Colorado sheriff says new state gun laws won't be enforced
- Thread starter Slim
- Start date
- Status
Sheriffs and all other police officers take an oath to uphold the laws, regardless of whether they agree with them or not. If and when they choose to no longer abide by that oath it is time for them to quit, instead of becoming a criminal themselves for blatantly violating their oath of office.
These types of statements provide even more testimony as to how corruption runs rampant within in our government when even its enforcement officers are willing brag about violating the oath of office that they have taken. It makes them the very same criminal that they are charged with apprehending.
These types of statements provide even more testimony as to how corruption runs rampant within in our government when even its enforcement officers are willing brag about violating the oath of office that they have taken. It makes them the very same criminal that they are charged with apprehending.
MaterDei
Member
Do they?
In the military an enlisted person takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution and to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them. However, they are specifically taught that they are not to follow immoral or illegal orders.
I would assume that although civilians, LEOs have the same duty and are taught the same thing.
OilyPablo
Member
Constitution first. I know a bunch here will say otherwise, but sometimes "kid learned knowledge" does apply. I value the Bill of Rights. ALL of them.
Needless to say we are living in increasingly interesting times.
Needless to say we are living in increasingly interesting times.
Creature
Member
Do LEO'sd swear an oath to uphold and enforce the law...which also specifically includes the mention of the US Constitution?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
In most states, and CO is one (with two exceptions), the Sheriff is an elected position and, thus, functions as a representative of the citizens of his county. I don't know precisely what oath they swear when they take office, but obviously they take the responsibility of protecting the interests of their citizens very highly.
The executive branch has a strong tradition of acting as a check and balance against the legislative branch by refusing to enforce certain ill-advised laws. (Hence the current Executive branch's "de-prioritizing" the enforcement of federal marijuana laws.)
There is a procedure for removing a Sheriff who does not enforce the law to the satisfaction of his constituents. Let's see if that is employed in CO.
(I'm guessing NOT!
)In the world of realpolitik, a Sheriff may say "I'm not enforcing that law," and the unspoken second half of that statement is, "and he who does not like that fact may do whatever they can about it." In other words, by making a public statement like this they are committing themselves that they will take whatever repercussions may come for that act of nullification. If their constituents evict them from office -- so be it. If they are impeached -- so be it. That's a perfectly legitimate and honorable stand for them to take.
Last edited:
dogrunner
Member
I worked for two agencies during a 30 plus year LEO career. Both of the oaths I swore were: To support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida.
I cannot believe that the oaths taken elsewhere would differ much.
In point of fact, as I recall, my induction oath into the military was nearly identical, but did include the section about 'officers appointed over me'.
I cannot believe that the oaths taken elsewhere would differ much.
In point of fact, as I recall, my induction oath into the military was nearly identical, but did include the section about 'officers appointed over me'.
Evergreen
Member
I wholeheartedly disagree with Albert, It's not time for sheriffs like Weld County Sheriff John Cooke to quit! No, it's time for more sheriffs like John Cooke to enroll! If we had more law enforcement and politicians in this country like him, all our woes would end.
Uphold the Constitution first, as it was created to defend itself against its so called interpreters, who inevitably will seek to dissolve it.
Uphold the Constitution first, as it was created to defend itself against its so called interpreters, who inevitably will seek to dissolve it.
kyhunter
Member
Many sheriffs in Kentucky said they wouldnt enforce these laws, have no intention to do so, or have the manpower to do so. Rural counties especially.
Law enforcement officers have discretion. There are many laws on the books that are not enforced. Believe it or not, Georgia has an adultery law on the books (16-6-9). Do you think that is enforced or should be enforced?
President Andrew Jackson said about Worcester vs Georgia (paraphrased) "They made the ruling, let them enforce it." These Sheriff's are saying the same thing.
President Andrew Jackson said about Worcester vs Georgia (paraphrased) "They made the ruling, let them enforce it." These Sheriff's are saying the same thing.
ole farmerbuck
Member
But didnt the people who made these new laws take an oath to protect the constitution also?
