55 of 62 Colorado Sheriffs join lawsuit to block new gun laws

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by classicaliberal, May 23, 2013.

  1. classicaliberal macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #1
    The men on the front lines, the sheriffs responsible for keeping law and order in their counties, are fed up with the liberty destroying gun laws passed by the Colorado legislature in the wake of the tragic shootings in Aurora.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/05/colorado-sheriffs-suing-over-gun-control-laws/

    The sheriff's claim that such gun laws simply make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms, and does virtually nothing to stop criminals from obtaining them.

    What are your thoughts? Will these laws stand the test of the justice system? Should they?


     
  2. MacNut, May 23, 2013
    Last edited: May 23, 2013

    MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #2
    Since Sheriffs are elected officials I don't take their word as highly as a police chief. So I don't know if they are talking based on safety or trying to appease their constituants.
     
  3. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    The sheriffs have an opinion.

    Everybody can go home now.

    It's all been settled.

    :rolleyes:
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    The job of a sherriff is to enforce the law, not make the law. If they can't support the laws they are to enforce, they should have the stones to resign in protest rather than subvert the law they are sworn to uphold.
     
  5. classicaliberal thread starter macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #5
    Do you hold the same position for the administrative branch? Should the Obama administration actively pursue DOMA law breakers? How about increasing prosecution of immigration law?

    I disagree - they are elected officials, they should do what they think is best within the law, and allow their electors to decide their fate. If they choose to put resources on other issues, that's their choice. Sheriffs should definitely have significant discretion.
     
  6. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #6
    Ok. So Obama should resign because then because he is not fully enforcing immigration laws, right?
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    By "administrative branch" are you referring to the Executive branch of government, ie. the POTUS?

    Actually if all they're doing is signing on to a lawsuit challenging the law, I'm fine with it. If they cross the line to saying they will not enforce the law, or if there is evidence they are turning a blind to lawbreaking of laws they disagree with, I have a problem.

    That said, electing law enforcement personnel is a terrible idea. Mixing politics and justice is never good.
     
  8. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #8
    Why aren't these sheriffs concerned with illegal guns on the street? I think this smells of idealistic hypocrisy.
     
  9. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #9
    I doubt these sheriffs do much other than routine traffic stops and harassment.
     
  10. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #10
    If they refuse to uphold the law, they should be removed.

    Period.
     
  11. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #11
    So you really think the word of a political appointee (police chief), who wants to keep his job also is any better?
     
  12. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #12
    A police chiefs job is to run a dept of officers not patrol a whole county.
     
  13. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #13
    A police chief will follow the politics of whatever person put him in that position. Thinking otherwise is pretty naive. If a police chief went against the politics of those who put him in charge, how long do you think he would be chief???

    Also, I am really not sure how much law enforcing sherrifs actually do. Here in PA they are basically officers of the court, and have little to no law enforcement responsibilities (Though they have all the powers a regular LEO has I believe).

    Can't speak for CO, but I am assuming it is a similar situation there.
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    Is it also naive to think an IRS official wont follow the politics of the person who appoints them?
     
  15. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #15
    I agree, and it goes both ways. I know of at least one instance where a left leaning police chief (no not sheriff) refused to enforce laws he disagreed with.

    It's law enforcement's job to enforce law, not to decide which laws should be enforced.
     
  16. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
  17. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #17
    hmmmm...than obviously you are not ok with the current administration and their ignoring of immigration law?
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    Obviously.

    Just as you're obviously ok with the IRS practicing politics.
     
  19. the8thark macrumors 68040

    the8thark

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    #19
    And that's what the sheriffs and all other law enforcement agencies need to understand.
     
  20. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #20
    What if the law is unconstitutional?

    Hypothetically, what if a law were passed that put sever restrictions on the first? Such as not saying anything negative about the POTUS?
     
  21. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #21

    Laws aren't unconstitutional until the SC rules it as such. Sheriffs are not granted that power. Surprised a constitutional scholar such as yourself didn't know that. :)
     
  22. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #22
    Nice way of avoiding my question...

    Let me rephrase that...

    If a law is passed that makes it a crime for news organizations to publish negative news about POTUS (or some similar restriction on the first amendment), and a group of LEOs banded together and announced they would refuse to enforce said law, would you feel the same? Or would you feel they should enforce the law until the SC rules it unconstitutional.
     
  23. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #23

    I didn't answer your question because I don't play these silly games. My answer stands.
     
  24. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #24
    Fair enough...I will just assume by your non-answer that it would be in the negative..

    Most of us gunowners view these new firearms laws and unconstitutional so support the Sherrifs.
     
  25. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #25
    That's a very slippery slope....

    So you would support law enforcement not enforcing anything they view as "unconstitutional"? You are ok with giving anyone the power to interpret and then enforce the constitution as they see fit? Yeah, nothing ridiculous about that.

    Let's just do away with SCOTUS then....
     

Share This Page