Sheriffs and gun laws

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce New Laws on Gun Control
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-laws-on-gun-control.html?hp

The gist of the article is that sheriffs in many states are refusing to enforced new gun laws. This is in contrast with urban chiefs or sheriffs that have major urban responsibilities.

The flaws of the laws are pointed out as are potential constitutional issues - of course, antigun folk think they are just fine.
 
Refusing to enforce laws is the "New Normal" in this great nation of ours. It's par for the course, as far as I can see.
 
Enforcement of the law has always been the prerogative of the executive branch. Otherwise it wouldn't matter who we elected as Sheriff, Governor, or President. It is more a norm than not for officials in the executive branch to view laws as akin to items on a grocery shelf to be used or left to gather dust as it befits their personal philosophy of government. Although rarely does an elected official reject a law for such a noble motive as its blatant lack of Constitutionality.
 
The refusal to enforce laws is a bit of a quandary for me. Officials take an oath to enforce the law of the land. Not the laws they like. I do not like the particular laws in question so part of me sports them for their stance.

But then I go back to my oath to support and defend the constitution. It did not have fine print saying I only had to support the parts I like and it did not have an expiration date. The laws in question might be unconstitutional but it is not the LE persons place to decide that.

Now before you jump all over me think about some of the laws you do like. There are likely many that do not and they could make a case that those laws are unconstitutional and are an unreasonable infringement on personal liberty. If they are laws you like anyway you would be likely to say they should be enforced tell the law is changed or ruled unconstitutional by the appropriate authority.

Please do not think I am asking for a mindless adherence to the letter of the law I think there is always room for using sound judgment in any particular situation.
 
Last edited:
It's a nice stand for them to take. That said, sheriffs are elected officials, and that policy could change if a new sheriff is elected.

The fact that a given official refuses to enforce a law in a certain area at a certain time isn't much of a guarantee.
 
New York; SAFE Act....

I'd read about 3/4 months ago how approx 48 of the 52 county sheriffs in New York stated they do not support the new SAFE Act gun laws & think they statues are difficult to enforce(or they said the deputies won't enforce the new laws).
That's a large #.
These sheriffs know they are accountable to their constituents not the state governor. These residents aren't down with magazine restrictions or stupid laws that terrorists & street criminals don't follow.
 
These sheriffs know they are accountable to their constituents not the state governor.
Click to expand...
But just how accountable? How many folks really vote in local elections?

Maybe Sheriff Joe doesn't enforce the SAFE Act, but he's got other issues (like cherry-picking what he wants to enforce). Sheriff Steve runs against him and wins. Steve doesn't have to tell everyone that he plans on enforcing the Act. It's the law. He's just doing his job when his deputies start throwing folks in jail.

Then there are the geographical problems. Maybe Sheriff Joe doesn't enforce the law, but what about Sheriff Bob in the next county? Am I sure? I may be fine in County A but committing a felony in County B.

I find it odd that we're cheering these guys on for selective enforcement of one law, when we'd hue and cry and scream jackboots if they decided to ignore others. Is it because this law is more important to us?
 
I find it odd that we're cheering these guys on for selective enforcement of one law, when we'd hue and cry and scream jackboots if they decided to ignore others. Is it because this law is more important to us?
Click to expand...

It is not necessarily odd but is short sighted and totally self serving. Like I said before, pick a law you do like and others do not. Just flip the coin and think about it. New pro gun laws are enacted and a large group of LE decide not to enforce those laws. We would all be having a fit.

A very good and old friend of mine is one of those LE officials that has publicly said he would not enforce the new state gun laws. Where he is it will likely help with reelection. But I will be talking to him about it as soon as I can.

I am a bit torn on this issue but ultimately have to defer to the larger picture. Enforce it then help change it.
 
there is no third party damage with ccw laws and the like, this leaves enforcement in the discretion of the officer much like a speeding ticket or a friendly warning.
 
there is no third party damage with ccw laws and the like, this leaves enforcement in the discretion of the officer much like a speeding ticket or a friendly warning.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure about that. This is not about CCW. The bans on certain firearms and magazines appear, to me, to be based on an idea that they are limiting third party damage.

There are a lot of people in prison for breaking laws that, arguably, only caused damage to themselves.
 
Chaz88 said:
The refusal to enforce laws is a bit of a quandary for me. Officials take an oath to enforce the law of the land. Not the laws they like. I do not like the particular laws in question so part of me sports them for their stance.

But then I go back to my oath to support and defend the constitution. It did not have fine print saying I only had to support the parts I like and it did not have an expiration date. The laws in question might be unconstitutional but it is not the LE persons place to decide that.
Click to expand...
Sure it is.

Were you ever in the military? What does the UCMJ say about unlawful orders? When I was in the Army during Vietnam I was given the understanding that a soldier did not have to obey an unlawful order, but God help him if he didn't. It was only later in life that I actually read the UCMJ and discovered that what it really says is "Thou SHALT NOT obey an unlawful order." There is no discretion involved.

If the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and it is obvious to a sheriff or other LEO that a new law is blatantly contrary to the Constitution, IMHO he/she has an obligation to NOT enforce that law ... at least until/unless the Supreme Court rules that the law IS constitutional.
 