I keep hearing how these laws are unconstitutional, but I never see any individuals or organizations spending the cash to to take 2A cases all the way through the court system and fight for their rights.
I have searched high and low in an attempt to find cases but can't seem to find any, why is that?
Is it because the constitution gives the States the right to regulate?
Is it that the constitutional lawyers working for the pro gun organizations have yet to find a law or case that does not meet constitutional requirements?
There has to be a reason for the lack of a fight,if these laws are indeed unconstitutional.
The people writing these legislative propositions are not fools, they have constitutional lawyers working for them, NO congressman is going to make a fool of themselves by purposely submitting a proposal that they know will not meed a constitutional challenge. They may mistakenly add sections that do but the U S Supreme Court rarely tosses out an entire piece of legislation for a single section, They put a stay on that item and send instructions back to congress to either eliminate the section or rewrite that particular section so it does meet constitutional limits.
I have searched high and low in an attempt to find recent 2A cases but can't seem to find any, why is that?
Talk is free, actions take cash, and possibly even jail time.
Just my thoughts.
Al
Tony50ae
Member
Albert, like you said, actions take cash and what sheriff is going to challenge these laws in court without cash. Not to mention ordinary people in these times when money is tight? And just because legislatures pass laws does not mean they are always constitutional. It may take YEARS before they are ruled otherwise. Look at the handgun ban in D.C. It took years and the right case to overturn that. Then more time and another right case to overturn Chicago's and apply the second amendment to all the states.
I even say the courts get it wrong from time to time as well. For example, the last part of the second amendment says "shall not be infringed" yet even the SCOTUS has ruled there are restrictions. Really? How does shall not be infringed mean that?
I even say the courts get it wrong from time to time as well. For example, the last part of the second amendment says "shall not be infringed" yet even the SCOTUS has ruled there are restrictions. Really? How does shall not be infringed mean that?
Last edited:
Tony50ae
Member
I pose this question, If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, yet there is a contradicting law, the what is the sheriff supposed to do? If he enforces it he is wrong per the Constitution. If he does not he is wrong. Most if not all law enforcement officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution first.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
That's exactly what SAF does. A couple of very interesting cases recently are known as "Heller vs. District of Columbia" and "McDonald vs. Chicago." You should look them up and see what kinds of (rather amazing) progress our side has made in the courts recently.
The long and short of it is that Constitutional challenges take a LONG time to work through the court system (think in terms of a decade or so) and cost millions. That isn't an overnight process and isn't supposed to be. Heck, for decades the Court wouldn't even consider hearing a 2nd Amendment case. We live in quite interesting times now!
I think a cursory review of the folks putting forth a lot of this legislation gives the lie to the first part of this statement! Heck, most of them are demonstrably unable to even identify or describe correctly the parts of weapons, or the purposes of those parts, that they're trying to ban. They ARE fools, I don't really think that is arguable. However, when it comes to Constitutionality, they don't ask themselves whether a law they want to pass is Constitutional. They ask "what am I likely to be able to get away with?"Problem is the creation of laws is supposed to be a slow and arduous process as well... and as we've seen in NY and with attempts in CO that slow and arduous part can and has been preempted by "leaders" that border on tyranical. What are we to do about that failure on the part of the law making system?
XZenTigerX
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 1
What an Honorable & Courageous Sheriff!
He is STANDING for the PEOPLE he swore to protect, even if that protection is from a corrupt and broken government. I would stand by that man to the death.
People that follow the law without question are BLIND and not informed of the true nature of the world we live in and have designed.
If you follow laws which you KNOW are unconstitutional then you ARE THE CROOK
He is STANDING for the PEOPLE he swore to protect, even if that protection is from a corrupt and broken government. I would stand by that man to the death.
People that follow the law without question are BLIND and not informed of the true nature of the world we live in and have designed.
