because that's how checks and balances work. You pass a shiatty law, the other two branches tell you to go pound sand, you're forced to discard your shiatty law. That's why there's three branches of government, not one.
2013-03-19 10:48:16 PM
1 votes:

Satanic_Hamster: Verzio: The job (like every other government office in the US) includes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That inherently requires the sheriff to judge what acts on his part uphold it and what acts do not. Refusing to take actions to enforce what he believes to be an unconstitutional law is, in fact, part of his job.

No, it's not.  There's a legal course of action if you think something isn't legal or Constitutional.  Random hicks declaring it unconstitutional isn't one of them.



4.bp.blogspot.com

Godwin?

No, he lost.
2013-03-19 10:04:59 PM
1 votes:

Satanic_Hamster: If they think they are unconstitutional, challenge them in court. Otherwise STFU and do your job.


The job (like every other government office in the US) includes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.  That inherently requires the sheriff to judge what acts on his part uphold it and what acts do not.  Refusing to take actions to enforce what he believes to be an unconstitutional law is, in fact, part of his job.
2013-03-19 08:26:10 PM
1 votes:

Noticeably F.A.T.: redmid17: If that's not how it is, that's definitely how it comes across.

The scary part was made in jest, but the rest is definitely the truth for entirely too many gun owners. There are more than a few people who say they are all for gun rights (they own guns, how can they not be!), but when you actually talk to them you find out what they really mean is they are all for their gun rights. As long as they can keep the guns they like, they will accept a ban of anything else.

JRoo: /fighting_for_my_own_freedom_first

I can deal with that. I'm not going to ask you to fight my battles, but I will request that you stay out of my way.

jso2897: Produce a gun in the presence of any cop, anywhere in this country, including Boulder, CO., and refuse to drop it when ordered to, and see what happens. That's just reality.

What do you mean by 'produce'? Simply carrying without concealing isn't going to be a problem in many places. Going from concealed to open is gonna be iffy (deliberately doing it could easily construed as threatening/brandishing). Drawing? Yeah, that's not gonna work out well for you.


Here's an example right here. "How can I not be for gun rights, I own guns! But feel free to restrict that guy's guns. I don't have any use for his guns, and he's a moron anyway. Surely nobody will try to restrict my guns. Surely."

tom baker's scarf: I'm not saying no guns. I have a few shotguns for hunting.But let's stop pretending that any day now there is going to be a communist-zombie, red dawn-esk attack on the US and the only thing that stands between chaos and death is a bunch of privately held guns and millions of rounds of ammo.

2013-03-19 08:20:22 PM
1 votes:

GUTSU: It just makes you an obstacle to progress


Define "progress".  Is that pretending to "solve" a problem by saying "Well, at least we did something even when that something will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem you were going after?  Maybe we can take care of Global Warming by making it a felony to drive a car without written permission from your boss/doctor/police, etc.  At least we did something!!
Go after the root cause of the problem and not a symptom.  This kind of gun crime and mass shooting didn't exist in the 50's, 60's, etc and you're damn right the same firearms were around back then.  Why is that?  Blaming the gun for the operators actions doesn't explain things when you look at it objectively.  Telling me I don't "need" something is your opinion and yours only.  Mental Health care was shot down hard by the ACLU preventing known psychopaths from being forcibly committed because they "didn't do anything yet", and where did that get us?  Adam Lanza would like to thank you all for that one!  The War on Drugs has done a fantastic job of getting gangs armed to the teeth, hasn't it?  Hell, prohibition was what put the mafia back on the damn map!  Stop going after the tool and hit the root cause of the problem if you want to fix it!
Another shining example:  I personally know 3 people that have 5+ DWIs (no, I don't associate with those POS's).  They still have a license.  How about if we "solve" the drunk driving problem by restricting the kind of car you can drive, increasing license fees to $500.00 and making it very difficult to get one?  Oh yeah, because that would punish the people that are good drivers without doing anything to the shiatheads that are breaking the law...  Sorry, logic fail.
2013-03-19 07:36:07 PM
1 votes:

ciberido: 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.


Sure, I support conscientious objectors. But they don't get to keep their jobs as soldiers.

Do your farking job. If you can't (won't), fine. Quit your farking job.
2013-03-19 07:31:32 PM
1 votes:

tom baker's scarf: redmid17: tom baker's scarf: redmid17: 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

You new not give me a history lesson. The American warships were largely ineffective and you bet your ass the British had laws about carrying guns leading up to and during the war.

I'll make you a deal. We get serious about gun control in this country and I'll fully support any plan you want to put forward pertaining to the ownership of 6lb horse or 12lb foot artillery.

I'm not sure I get your first sentence. It's ei ...


