hell yeah one thing i do like about cops

[bulldog]

Excellent post.

Except one problem....the LAW ALREADY PASSED! This is not about whether the law is right or wrong, but if a police officer should enforce the law!

[Snowman]

I can understand and fully support the right of these Sheriffs, Officers and anyone related to law enforcement might have about enforcing laws they personally do not agree with. Their beliefs are just as valid whether they are talking about enforcing gun laws, drug laws or immigration laws. They have the right to follow their conscience in doing what they believe is right.

However the government over these officials also has the right to fire them for not following an enacted law and replace them with people who will.

Many here have yelled at the government to enforce one set of laws that they agree with while turning right around and yelling at the same government to not enforce laws are they don't agree with.

It's not the place of Law Enforcement to determine which laws to enforce or not not matter what they personally believe. It's the government we the people put in place that make those decisions. You don't like the laws being made stop voting for the people who would make them.

[Zach929rr]

How about everybody just go fuck themselves?

[Wrider]

Sheriffs take an oath to uphold the law. If the sheriff thinks the law is unconstitutional, then he should challenge the law in the courts. Until then, he should either uphold his oath and enforce the law, or he should resign in protest.

Gun control laws put us on a slippery slope - but so do law enforcers who think they can simply disregard laws they don't like. The Supreme Court is empowered to decide constitutional matters - not politicians, and not sheriffs.

Except one problem....the LAW ALREADY PASSED! This is not about whether the law is right or wrong, but if a police officer should enforce the law!

Just gonna leave these here for you guys to mull over...

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
-Thomas Jefferson

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
-Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
-Thomas Jefferson

Considering that he is widely considered one of the foremost thinkers of the Revolution, I think these quotes are fairly relevant today. Especially when you consider the current thread topic and the first and second quotes I posted.

[#1Townie]

Nothing about the recent legislation is unconstitutional at face value nor has such merit in case law.

The Second Amendment says nothing of magazine size, background checks, etc.

You know they said the same thing about the soda law in new york. That was just shot down.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...nycs-soda-ban/

A government unable to manage itself has no business trying to manage my life or how or what i use to defend myself and my home. As simple as that.

YOU may not think it is against the constitution but others do.

[bulldog]

Just gonna leave these here for you guys to mull over...

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
-Thomas Jefferson

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
-Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
-Thomas Jefferson

Considering that he is widely considered one of the foremost thinkers of the Revolution, I think these quotes are fairly relevant today. Especially when you consider the current thread topic and the first and second quotes I posted.

You mean the SLAVE OWNER who wrote "All men are Created Equal"

* Arguably his most perplexing contradiction was that the man who wrote the inspiring words ``all men are created equal'' was a slave owner throughout his life. While contemporaries, including George Washington, freed their slaves, Jefferson kept his, even though he recognized the institution was wrong. Worse, this great scholar espoused abhorrently ignorant opinions about the physical and mental traits of blacks.

[#1Townie]

Sheriffs take an oath to uphold the law. If the sheriff thinks the law is unconstitutional, then he should challenge the law in the courts. Until then, he should either uphold his oath and enforce the law, or he should resign in protest.

Gun control laws put us on a slippery slope - but so do law enforcers who think they can simply disregard laws they don't like. The Supreme Court is empowered to decide constitutional matters - not politicians, and not sheriffs.

Actually by your means we should all give up ans wait for our awesome court process to work. There is a story out of nv that i have posted multiple times. A nye county sheriff went toe to toe with the feds over cows. The feds wanted them under some stupid law. The sheriff said fuck you. Well the rancher took this to court and it took damn near ten years but he won. If that sheriff would have done what you say that rancher would have lost everything in the process and not had the money to see his day in court.

Honestly bro fuck that reasoning. This government is fucked beyond repair. Takes just a few weeks to get gun bills drawn up and passed but can we get a budget? Fuck no. Illegals can get free education but can our troops? Fuck no. We can feed millions all over the world but can fix our own problems? Fuck no.

Honestly as each month passes our government gets even more out of control and you want our list line of defense to just give in? Hell fucking no.

[Wrider]

Never said he was perfect, but trust me when I say that none of us are perfect either.

Out of curiosity, where did you get that quote you used? I'd like to point out an inaccuracy about George Washington keeping his slaves. He kept them, and set them free in his will. And Jefferson freed 5 of his slaves in his will.

[#1Townie]

You mean the SLAVE OWNER who wrote "All men are Created Equal"

* Arguably his most perplexing contradiction was that the man who wrote the inspiring words ``all men are created equal'' was a slave owner throughout his life. While contemporaries, including George Washington, freed their slaves, Jefferson kept his, even though he recognized the institution was wrong. Worse, this great scholar espoused abhorrently ignorant opinions about the physical and mental traits of blacks.