If you follow laws which you KNOW are unconstitutional then you ARE THE CROOK
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I don't know that that is necessarily true. The legislative branch (especially the House) is supposed to be the fastest-moving body, most responsive to the needs of the day and (oh, the irony) the will of the people.
When a "leader" stretches his authority to drive an act through the legislature to deliberately remove the normal opportunity for the citizens to organize their response and give comment, that's going to have to be taken up in the state courts (if such actions violate state law) or at the ballot box.
When a "leader" stretches his authority to drive an act through the legislature to deliberately remove the normal opportunity for the citizens to organize their response and give comment, that's going to have to be taken up in the state courts (if such actions violate state law) or at the ballot box.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Corruption? Really? That's rich.
Speaking as someone who's been involved with the process of fighting the proposed laws in Colorado, it's been clear from day one that the majority of citizens in this state oppose these onerous and ridiculous laws.
I have watched, in person, as state senators have ignored the testimony of residents from all over the state, rather choosing to screw off on Facebook than give their constituents the respect they are due.
And when they aren't busy ignoring citizens, they're badgering rape victims who have demonstrated the courage to stand up in public to testify against these laws.
I've watched as the Colorado Senate Democrats have changed the rules of testimony again and again, in order to favor out-of-state professional victims over citizens of this state.
I've seen them change the procedure, forcing testimony to be given on five gun control bills all on the same day in order to limit debate time and cram these laws down our throats with as little public input as possible.
I've seen a story go public wherein it became clear that the Democrats in this state stated they would refuse to vote for a pay increase due to the sheriffs because they wouldn't support them in their efforts to institute gun control.
If you well and truly think that a sheriff is corrupt because he refuses to enforce laws that even many of the proponents admit are unenforceable (and unconstitutional, according to law scholar Dave Kopel), then, please, tell us what you think of the downright belligerent and outright shady actions of the Colorado state Democrats.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk. Hence all the misspellings and goofy word choices.
lakecitybrass
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2008
- Messages
- 67
To say that elected representatives would never be foolish enough to write legislature that would be obviously in violation of the Constitution, is foolish - unless you read what Oregon state senator Ginny Burdick wrote and proposed. Part of her state bill would enabled law enforcement to conduct warrentless searches of private homes to find guns the law says are illegal. Under this law, you would be allowed to keep one rifle, locked up in the house. I cannot conceive of any LEO doing this.
Creature
Member
lakecitybrass wrote:
You cant? Then this will blow your mind:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/robert-farago/carneys-point-new-jersey-showdown/
You cant? Then this will blow your mind:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/robert-farago/carneys-point-new-jersey-showdown/
CoRoMo
Member
It is both refreshing and encouraging to hear legislators like Greg Brophy state publicly that he will willfully violate this law and sheriffs like Cooke and Maketa publicly state that they will not enforce this law.
Eh hem, http://colorado.mediatrackers.org/2...mendment-legislators-criminal-record-exposed/
Can you please cite this claim? Also, are you implying that they use constitutional lawyers in the legislative process or merely that they employing them? Does being a "Constitutional Lawyer" give someone some sort of higher understanding of freedom? Or might there be great divisions between the political beliefs amongst those who wear the label "Constitutional Lawyer"?
Dang. You are admittedly not up to speed on these things. There have been countless challenges to all kinds of gun control laws. Heller and McDonald are certainly the big two, but there are many others. Since you couldn't even find them two -in your search high and low (where are earth were you "searching"?)-, I suggest you begin with them. Read and enjoy.
Last edited:
Carl N. Brown
Member
Norval Morris, dean of the U Chicago Law School, proposed in his 1970 book suspending the Fourth Amendment to implement a ban on handguns through warrantless searches: the right to privacy did not extend to the possession of deadly weapons in his view. When he came up for appointment to a government position, his disregard for the Fourth Amendment was brought up in the hearings and cost him that job.
Deltaboy1984
Member
I Want them TO uphold the USCON.
- Status