Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: timsatx on March 18, 2013, 03:14:46 PM
-
GREELEY, Colo. (AP) — A Colorado sheriff says he won't enforce two aggressive gun-control measures waiting to be signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper.
Weld County Sheriff John Cooke told The Greeley Tribune (http://bit.ly/141Ee2z (http://bit.ly/141Ee2z) ) that Democratic lawmakers are scrambling after recent mass shootings, and the bills are "feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable."
One bill expands background checks on firearm purchases, and the other limits ammunition magazines to 15 rounds. The 15-round magazine limit would make Colorado the first state outside the East Coast to ratchet back gun rights after last year's shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn.
Colorado's gun-control debates have been closely watched because of the state's gun-loving frontier heritage and painful history of mass shootings, most recently last summer's movie theater shooting that killed 12.
The sheriff said he "won't bother enforcing" the laws because it would be impossible for officers to keep track of how the requirements are being met by gun owners — and he and other sheriffs are considering suing the state to block the measures if they are signed into law.
Cooke said the bill passed Friday requiring a $10 background check to legally transfer a gun wouldn't keep firearms out of the hands of those who use them for violence.
"Criminals are still going to get their guns," he said.
The sheriff's office did not immediately return calls left by The Associated Press.
The magazine-limit bill passed earlier in the week will technically ban all magazines because of a provision that outlaws any magazine that can be altered, he said, adding that all magazines can be altered to a higher capacity.
Expanded checks have been a top priority for Hickenlooper, who called for the proposal during his State of the State address in January.
Cooke oversees law enforcement in Colorado's third-largest county by area. His jurisdiction includes its largest city, Greeley, and large swaths of farmland and areas of oil and gas production.
http://news.yahoo.com/colo-sheriff-refuses-enforce-gun-control-bills-024608155.html (http://news.yahoo.com/colo-sheriff-refuses-enforce-gun-control-bills-024608155.html)
-
Good For HIM!! That is what is called Civil Disobedience!! I believe we fought for our independence from Great Britain under similar circumstances. Hopefully it doesnt come to that.
If someone unexpected knocks on my door I am as ready now as I can be.
-
Someone takes the Oath seriously, the part about protecting and defending the COTUS against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.
-
I agree, good for him, too bad he will likely lose his job, hope I'm wrong but it looks like its going to be a shakedown as to who cracks and who doesn't in the coming months concerning all the anti-gun legislation coming down the pike. Who's it going to be on each side, the politician who votes for it and risks losing his seat to angry gunowners, or the sheriff who doesn't enforce it and is forced out by politics or enough anti-gun voters. The anti-gun forces are looking for a BIG state with big time numbers of gun owners for a referendum type vote to prove to others it can be passed and enforced. BIG money on both sides is being used. Ohio just introduced a bill that would let Ohio NOT be required to follow federal law concerning federal anti-gun legislation. Who-boy is that causing a stir.
-
Third scenario-he caves when his deprtment is defunded.
-
(http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j180/stevewfl/icon10.gif)
-
The county sheriff may have more power than one might suppose. I believe that they may be the only elected law enforcement officer in the country and this conveys much power (rarely used). I remember some years back that a county sheriff in SC could wield more power in his/her jurisdiction than the governor. The sheriff may have the upper hand in CO. Don't count him out yet. I don't think that he can 'lose' his job except by being voted out or malfeasance. Neither of which yet applies.
-
The county sheriff may have more power than one might suppose. ...
I don't suppose anything, they do. FWIW, look to see how much 'authority' Department of Wildlife officers have at their disposal. They can issue speeding tickets if so inclined.
I don't have any firearms, but can't help but think how stupid, and knee jerk, these new/proposed firearm 'laws' are. It's as if you can prevent vehicular homicide by limiting how much fuel a vehicle can carry, or by requiring everyone to pass a background check before taking possession of a set of car keys.
LEO's have no obligation to enforce EVERY law. I can reference anyone that has blown by a 'radar trap' at five over with one license plate light out. Both are against the law.