Yeah irony. Ever looked up why the nra was even founded to begin with?

[dirkterrell]

And again, point me to where the constitutional stated magazine size? You guys keep saying this, but nobody will point it out! I'm having a hard time actually forming the mental parallel between the constitutional right to " bear arms" and how big a clip can be....

Probably because it has no relevance to what's being discussed. "Cell phones" and "computers" aren't specified in the Constitution either but a law saying that you can only use them to talk to at most three people per day would be unconstitutional. Again, that's why the Founders said "arms" not, for example, "muskets" or "poleaxes".

[dirkterrell]

However the government over these officials also has the right to fire them for not following an enacted law and replace them with people who will.

I still think a lot of you don't know how the office of sheriff works. This bit from the National Sheriffs Association explains it:

As mentioned in the beginning of this article there are two characteristics that distinguish the Office of Sheriff. The second characteristic that sets the sheriff’s office apart from other law enforcement agencies is its direct accountability to citizens through the election of the Sheriff. The Office of Sheriff is not a department of county government, it is the independent office through which the Sheriff exercises the powers of the public trust. No individual or small group hires or fires the Sheriff, or has the authority to interfere with the operations of the office. Elected sheriffs are accountable directly to the constitution of their state, the United States Constitution, statutes, and the citizens of their county.

Source

[Snowman]

I still think a lot of you don't know how the office of sheriff works. This bit from the National Sheriffs Association explains it:

Source

So you condone individuals not holding to the laws they are sworn to protect?

I don't care how they got into office, if they are not doing the job they were voted/put/hired/drafted into as anyone else would, then they should be fired/discharged/arrested/impeached.

You can not have a unchecked branch of government and expect it not to end up corrupt. It's bad enough when they are check and balances in place.

[LambeauXLIV]

I still think a lot of you don't know how the office of sheriff works.

agreed

[dirkterrell]

So you condone individuals not holding to the laws they are sworn to protect?

They are sworn to uphold the constitution of their state and country. Seems to me that's exactly what these guys are doing.

I don't care how they got into office, if they are not doing the job they were voted/put/hired/drafted into as anyone else would, then they should be fired/discharged/arrested/impeached.

They can certainly be recalled, but that has to be done by the people they serve.

You can not have a unchecked branch of government and expect it not to end up corrupt. It's bad enough when they are check and balances in place.

An independent sheriff is a check and balance, serving his community directly, rather than a bunch of politicians furthering an agenda.

[Snowman]

They are sworn to uphold the constitution of their state and country. Seems to me that's exactly what these guys are doing.

So next time one tries to pull you over for speeding, see how far you get running from one. Since that law is as much a part of this states constitution as any of the guns laws will be.

They can certainly be recalled, but that has to be done by the people they serve.

Fired is fired not matter what you call it.

An independent sheriff is a check and balance, serving his community directly, rather than a bunch of politicians furthering an agenda.

I'm sure a County or State Judge would have something to say about that statement. Because several of them already have.

[bulldog]

So leave guns totally out of it, then let me ask you if you feel a police officer shold be able to enforce the law based on their beliefs? F*ck the law, they get to enforce based on how they feel and interpret the constitution! You guys really agree with that?

And don't forget it is a crime to yell out "fire" in a packed place...yet that is freedom of speech! Maybe some officers think that is ok and "interpret" it different from another officer and one arrests people and another doesn't.

[rforsythe]

So next time one tries to pull you over for speeding, see how far you get running from one. Since that law is as much a part of this states constitution as any of the guns laws will be.

Ever been let off from a ticket by a cop who chose not to enforce that law? That notwithstanding, the US Constitution says nothing about speeding laws. It pretty clearly mentions some things more relevant to this topic in the second amendment, however.

Fired is fired not matter what you call it.

The means of firing is a rather important point, however. A politician cannot fire a sheriff; the people the sheriff serves can. Watch and see how many of these "renegade" sheriffs are actually recalled by their citizenry for taking a stand, whether they're actually supposed to do it or not.

I'm sure a County or State Judge would have something to say about that statement. Because several of them already have.

Has a judge actually declared themselves to have the authority to remove an elected official so far?

[Drano]

So officers don't have rules? When they get the job they are just handed the constitution and say "here follow this and never listen to your boss or changing laws"!

I mean if this is how it works I guess I have been misinformed for years.

