hell yeah one thing i do like about cops

[AOK303]

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...-some-gun-laws

i hope they do sue colorado

[Aaron]

The EPSO Sheriff, Maketa I believe, has said the same thing.

[BlueDog]

Scary stream of comments...

"This sheriff's days in office are numbered."

"Yeah, he's an embarassment to all sheriffs around the country. Saying he's not going to enforce laws should cost him his job. Hope he loses his job."

The fact that there are people out there who want sheriffs to lose there jobs for refusing to comply with unconstitutional laws is downright terrifying.

[#1Townie]

Yeah i read about this the other day and with my hate for cops i will give them props for standing up. Also tyere is rumors about possible intimidation coming from politicians to these sheriffs for not following suit. Scary days.

[madvlad]

So much for the land of the free... makes you wonder what days lie ahead...

[#1Townie]

Not really. Poor people vs rich armies.

[mxer]

Scary stream of comments...

"This sheriff's days in office are numbered."

"Yeah, he's an embarassment to all sheriffs around the country. Saying he's not going to enforce laws should cost him his job. Hope he loses his job."

The fact that there are people out there who want sheriffs to lose there jobs for refusing to comply with unconstitutional laws is downright terrifying.

Those comments are nothing. You should have read them on the DP and here when the article about the police shooting that dog. They were along the lines hoping he gets shot.

[longrider]

While Sheriffs Cooke and Maketa have been the most outspoken about it it seems that most sheriffs support the second amendment. Here is the public statement from Elbert County sheriff Shayne Heap:

I know many people are concerned about the recent talk of the federal government related to our second amendment rights, so I want you to know where I stand as your elected Sheriff. It should bring you comfort in this discussion specific to our 2nd amendment rights that the great majority of Sheriff’s in the state of Colorado have an overwhelming drive to uphold their oath and protect the rights of the citizens they serve. Many of you know the stand I have taken in the past when it comes to protecting the Constitutional rights, lives and property of all people in Elbert County.

In regards to the recent firearms debate, I can tell you that for years my staff and I have worked diligently not only to address school safety issues, but also to ensure that Elbert County is a safe place to live, work and raise a family. Additionally, I recently began offering concealed carry classes taught by ECSO deputies in an effort to enhance gun safety and provide individuals with high level training for their Constitutional right to carry a firearm. The Sheriff’s Office has come alongside the 4H Shooting Sports program by holding fundraisers and working with the youth of Elbert County to be safe and responsible when handling firearms. We have and continue to instruct, lead and mentor youth and adults alike when it comes to responsible gun ownership.

I feel that the national conversation has been sidetracked because the debate should not center around removing guns from law-abiding citizens. We all know that if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns. I am not interested in making exceptions to ANY constitutional right. I am concerned with those suffering with mental health issues that populate our jails and go without meaningful and appropriate aid that provides solutions to the root of the problem. This issue has long been overlooked and I believe would address the source of the problem and not the law abiding, God fearing people that simply choose to embrace their rights as American Citizens.

We know, believe and stand fast on the fact that this great Country was established as a Constitutional Republic. This was because our founding fathers feared a democracy as much as a monarchy and understood that the only entity that could take away their freedom was their own government. I know that the sovereignty resides with the people and not the government. I am blessed, consider it a great honor, and I am humbled by my position as Sheriff.

As your elected Sheriff and a member of the executive branch of government, I do not determine what laws are constitutional. However, know that I will utilize any and all legal means available to stop the federal government from encroaching on any of our constitutional rights as Americans. Our right to keep and bear arms is absolute!



Sheriff Shayne Heap

[#1Townie]

Those comments are nothing. You should have read them on the DP and here when the article about the police shooting that dog. They were along the lines hoping he gets shot.

Two very different situations. You may just see it as a dog. To some of us a dog is our children. Think about how you would feel if a cop shot your child for no reason simply because of how he/she looked.

[longrider]

On the Greeley Tribune site they had a poll:

Poll
Do you agree with Sheriff John Cooke's decision not to enforce new gun control laws?

Yes. They're unenforceable.

56.48%
(715)

No. The sheriff should enforce all laws.

39.57%
(501)

I'm sick of the gun control debate.

3.95%
(50)

[dirkterrell]

May I suggest that you send a note of support to the Sheriffs' association:

http://www.csoc.org

and there is a contact us link.

[j0ker]

Scary stream of comments...

"...

The fact that there are people out there who want sheriffs to lose there jobs for refusing to comply with unconstitutional laws is downright terrifying.

I am for guns and safe gun use, but I don't see how you can call these laws unconstitutional. There are no provisions in the Constitution about how many guns one can own or what caliber or how many shells guns can hold. For that matter it doesn't even say GUNS it says ARMS in the constitution. That could be defined as a sword or a poleaxe.

I am just saying this gun debate is bad enough without making it sound worse than it is. There is nothing unconstitutional about having gun restriction laws. While I probably agree that these laws might be a slippery slope to greater gun controls, I do not agree that the laws themselves are unconstitutional.

[bulldog]

Look, this guy has every right to stand up for what he believes, but his employer also has every right to fire him for not doing his job!

I do 10 things a day for my employer that I think is stupid and don't agree with...yet I do them because it is my job. So yeah there is a good chance this man will be let go and he can go feed his family a nice dinner of "beliefs" when he is unemployed Not saying what hs is doing is wrong, but a job is a job

[dirkterrell]

Look, this guy has every right to stand up for what he believes, but his employer also has every right to fire him for not doing his job!

Um, you do know who his "employer" is, don't you?