Because stupid unenforceable laws are a waste of manpower, time in legislature, and open the door for more arbitrary, capricious laws to be passed. It's a bad precedent if nothing else. Gun laws that stay within constitutional bounds are going to be the least effective method for combating violence.
2013-03-19 06:59:06 PM
1 votes:

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 06:43:26 PM
1 votes:

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 06:32:05 PM
1 votes:

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 06:30:55 PM
1 votes:

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 06:30:33 PM
1 votes:

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 06:28:37 PM
1 votes:

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 06:05:57 PM
1 votes:

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 05:56:45 PM
1 votes:
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.
rka
2013-03-19 05:56:37 PM
1 votes:

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 05:48:43 PM
1 votes:
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 05:40:14 PM
1 votes:

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 05:31:49 PM
1 votes:

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 05:17:10 PM
1 votes:

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 05:16:15 PM
1 votes:

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 05:07:21 PM
1 votes:

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 05:02:34 PM
1 votes:

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 04:55:30 PM
1 votes:

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 04:47:29 PM
1 votes:

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 04:47:18 PM
1 votes:
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-03-19 04:45:40 PM
1 votes:

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 04:44:48 PM
1 votes:

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 04:42:45 PM
1 votes:

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 04:40:44 PM
1 votes:

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 04:37:58 PM
1 votes:

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 04:37:34 PM
1 votes:

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 04:33:30 PM
1 votes:

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 04:32:28 PM
1 votes:

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 04:31:45 PM
1 votes:

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 04:31:24 PM
1 votes:
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 04:30:58 PM
1 votes:

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 04:30:05 PM
1 votes:

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 04:29:57 PM
1 votes:

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 04:29:54 PM
1 votes:

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 04:23:51 PM
1 votes:

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 04:18:51 PM
1 votes:

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 04:12:27 PM
1 votes:
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 04:11:18 PM
1 votes:

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 04:09:32 PM
1 votes:

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 04:07:37 PM
1 votes:

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 04:06:28 PM
1 votes:

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


That looks like a poster straight out of logan's run
2013-03-19 04:03:32 PM
1 votes:

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 04:03:06 PM
1 votes:

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 04:02:17 PM
1 votes:
Refusing to usurp The Constitution = Doing their jobs. Kudos, Sheriffs.
2013-03-19 04:01:27 PM
1 votes:

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 03:58:21 PM
1 votes:

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 03:57:57 PM
1 votes:

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 03:57:47 PM
1 votes:

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 03:55:24 PM
1 votes:

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 03:55:16 PM
1 votes:

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 03:54:57 PM
1 votes:

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 03:54:35 PM
1 votes:

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 03:52:39 PM
1 votes:

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 03:51:42 PM
1 votes:

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 03:51:13 PM
1 votes:

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 03:50:49 PM
1 votes:
img692.imageshack.us
2013-03-19 03:47:33 PM
1 votes:

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 03:46:10 PM
1 votes:

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 03:45:22 PM
1 votes:
If they applied this logic to drug laws, I would be ok with it.
2013-03-19 03:44:29 PM
1 votes:

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 03:43:29 PM
1 votes:

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 03:43:22 PM
1 votes:
Wow, a metric shiat-ton anti-gun nutjobs in this thread.
2013-03-19 03:43:21 PM
1 votes:

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 03:40:06 PM
1 votes:
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 03:40:03 PM
1 votes:

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 03:39:14 PM
1 votes:

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 03:38:02 PM
1 votes:

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 03:35:40 PM
1 votes:

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 03:35:26 PM
1 votes:

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 03:34:46 PM
1 votes:

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 03:34:23 PM
1 votes:

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 03:34:14 PM
1 votes:

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 03:31:16 PM
1 votes:

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 03:29:54 PM
1 votes:
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 03:29:07 PM
1 votes:

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 03:26:02 PM
1 votes:
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 03:25:29 PM
1 votes:
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 03:24:43 PM
1 votes:
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 03:22:31 PM
1 votes:

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 03:22:30 PM
1 votes:
These laws are unenforceable*.

*unless you happen to be a brown-skinned firearms enthusiast
2013-03-19 03:22:04 PM
1 votes:
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 03:19:58 PM
1 votes:

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 03:18:11 PM
1 votes:

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 03:17:55 PM
1 votes:
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 03:17:51 PM
1 votes:
Stupid biased site. Should have clicked these comments before the article.
2013-03-19 03:17:49 PM
1 votes:

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 03:17:49 PM
1 votes:
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 03:16:35 PM
1 votes:

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 03:16:09 PM
1 votes:
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 03:16:02 PM
1 votes:

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 03:15:55 PM
1 votes:
Of all the people posting before me, one has read the article.
2013-03-19 03:14:06 PM
1 votes:

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 03:13:50 PM
1 votes:
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 03:12:41 PM
1 votes:
So there are 340 sheriff department job openings? Good to know.
2013-03-19 03:12:20 PM
1 votes:
'We are NOT OWNED by the government, like PBS'


....


'Please make a TAX FREE donation!'

RUFKM
2013-03-19 02:40:33 PM
1 votes:

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?
 
Displayed 144 of 144 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report