hell yeah one thing i do like about cops

[#1Townie]

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.

Sad to see you guys DONT get it.

[dirkterrell]

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.

There are no provisions in the Constitution about how many times you can speak your mind or worship your god either.

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 chuckled a bit at this because it refutes the very argument you are trying to make. The writers of the Constitution recognized that technology would march on, so they didn't say "the right to bear muskets". The intention was that the citizens would be armed like the soldiers of a standing army to serve as a deterrent against the misuse of that army by the government.

The Founders were actually pretty smart, and if the citizens of this country would turn off Honey Boo Boo and and spend a little time reading the things that the Founders wrote, they'd find that despite claims by some political "leaders", things haven't really changed all that much in the ways of human nature and governance. The same shit plays out over and over and over because of our arrogance that we're modern and smart, and the Constitution is some anachronistic thing.

[bulldog]

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

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.

And agian, they can do whatever....they just shouldn't be surprised when they get let go from....wait for it.....their job!

If this officer had half a brain he would just do this on the downlow and not go around advertising it. I've had officers pull me over for a "illegal exhaust" and have been let go because they feel it is a stupid law too. Doesn't mean it is smart to go publicly announcing it

[Zach929rr]

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.

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.

[dirkterrell]

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"!

What if a law were passed that said that it is now illegal to work out "too much" and learn martial arts "too much" because it's a danger to law enforcement if they had to arrest you, or you might go on a rampage and kill people? Should they enforce that law?

[bulldog]

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.

Yup, here is is and I see nothing about any of that!!!!
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What if a law were passed that said that it is now illegal to work out "too much" and learn martial arts "too much" because it's a danger to law enforcement if they had to arrest you, or you might go on a rampage and kill people? Should they enforce that law?

Then I would have to follow it...seriously. Of course I'd do it on the downlow, but if it became a law I'd have to follow it.

As it was UFC was very close to being banned years ago for this. They had to totally redesign the rules to make is safer....so we have went through this also

I still think Marijuana being federally illegal is dumb when we have alcohol and cigarettes legal (both more fatal and addicting)...yet ain*t shit I can do about it/

[TFOGGuys]

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!

Police Chiefs are political appointees, and thus work for the city department they administer, and ultimately the city manager/mayor. They typically will support the political agenda of their employers as a result. Sheriffs are elected by the people of the counties they represent, and are responsible only to their constituent's interests. County Sheriffs are the ultimate authority when it comes to law enforcement in their counties, ahead of the city police, and even federal agencies.

[TFOGGuys]

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.

The 14th Amendment and Sixth Amendment have a lot to do with due process and property rights. Any constitutional case regarding the magazine ban and the background checks will hinge on this, as well as the Miller, Heller, and MacDonald decisions.

[dirkterrell]

Then I would have to follow it...seriously. Of course I'd do it on the downlow, but if it became a law I'd have to follow it.

You don't think that would be unconstitutional?

[bulldog]

Police Chiefs are political appointees, and thus work for the city department they administer, and ultimately the city manager/mayor. They typically will support the political agenda of their employers as a result. Sheriffs are elected by the people of the counties they represent, and are responsible only to their constituent's interests. County Sheriffs are the ultimate authority when it comes to law enforcement in their counties, ahead of the city police, and even federal agencies.

Now if their "boss" (in this case the Police Chief) is telling them to not enforce this law, then that is a bit more understanding than each individual officer deciding on their own. I do think it is a stupid law though, just don't get how each officer can enforce based on their personal beliefs.....to me this is the last thing we need based on some cops history we have seen.

You don't think that would be unconstitutional?

I think a lot of current laws are though!
I can't put a loud pipe on my bike, I can't smoke what I want in confort of my home, I shouldn't be allowed insurance because of "pre-existing" conditions, people on welfar/Medicaid don't have to get drug tested, illegal Mexican's can't be forced to show their SS# to get schooling, minimum drug charge prison time (that is clogging up the prison system; murderers get out faster than someone caught with weed). I mean the list goes on and on...

I respect people standing up for these rights, but overall my opinion is that it is very hard to fight the goverment! Now a total ban on guns may be harder to ignore, but a magazine size doesn't seem like enough to "revolt" over.

[dirkterrell]

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.

I see I missed this earlier, but Jim explained it. The Sheriff works for the citizens who elected him and part of his oath is to support and protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

I think a lot of current laws are though!
...
I respect people standing up for these rights, but overall my opinion is that it is very hard to fight the goverment! Now a total ban on guns may be harder to ignore, but a magazine size doesn't seem like enough to "revolt" over.

Ok, that's certainly your prerogative. But your tone is one of belittling, not respect. To me, a man like this, who certainly understands the potential hardships it could be on him and his family, is one to be praised. Let those who would scurry off and submit silently to injustice, for fear that they might suffer, be the source of derision. Our freedoms have come at a cost to those before us, and it is our duty to fight for, and potentially suffer to preserve, those rights for those that will follow us.

[Zach929rr]

The 14th Amendment and Sixth Amendment have a lot to do with due process and property rights. Any constitutional case regarding the magazine ban and the background checks will hinge on this, as well as the Miller, Heller, and MacDonald decisions.