I guess as long as the sheep seem happy, all is good in the world. Now where did I put my rose tinted glasses...
Rick
-
I think they want to appear to do something, they are of the mindset, "well, we need to do something, anything" so they can say, as Feinstein did today, "Well, I gave it my best shot", nobody says anything about actually making sure it will be enforced, or if it will actually prevent shootings, it won't, they know this thats why they are waiting till the next tragedy to happen so they can pass more laws, more restrictive laws.
-
I don't suppose anything, they do. FWIW, look to see how much 'authority' Department of Wildlife officers have at their disposal. They can issue speeding tickets if so inclined.
Rick
If I remember correctly there are 70+ federal agencies with police powers. Each cabinet position has it's own little private army. Close to 200,000 non-military feds under arms. This does not include state and local.
-
As a former Colorado resident, I can tell you the days of it being a rough, independent, conservative leaning state are over. On the Western Slope, lots of the small towns have been overrun by Californians (or worse, Oregonians) who have brought their political bent with them to the mountains. On the front range, the big population centers of Denver and the Springs are becoming more and more progressive. The fact is that in lots of western states, the political will of the metros will drive state gov't as there simply aren't enough people in the hinterlands to drive their will. Anti-gun, pro-gay marriage, legalized dope - all social initiatives of the left that have taken root in the Rocky Mountain State.
The only thing that will change that mind-set is money - lost corp revenue, and fewer tourists. Magpul has already announced they are leaving. I wonder if there will be more.
-
That type of people will embrace companies leaving the state. They are not only anti gun but anti company. When all the companies that provide jobs are gone they will blame someone else and claim the companies left because of greed.
-
....then they will move someplace else and destroy it too.
-
If the Sheriff refuses to do his job his employer should fire him. Now if he unintensonily looked the other way that would be different. I guess he is not too bright.
-
If the Sheriff refuses to do his job his employer should fire him. Now if he unintensonily looked the other way that would be different. I guess he is not too bright.
I would argue loudly he is doing his job. To support and defend the COTUS.
-
If the Sheriff refuses to do his job his employer should fire him. Now if he unintensonily looked the other way that would be different. I guess he is not too bright.
Not in this case.......
-
I would argue loudly he is doing his job. To support and defend the COTUS.
I wonder if any Sheriff's oath of office even mentions the Constitution.
-
If the Sheriff refuses to do his job his employer should fire him. Now if he unintensonily looked the other way that would be different. I guess he is not too bright.
Actually he is quite bright. His employer is the people of Weld county who without a doubt the majority are against these victim disarmament laws and has thus guaranteed his reelection. Pretty much most of the state outside of Boulder and Denver are against this BS.
-
I wonder if any Sheriff's oath of office even mentions the Constitution.
I'm looking. Until I have an answer I stumbled accross this from a Sheriff in Broward County.
Theodore Roosevelt said:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the person who points out how the strong stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the person who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes up short, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends themselves in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if they fail, at least they fail while daring greatly, so that their place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
I want to thank you for being in the arena.
-
http://weldsheriff.com/assets/B7dBcb7b5A67B06b7834.pdf (http://weldsheriff.com/assets/B7dBcb7b5A67B06b7834.pdf)
-
The politicians there should be removed from their jobs for illegal acts y passing laws that are unconstitutional. I don't care what your position is on the matter. These people know they are breaking the law of the land. They should be prosecuted.
-
If the Sheriff refuses to do his job his employer should fire him. Now if he unintensonily looked the other way that would be different. I guess he is not too bright.
His employer are the citizens of that county. He's an elected official. He can't be 'fired' as such. He can be arrested for malfeasance of office but that is a stretch no prosecutor would reach for in this case. I imagine that he could be recalled, though. He can say what he wants and tell his deputies what to enforce or not. As long as the citizens of that county support him he's fully within his elected office to do what he wants to do and say regardless of what is passed in the state legislature.