AB, the counter to your argument, if I may, is that in a certain number of counties, the local sheriff is as unqualified to know what is legal/illegal, constitutional/unconstitutional as I am to do a triple axel in the Olympics figure skating competition.

I'm not saying what these sheriffs are doing is wrong or right; that isn't up to me since I'm not a constituent living in any of their counties.

However, this is a problematic issue for both sides of this issue.

One thing that hasn't been brought up is that citizens and other parties are free to sue their local sheriff and obtain a writ of mandamus to force him to carry out his duties (assuming the courts agree). Wouldn't surprise me to see some of these types of cases bubble up.
 
But just how accountable? How many folks really vote in local elections?
Click to expand...
Enough people vote and officials are, therefore, accountable enough so that they consider that fact when choosing a course of action.
 
There is another issue at play. Historically, the Sheriff has been considered the chief law enforcement officer within his jurisdiction. If after consultation with the county Judge, DA, County attorney, they believe a law is in conflict with another law...what are they to do? Sworn to uphold the law of the land, which includes the constitution, what would you suggest they do when a law is at odds with the constitution? They can not enforce it, or break their oath.

Granted, not that simple in every case, but in the case of anti-gun laws, some do see it is as that simple.

Just FYI, I spent some time with Sheriff Cook, and other Sheriffs in CO and was down at the state house for almost 5 days total on the bills that were passed and defeated in CO for the 2013 session.
 
Last edited:
Were you ever in the military? What does the UCMJ say about unlawful orders? When I was in the Army during Vietnam I was given the understanding that a soldier did not have to obey an unlawful order, but God help him if he didn't. It was only later in life that I actually read the UCMJ and discovered that what it really says is "Thou SHALT NOT obey an unlawful order." There is no discretion involved.

If the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and it is obvious to a sheriff or other LEO that a new law is blatantly contrary to the Constitution, IMHO he/she has an obligation to NOT enforce that law ... at least until/unless the Supreme Court rules that the law IS constitutional.
Click to expand...

Yes I was in the Navy for more than twenty years.

Not obeying an unlawful order is not the same as not following or enforcing the law.

The laws we are talking about were properly enacted by the legal process for making new law.

LE officials are not qualified to decide on their own what is and is not constitutional. At the least they would need guidance from the district attorney or judge telling them to hold enforcement for clarification or challenge of the law.

I do not agree with the laws and have often asked myself at what point is there a watershed moment where large numbers of people say we have had enough and will not abide by the laws. Maybe this is it, but I do not think so.

Again I ask you to flip the coin and think about if they were pro gun laws you like and local LE officials refused to enforce them and just kept on arresting people under the old law. Do you give them a pat on the back and say good job for sticking to their principles? I do not think so! We would all be crying from the roof tops that it matters not what they think of the laws they need to just shut up and do the job they swore to do, enforce the law or work though proper channels to change it.

I once almost got punched for defending a persons constitutional right to burn the flag. I find that practice extremely distasteful. But like I said there was no fine print saying I only had to defend the parts of the constitution I like.
 
The refusal to enforce laws is a bit of a quandary for me. Officials take an oath to enforce the law of the land. Not the laws they like. I do not like the particular laws in question so part of me sports them for their stance.
Click to expand...

The constitution is the supreme law of the land of which is also included in the oath. A law that violates the constitution is by default unenforceable. Would you make that argument if there was a law written that directed enforcement by deadly force without trial?
 
The constitution is the supreme law of the land of which is also included in the oath. A law that violates the constitution is by default unenforceable. Would you make that argument if there was a law written that directed enforcement by deadly force without trial?
Click to expand...

I apologize I did not know I was conversing with a group of constitutional lawyers. Could you please point out the state or federal supreme court decisions and case law that say these laws are unconstitutional? I hope it happens but as far I know it has not.

Under some circumstances laws can be enforced with deadly force. I do not have a problem with that.
 
Maybe I should refrase. If the law directed the implementation of deadly force as an execution or jail sentence without trial. IE not enforcement of law where deadly force is nessasary for the enforcement or effecting arrest. Other words a law where a person could be shot dead on the side of the road for being caught with contraband by law enforcement.

Not that something like that would ever exist just for arguments sake how would that differ from enforcing any other law that violates the constitution? Would you really want enforcement of something obvioulsy wrong to take place while waiting on the courts to determine that it violated the 6th amend to the constitution?

What happend in Colorado was wrong. People in power obeyed other people in power and ignored the folks they represented. Now local elected officials are banding together to put a stop to what was set in motion. The people of the state even had some of the officials responcible recalled. Which has happend there in the history of never. Its not anarchy. Its folks doing their duty as they believe it to be. IMO.
 
Seems to me this is a little different than just refusing to enforce a law. The law and the way it is written doesn't CLEARY say how to tell which is which. If there is no way to tell if the law applies to which magazine, the sheriff's have to make a call and If they themselves cannot prove a law has been broken, how can they charge someone? How can they enforce it?

They may be saying we refuse to enforce it when they should be saying they have no way to enforce a law we cannot determine has been broken (which they have) and until it is clear our hands are tied and our eyes are blinded.

I stand by them in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top