One thing that is often overlooked is that members of the military, and I assume law enforcement as well, are only expected to obey lawful orders. Members of the military, at least, have an obligation to disobey orders that violate articles contained within the UCMJ, the Geneva Convention, and, you guessed it, the United States' Constitution.

With these gun regulations signed into Colorado law, the sheriffs should obey them. However, what I think we are seeing is a move by the Colorado sheriffs to violate Colorado law in order to get the Supreme Court involved. As much as we may not like it, it's going to take a Supreme Court decision to determine whether these new laws are constitutional or not. As much as some of you may or may not like it, the buck stops there.

[bulldog]

I keep hearing that Ralph is saying not to follow laws if I don't agree with them...like censorship on this site.

Say the word Ralph...I got some nice ones to test my amendment right

I mean you can't be a hypocrite and say to follow some rules and not others right!

[Snowman]

Ever been let off from a ticket by a cop who chose not to enforce that law? That notwithstanding, the US Constitution says nothing about speeding laws. It pretty clearly mentions some things more relevant to this topic in the second amendment, however.

I agree these gun laws are quite possibly in violation of the second amendment, but this is something for the judicial branch to determine, not someone from the executive branch. By law no person can be part of any two branches of government. So for a law official to determine what a judge should call unconstitutional or create laws as a legislative branch can would be illegal.

The means of firing is a rather important point, however. A politician cannot fire a sheriff; the people the sheriff serves can. Watch and see how many of these "renegade" sheriffs are actually recalled by their citizenry for taking a stand, whether they're actually supposed to do it or not.

Has a judge actually declared themselves to have the authority to remove an elected official so far?

Judges and higher levels of law enforcement are the ones who keep the check on a Sheriffs power, how many time have arrest warrants been issues for corrupt sheriffs.

Texas Rangers arrest Panola County Sheriff on Thursday

[dirkterrell]

So next time one tries to pull you over for speeding, see how far you get running from one. Since that law is as much a part of this states constitution as any of the guns laws will be.

A law against speeding is not in violation of the US constitution as far as I'm aware.

Fired is fired not matter what you call it.

But there is a huge difference in being fired by the citizens you serve and being fired by grandstanding politicians.

I'm sure a County or State Judge would have something to say about that statement. Because several of them already have.

I guess we'll see how it plays out.

[rforsythe]

I keep hearing that Ralph is saying not to follow laws if I don't agree with them...like censorship on this site.

Say the word Ralph...I got some nice ones to test my amendment right

Um, you do realize constitutional rights apply to the government acting against you right? There is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about me censoring or prohibiting certain things on this site.

You can also choose not to follow the rules, and I can choose to enforce them using whatever means I have available. You can also speed in your car and a LEO can enforce those rules by whatever means they have at their disposal. Similarly, a LEO can choose not to enforce rules and possibly be held accountable by appropriate measures that apply to their position, if they feel they're doing the right thing. By all means, if you feel you need to break forum rules to "do the right thing", be my guest.

I am also not saying there won't be repercussions for these sheriffs who are taking a stand, I am just saying I agree with what they're doing, because I think they're on the side of right. How this plays out in the courts and/or administratively will be interesting, and it's arrogant for anyone to say they know what will happen, because our legal system has never been tested in this way. Regardless of which side of the argument you support, the next couple years will be interesting times.

[dirkterrell]

So leave guns totally out of it, then let me ask you if you feel a police officer shold be able to enforce the law based on their beliefs? F*ck the law, they get to enforce based on how they feel and interpret the constitution! You guys really agree with that?

If a police officer is asked to enforce a law that he believes is unconstitutional, then I expect him/her to refuse to enforce it. They will probably get fired (note you said police, not a sheriff) and then it would probably go to the courts.

And don't forget it is a crime to yell out "fire" in a packed place...yet that is freedom of speech! Maybe some officers think that is ok and "interpret" it different from another officer and one arrests people and another doesn't.

It's a crime to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. The difference here is that the scenario you posit has legal precedent. The laws we are discussing do not. And disobedience of laws is the very way in which constitutionality is challenged.

[Snowman]

A law against speeding is not in violation of the US constitution as far as I'm aware.

And if these laws are passed it would take a judicial decision to determine if they are unconstitutional (which I believe they are) not a decision from anyone in the executive branch, no matter how high or low in this case.

But there is a huge difference in being fired by the citizens you serve and being fired by grandstanding politicians.

Which I do agree, but how big or small, if you are not doing the job because of your belief, then you shouldn't be doing the job at all. And just because you got elected to the job doesn't excuse you from you responsibilities of the job because you personally disagree with them.