Definitely not so much the Sixth, but I understand that the 6th is used to derive some rights under the 14th. I'm sure when you mention the 14th you are referring to the Supreme Court's tendency starting in the 60's to extend rights past what was explicitly written in the Constitution to those rights that they thought extended or derived from them. Strictly speaking, to my knowledge there has been no SC-level challenge of mag size bans, bg checks, etc, so there is no supporting case law. Speculating that these kinds of state level bans would be protected via a due process interpretation of the 2nd is just that, speculation.

With regard to the specific high profile cases you brought up, Miller is of particular interest. McReynolds stated in his decision, which stated the NFA was not a violation of the 2nd amendment, that (paraphrasing) stopping people from having shotgun barrel lengths less than X inches without paying a for a $200 stamp did not stop them from preserving a well maintained militia. The same logic can be applied to any of the bills which passed the Senate. 15 round magazines and background checks do not hinder the perseverance or efficiency of a well maintained militia, as interpreted from the 2nd Amendment.

IMO McDonald and Heller don't strictly apply to this argument because these were cases concerning the possession of firearms, not those things considered "Accessories" or the process of obtaining them.

[bulldog]

I see I missed this earlier, but Jim explained it. The Sheriff works for the citizens who elected him and part of his oath is to support and protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.



Ok, that's certainly your prerogative. But your tone is one of belittling, not respect. To me, a man like this, who certainly understands the potential hardships it could be on him and his family, is one to be praised. Let those who would scurry off and submit silently to injustice, for fear that they might suffer, be the source of derision. Our freedoms have come at a cost to those before us, and it is our duty to fight for, and potentially suffer to preserve, those rights for those that will follow us.

So you really feel we should give police officers free rain to do what they feel is right? Haven't we seen enough proof that there are police officers that do need restrant???? I could pull up 5 examples just on this board alone of questionable actions police officers have done

And I respect the guy, but I have also been forced to respect the law too....I tried my fair share to not respect it before and just got me in more trouble.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I applaud these Sheriffs and all the others who have given the middle finger to Likkenpooper and the other (D)umbasses.

[dirkterrell]

So you really feel we should give police officers free rain to do what they feel is right? Haven't we seen enough proof that there are police officers that do need restrant???? I could pull up 5 examples just on this board alone of questionable actions police officers have done

Where did I say that we should give them free reign? I'm saying that if a sheriff is told to do something that is unconstitutional, it is his duty to resist. If the people of his county disagree with his position, he won't be re-elected. Oh, and see my sig.

And I respect the guy, but I have also been forced to respect the law too....I tried my fair share to not respect it before and just got me in more trouble.

Whether that was right or wrong depends on the specific situation. Here we are talking about the violation of a right that the Founders specifically put in place as a guard against abuse by our government. We are no more intrinsically resistant to potential tyrants than any other country now or in the past. An armed population changes that dynamic completely.

Been watching what's going on in Cyprus the past few days? I wonder if the government there would have been so quick to commit outright theft if their population were armed. I suspect not.

[rforsythe]

It's not one sheriff here either Nate, it's literally hundreds across the nation at this point, all standing up for the rights of the people. I support them in this, because I DO believe that the current proposed bans and oversight (plural, across many states and even at the federal level) ARE infringing our right to bear arms. This goes way beyond limiting ammunition capacity. Universal "background checks" (which are ultimately the same thing as gun owner registration once you supply that information) and ammunition sale tracking (may have already passed in NY) should both scare the shit out of you, let alone the attempts to limit what people can even own or how much they can use it.

This is also gun grabbing by expiration, since the mags and guns being proposed in these laws wouldn't be transferrable or inheritable. One state's senators even tried passing a law which would allow (and require) local LEO to inspect your weapons in your home once a year once you registered ownership of them (fortunately that got killed quickly).

This is not "oh think of the kids". If it were, we'd be focusing on mental health and other ways of preventing legal weapons from falling into the hands of unstable people. Rather the gun grabbers have taken this as their moment to launch an unadulterated blitzkrieg on your 2A rights to see just how far they can go, and how much they can revoke. I don't see it any other way, especially after hearing some of the unbelievable rhetoric being used as justification for these rights limitations.

[bulldog]

Where did I say that we should give them free reign? I'm saying that if a sheriff is told to do something that is unconstitutional, it is his duty to resist. If the people of his county disagree with his position, he won't be re-elected. Oh, and see my sig.



Whether that was right or wrong depends on the specific situation. Here we are talking about the violation of a right that the Founders specifically put in place as a guard against abuse by our government. We are no more intrinsically resistant to potential tyrants than any other country now or in the past. An armed population changes that dynamic completely.

Been watching what's going on in Cyprus the past few days? I wonder if the government there would have been so quick to commit outright theft if their population were armed. I suspect not.

Well you must have missed this then in post #34:

Now if their "boss" (in this case the Police Chief) is telling them to not enforce this law, then that is a bit more understanding than each individual officer deciding on their own. I do think it is a stupid law though, just don't get how each officer can enforce based on their personal beliefs.....to me this is the last thing we need based on some cops history we have seen.