I do 10 things a day for my employer that I think is stupid and don't agree with...yet I do them because it is my job. So yeah there is a good chance this man will be let go and he can go feed his family a nice dinner of "beliefs" when he is unemployed Not saying what hs is doing is wrong, but a job is a job

Thankfully, some people are a little more principled than that. There's a difference between doing things that are "stupid" and doing something that is unethical or illegal. And if you are commanded to do something that violates the document you have sworn to uphold, it is your duty to refuse to do it.

[#1Townie]

I am for guns and safe gun use, but I don't see how you can call these laws unconstitutional. There are no provisions in the Constitution about how many guns one can own or what caliber or how many shells guns can hold. For that matter it doesn't even say GUNS it says ARMS in the constitution. That could be defined as a sword or a poleaxe.

I am just saying this gun debate is bad enough without making it sound worse than it is. There is nothing unconstitutional about having gun restriction laws. While I probably agree that these laws might be a slippery slope to greater gun controls, I do not agree that the laws themselves are unconstitutional.

Well if you want to get that serous about why dont we just look at the infringed part. Accordig to just that one word any law limiting "arms" to anyone would be unconstitutional.

I cant agree with you at all your statement being the idea beind the second amendment is to fight tyranny. How would the idea to fight a army with firearms only using swords have worked? Understand when looking at so called gun violence stats that people who used a firearm in self defense is also in those stats. Basically any time anyone is ever shot its lumped into the same group. Doesnt matter if it was murder or self defense. The only people who be disarmed are honest citizens.

[bulldog]

Um, you do know who his "employer" is, don't you?



Thankfully, some people are a little more principled than that. There's a difference between doing things that are "stupid" and doing something that is unethical or illegal. And if you are commanded to do something that violates the document you have sworn to uphold, it is your duty to refuse to do it.

Overall he is employed by someone and he is not a single police precinct himself....so I don't get what you are shooting for. It is a job and we have bosses because that is how employment works.

So I see many cases of insurance companies denying people for "pre-existing" conditions. I don't agree with it as they deserve to have their medical claims paid too. So next time should I just push through a $500K denied bill and tell my boss that is my belief? How long you think I would be employed at that point?

Like I said, good for him, but following your job is part of having that job!

[#1Townie]

Look, this guy has every right to stand up for what he believes, but his employer also has every right to fire him for not doing his job!

I do 10 things a day for my employer that I think is stupid and don't agree with...yet I do them because it is my job. So yeah there is a good chance this man will be let go and he can go feed his family a nice dinner of "beliefs" when he is unemployed Not saying what hs is doing is wrong, but a job is a job

Wow.

[j0ker]

Well if you want to get that serous about why dont we just look at the infringed part. Accordig to just that one word any law limiting "arms" to anyone would be unconstitutional.

I cant agree with you at all your statement being the idea beind the second amendment is to fight tyranny. How would the idea to fight a army with firearms only using swords have worked? Understand when looking at so called gun violence stats that people who used a firearm in self defense is also in those stats. Basically any time anyone is ever shot its lumped into the same group. Doesnt matter if it was murder or self defense. The only people who be disarmed are honest citizens.

Unless it specfically states it in the constitiution its not in there... I am just saying those laws are not unconstitutional and shouldn't be bantered around like they are.

The Second Amendment also does nothing to define what ARMS or being ARMED would mean. Give me a sword, I'll show you damage....

[bulldog]

Wow.

Have you ever had a person you repoed their car for that you actually felt bad for? Like maybe this person has a lot of medical bills or their child just died and they have all their money wrapped up in that. So in that case shopuld your "beliefs" come into play and you let them slide.

Now this may be different if you own the repo copmany, but if you did have a boss that told you to go get that car and you came back and said your "beliefs" were too high you would not expect your boss to be mad and possibly fire you?

I don't get where a job became a place to express your rights and refuse to do it. They are called "bosses" for a reason.....

[j0ker]

Wow.

You get paid to do a job for a reason. Otherwise it wouldn't be a job.

[bulldog]

You get paid to do a job for a reason. Otherwise it wouldn't be a job.

Glad someone gets it

I really don't like insurances and the way they run; all about profit, yet it is where my job experience is at and pays the bills. Not a day goes by where I don't wish I could tell a insurance they don't care about people just money.....I'd be out the door if I said that and I know it though.

[Jmetz]

Unless it specfically states it in the constitiution its not in there... I am just saying those laws are not unconstitutional and shouldn't be bantered around like they are.

The Second Amendment also does nothing to define what ARMS or being ARMED would mean. Give me a sword, I'll show you damage....

Are you serious? What is a gun? A fireARM. Shall not be infringed.


in·fringe
/inˈfrinj/
Verb
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to LIMIT or UNDERMINE (something); ENCROACH on: "infringe on his privacy".
Synonyms
violate - transgress - break - contravene - trespass

[#1Townie]

My response to both of you is this. Law enforcement is not a "job".. comparing it to repo is not the same. What you guysare demanding to see is people who took oaths follow orders blindly. Sure to you guys guns are no big deal. What if the order was to detain and imprison without due process? Or executions with no trial? They didnt go and apply for clerk at a gas sation. Their job is to uphold the constitution and protect it from all enemies. FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC.

[Jmetz]

Glad someone gets it

I really don't like insurances and the way they run; all about profit, yet it is where my job experience is at and pays the bills. Not a day goes by where I don't wish I could tell a insurance they don't care about people just money.....I'd be out the door if I said that and I know it though.

You didn't take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, the sheriffs did.