Sheriffs and gun laws

[Chaz88]

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.

I do not disagree with any of that. Except they are not doing their duty they are taking a principled stand against the law. I have no problem with that. But I also would not have a problem if they were arrested for breaking the law by not enforcing it. If I was one of them I might be standing with them but I would also be willing to suffer the consequences for not fulfilling my sworn oath. We are either a nation of laws or we are not.

I can not in good conscience whole heartily support them not fulfilling their sworn oath when at the same time I regularly say the officials that enact these laws are breaking their oath to support and defend the constitution. If they do not like the 2nd there is a method for amending the constitution. If the LE do not like the laws there is a method, under the law, for changing them. There is latitude allowed for how they enforce many laws. There is not a clause that says they can just chose not to enforce the law at all.

If you would not support them ignoring all of the other controversial laws that many people disagree with then you are not taking a principled stance on these laws. In my opinion we lose credibility that way.

Again! Flip that coin and tell me what you would do and say!

 

[Chaz88]

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.

If you are talking specifically about Colorado I believe they were given clarifying guidance and that is part of why their law suit was halted by the courts.

 

[cryogenic419]

Perhaps they are just taking their cues from the people at the federal level.

Failure to follow/enforce immigration laws because the current administration feels the immigration system is broken. It may be, however those laws are still in place, they just are not being enforced. It is not some ultra top secret clandestine conspiracy, they openly admit it.

The Fast and Furious scandal. Someone at the federal level somehow someway said "sell these guns to these particular folks". Things did not work out work out the way they had planned. Try to get a straight answer about the whole thing and you see politicians and agency directors put their tap dancing shoes on and proceed to dance around giving a straight answer. Try to hold somebody accountable for this mess and you get more of the same. The people that have the power to do something about it won't, effectively skirting the laws of the land. Americans have died as a result of this, I would like to believe that someone in power would want to get to the bottom of this and hold those responsible accountable for it.

It seems at the very top of the political chain they choose not to follow the law for whatever reason, that's now filtering down to the lower levels. Sure the law may say this, but if it goes against the beliefs of the people that are to enforce it and they choose to follow their beliefs and not enforce it what can you do?

Kind of divided on the issue really. I know where they are coming from in a way, they feel the laws are unjust, possibly unconstitutional. I know this is a far stretch but say somehow a law got passed authorizing extermination squads against cigarette smokers. Sure the law says that its OK to kill smokers, but I feel better knowing there are those out there who will stand up say " I will not comply". At the same time, just because a law goes against your belief system or what you view as right or just...does that make it OK to not enforce the law? If everyone who's duty it was to enforce the laws did that we'd be in complete chaos.

 

[Skans]

When any agency refuses to enforce lawfully enacted laws, that presents a very dangerous situation. Enforcing laws should never be optional. When someone working for a law enforcement agency thinks they can pick and choose what laws to enforce, they are basically saying "WE DON'T WORK FOR THE ELECTORATE; THE ELECTORATE SERVES THE AGENCY".

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

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've always supported the right (I would say duty) of elected officials to refuse to enforce any law when they can reasonably explain why they feel it is unconstitutional.

The trouble I have is more with the electorate, which doesn't ask the questions. "Are there any laws currently on the books that you consider unconstitutional, and why, and would you refuse to enforce that/those laws if you were elected?"

If the law is passed while the person is in office, they should hold a news conference, send out a memo, have a town hall meeting, whatever applies, and specifically and exactly explain why the law is unconstitutional and will not be enforced.

Their first and foremost duty is to uphold both the constitution(s).

I see this as a completely different matter than the simple refusal to enforce laws that run contrary to your own political leanings.

 

[Tom Servo]

I've always supported the right (I would say duty) of elected officials to refuse to enforce any law when they can reasonably explain why they feel it is unconstitutional.

If they can explain it, maybe. My concern is who gets to decide, and on what criteria? Frustrating and slow as it can be at times, we do have an established system of judicial review for this.

Problem #2 comes if I want to challenge the constitutionality of a given law in court. It could be more difficult for me to show standing if the law isn't being enforced.

I see this as a completely different matter than the simple refusal to enforce laws that run contrary to your own political leanings.

We may see it, but do the constituents? A sheriff refusing to enforce, say, the SAFE Act could find himself the subject of a recall or a reelection challenge. After all, why is he still throwing people in jail for aggravated jaywalking or misdemeanor marijuana when he's refusing to enforce the gun laws?

His successor could very well decide to enforce the law. In that case, the populace is possibly worse off, since the prior sheriff lulled them into a sense of security.

It seems a satisfying moral stance for them to be taking, but our efforts really need to be on challenge and repeal of the laws themselves.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

If you are talking specifically about Colorado I believe they were given clarifying guidance and that is part of why their law suit was halted by the courts.