-
The politicians there should be removed from their jobs for illegal acts y passing laws that are unconstitutional. I don't care what your position is on the matter. These people know they are breaking the law of the land. They should be prosecuted.
Can't do that either. Passing laws that are deemed unconstitutional through due process happens all the time from both sides of the aisle in both state and federal governments whether you agree or not. It's the political process we know and love (well maybe not so much). However, if you are arguing for a monarch of sorts......
-
Very interesting read.
http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/ (http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/)
Growing List of Sheriffs, Associations and Police Chiefs Saying ‘NO’ to Obama Gun Control
Posted on March 20, 2013
And the rest.
http://cspoa.org/red-coat-list/ (http://cspoa.org/red-coat-list/)
-
Very interesting read.
http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/ (http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/)
Growing List of Sheriffs, Associations and Police Chiefs Saying ‘NO’ to Obama Gun Control
Posted on March 20, 2013
And the rest.
http://cspoa.org/red-coat-list/ (http://cspoa.org/red-coat-list/)
I might have to donate some money to this group.
-
Can't do that either. Passing laws that are deemed unconstitutional through due process happens all the time from both sides of the aisle in both state and federal governments whether you agree or not. It's the political process we know and love (well maybe not so much). However, if you are arguing for a monarch of sorts......
Yes, you can. Elected officials are subject to recall by the voters.
That argument is like saying people commit murder all the time so it is legal.
Just because it's done all the time doesn't make it legal or Constitutional.
That's what people tend to forget.
-
Yes, you can. Elected officials are subject to recall by the voters.
That argument is like saying people commit murder all the time so it is legal.
Just because it's done all the time doesn't make it legal or Constitutional.
That's what people tend to forget.
So they are...doesn't happen real often and when it does sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. We're not talking murder here, Cholla. If the folks in CO don't like what they're elected officials are doing then of course they can try for a recall. However, just because you don't like something doesn't mean everyone else has the same opinion on the subject. What you or I think is Constitutional has no bearing on anything unless we're Supreme Court Justices... I just looked and I'm pretty sure I'm not one of those guys. I don't think that you are either. We can argue until the Kaws come home but it won't change either of our opinions on the subject I think.
-
So they are...doesn't happen real often and when it does sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. We're not talking murder here, Cholla. If the folks in CO don't like what they're elected officials are doing then of course they can try for a recall. However, just because you don't like something doesn't mean everyone else has the same opinion on the subject. What you or I think is Constitutional has no bearing on anything unless we're Supreme Court Justices... I just looked and I'm pretty sure I'm not one of those guys. I don't think that you are either. We can argue until the Kaws come home but it won't change either of our opinions on the subject I think.
Sounds rational to me. 8)
-
Still doesn't make it right. This sheriff is doing what's right.
If a law is unConstitutional how can he legally enforce it?
-
Until a law has been challenged by the courts and found to be un-Constitutional it isn't...no matter what you or I or the Sheriff's think. However, laws can be removed and new ones written. Keeps all the lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats in business.
-
Seems to me laws are selectively enforced every day at all levels.
It is illegal to enter the US without documentation, but when AZ felt the laws weren't being enforced from the Federal level, they took measures to enforce at the State level. This went to the courts because the Feds felt the State was overstepping their boundaries by enforcing a law that the Feds have chosen to ignore.
-
What ever happened with that or is it still going through the courts?
-
So if the courts don't say a law that limits our rights is unconstitutional it's legal?
I wave the BS flag!
That just goes to show how the powers that be have corrupted the system and how we have allowed it.
DUI checkpoints come to mind quickly. We kow they are illegal yet judges say they aren't.
If a judge creates a law from the bench is it legal?
Remember, according to CotUS judges cannot make laws.
-
In the immortal words of Mr. Spock: The needs of the many outweigh the
needs rights of the few.
-
And he should have said "the wants of the few outweigh the rights of the many".
-
;D
-
I wants many drinks and that outweighs the few.
-
Sounds ok to me, Poke.