And yet no one can show me where "magazine size" is stated in the constitution???? Ain't nobody losing their "right to bear arms".

It's not one sheriff here either Nate, it's literally hundreds across the nation at this point, all standing up for the rights of the people. I support them in this, because I DO believe that the current proposed bans and oversight (plural, across many states and even at the federal level) ARE infringing our right to bear arms. This goes way beyond limiting ammunition capacity. Universal "background checks" (which are ultimately the same thing as gun owner registration once you supply that information) and ammunition sale tracking (may have already passed in NY) should both scare the shit out of you, let alone the attempts to limit what people can even own or how much they can use it.

This is also gun grabbing by expiration, since the mags and guns being proposed in these laws wouldn't be transferrable or inheritable. One state's senators even tried passing a law which would allow (and require) local LEO to inspect your weapons in your home once a year once you registered ownership of them (fortunately that got killed quickly).

This is not "oh think of the kids". If it were, we'd be focusing on mental health and other ways of preventing legal weapons from falling into the hands of unstable people. Rather the gun grabbers have taken this as their moment to launch an unadulterated blitzkrieg on your 2A rights to see just how far they can go, and how much they can revoke. I don't see it any other way, especially after hearing some of the unbelievable rhetoric being used as justification for these rights limitations.

So can I start posting porn on this site then without getting banned? My opinion is it is a beautiful thing and I bet there are many others that feel this way too. I mean why not follow some rules and not others then. Rules are rules right...Mr Moderator (aka: rule keeper)!!!!

Sheesh it is a law that is in place, yet we are saying going against it....sounds like sore losers (even though I think the law is stupid myself)

[Jmetz]

Ain't nobody losing their "right to bear arms".

This is exactly what they want you to believe. You're right, because they know if they come head on it will start a war. BUT if they strip it piece by piece, because "hey this piece here isn't taking your guns" and "that piece there isn't going to affect anything" eventually they get it all right from under your nose. By the time you wake up and realize what happened, it's too late.

[Zanatos]

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.

[bulldog]

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.

Said much better than I could

[Hoot]

I'm sure it would be cause for alarm is government started limiting your free speech on new age methods of communication like cell phones, social media etc. would you happily hand over all electronic communications devices if the government asked you to?

Now it imagine they don't come out and just say that. Instead they start by limiting access to communication that they choose arbitrarily.

Oh and btw it's for your own good. We are protecting children. Sure you still have your free speech, just not in the modern form as you implied.

[rforsythe]

So can I start posting porn on this site then without getting banned? My opinion is it is a beautiful thing and I bet there are many others that feel this way too. I mean why not follow some rules and not others then. Rules are rules right...Mr Moderator (aka: rule keeper)!!!!

Sheesh it is a law that is in place, yet we are saying going against it....sounds like sore losers (even though I think the law is stupid myself)

I'm having a hard time actually forming the mental parallel between forum rules and constitutional rights in your response...

I'm sure it would be cause for alarm is government started limiting your free speech on new age methods of communication like cell phones, social media etc. would you happily hand over all electronic communications devices if the government asked you to?

It's far more efficient for them to simply monitor everything for communication they don't like. And FWIW, the government has specifically asked for a "kill switch" to limit use of modern communications in times of "crisis". So far that has been denied them.

[bulldog]

I'm having a hard time actually forming the mental parallel between forum rules and constitutional rights in your response...

My point is you have forum rules and I am a guest here and must follow them if I want to stay. Sure I could not play by the rules that I think are unfair (like limiting what I can post), and then you have the right to ban me! Of course I could go into "Ralph is taking away my consitutional right by making these rules", but they are CSC's rules.....rules are rules!!! Our country rules are called "laws" and they must be followed whether we like them or not or suffer the consequences.

Like Zantos said, there are the right ways to go about this and the wrong ways and I don't feel like a individual cop making decisions based on his "beliefs" is the correct way.



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....

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

It's not one sheriff here either Nate, it's literally hundreds across the nation at this point, all standing up for the rights of the people. I support them in this, because I DO believe that the current proposed bans and oversight (plural, across many states and even at the federal level) ARE infringing our right to bear arms. This goes way beyond limiting ammunition capacity. Universal "background checks" (which are ultimately the same thing as gun owner registration once you supply that information) and ammunition sale tracking (may have already passed in NY) should both scare the shit out of you, let alone the attempts to limit what people can even own or how much they can use it.

This is also gun grabbing by expiration, since the mags and guns being proposed in these laws wouldn't be transferrable or inheritable. One state's senators even tried passing a law which would allow (and require) local LEO to inspect your weapons in your home once a year once you registered ownership of them (fortunately that got killed quickly).

This is not "oh think of the kids". If it were, we'd be focusing on mental health and other ways of preventing legal weapons from falling into the hands of unstable people. Rather the gun grabbers have taken this as their moment to launch an unadulterated blitzkrieg on your 2A rights to see just how far they can go, and how much they can revoke. I don't see it any other way, especially after hearing some of the unbelievable rhetoric being used as justification for these rights limitations.

Excellent post.