The lawsuit was denied but the law was not given clarifying guidance.

The Judge here, says the Sheriffs have suffered no harm, in their official capacity, other than not knowing how to enforce a vague law (the Judge accepts the CO AG's "Technical Guidance," even though this can be changed at a whim). This decision is appeallable.

 

[MarkCO]

Just so you are all on the same page w.r.t. the Colorado Lawsuit.

The Judge ruled that the Sheriffs did not have agency standing to bring the lawsuit, but could still do so individually. That only removed one group from the lawsuit, which is still very much active. The Judge also ruled that the memo from the AG would act as the enforcement guidance for CO LEAs until such time as the lawsuit is concluded.

 

[40-82]

Skans,

You just described modern day America. In most government agencies law is interpreted as will of the agency. Many laws are written in such an open-ended fashion as to encourage such a practice.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I've always supported the right (I would say duty) of elected officials to refuse to enforce any law when they can reasonably explain why they feel it is unconstitutional.

If they can explain it, maybe. My concern is who gets to decide, and on what criteria? Frustrating and slow as it can be at times, we do have an established system of judicial review for this.

Problem #2 comes if I want to challenge the constitutionality of a given law in court. It could be more difficult for me to show standing if the law isn't being enforced.

I see this as a completely different matter than the simple refusal to enforce laws that run contrary to your own political leanings.

We may see it, but do the constituents? A sheriff refusing to enforce, say, the SAFE Act could find himself the subject of a recall or a reelection challenge. After all, why is he still throwing people in jail for aggravated jaywalking or misdemeanor marijuana when he's refusing to enforce the gun laws?

His successor could very well decide to enforce the law. In that case, the populace is possibly worse off, since the prior sheriff lulled them into a sense of security.

It seems a satisfying moral stance for them to be taking, but our efforts really need to be on challenge and repeal of the laws themselves.

Most, if not all, of that goes back to the constituents, IMO. They should be asking the questions and not electing folks that won't support the constitution. (Fantasy Land, I know)

In regards to the "system" we have, wouldn't the oath that they take to uphold the constitution be part of that system? What is the meaning of an oath that requires permission from a 3rd party?

Second point, I agree in so far as that it should be a multifaceted approach. We can not have LE that simply ignores the laws. In fact, part of their "civil disobedience", as it were, should be starting and/or joining law suits to have the laws over-turned.

 

[Tom Servo]

In regards to the "system" we have, wouldn't the oath that they take to uphold the constitution be part of that system? What is the meaning of an oath that requires permission from a 3rd party?

It would, but execution gets tricky. What if one officer decides that an aspect of his department's regulations violates the 4th Amendment? Maybe he gives people a pass on certain things, while other officers who disagree might not be. I could see some real potential problems there.

 

[Jammer Six]

Servo convinced me.

LEOs aren't hired to interpret the law.

All of which still leaves resignation as an option for a True Believer.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

It would, but execution gets tricky. What if one officer decides that an aspect of his department's regulations violates the 4th Amendment? Maybe he gives people a pass on certain things, while other officers who disagree might not be. I could see some real potential problems there.

There certainly could be issues there but pragmatically we all know that individual officers exercise enormous discretion in enforcing laws. Some will arrest someone with marijuana, no matter the amount, even just for a pipe with residue. Others will say, "This is a tobacco pipe, right, RIGHT?"

I've seen it with all sorts of what would be referred to as victimless crimes.

On the matter of firearms and particular to NY, it is illegal for any person to "possess" any firearm (which means handguns in NY) that is not listed on their own permit. "Possess" means any kind of possession at all, even handling. A husband can not legally clean his wife's handgun unless it's listed on his permit. He can't even carry it from the safe to the car for her. They can not shoot each other's (or anyone else's) handguns unless the gun is on their permit.

However, everybody (and I mean EVERYBODY) universally ignores that portion of the law. I've never heard of a single person getting in trouble. It's ignored to the point that most people don't know it exists. Police officers let other people shoot their personal handguns. I mean EVERYBODY ignores that law.

It's a bit like the speeding laws. Sure, the speed limit is 65 but we all know the "real" limit is 75. Almost nobody complains. Everybody knows they might run into that one cop that will right a ticket for 69 but everybody still drives 75.

So, selective enforcement isn't really new. The disturbing part is when the laws that are ignored are no longer "victimless".

 

[Sodbuster]

When someone working for a law enforcement agency thinks they can pick and choose what laws to enforce, they are basically saying...

WE DON'T WORK FOR THE STATE. WE WORK FOR THE PEOPLE. THE STATE SERVES THE PEOPLE

Fixed it according to my interpretation based on my experience. Some guys in 1931 would have done the world a favor if they hadn't blindly followed their laws.