Can we compromise on 1A and make it stronger too? Or just on 2A?
Colorado Assault Weapons Ban Submitted
- Thread starter Dsnow9
- Start date
SAJ-99
Well-known member
This is probably the most shocking post on this thread. A sheriff deciding which laws to enforce or not enforce? It’s no different than those stories of not arresting shoplifters. It seems everyone has a hand in the slow descent to chaos
Should have been a little more specific. He was referring to the registration enforcement. Not going to check people or their weapons.
Illinois sheriffs say they will not enforce law requiring gun owners to register ‘assault weapons’
ROCKFORD, Ill. (WTVO) — Sheriffs from Winnebago, Ogle, Stephenson, Lee, DeKalb, Boone and other counties across the state announced Wednesday that they will not enforce Illinois’ recently pas…
www.mystateline.com
SAJ-99
Well-known member
This person in Ogle County was pretty clear. Funny how they opine on the constitutionality of the law and don’t seem to understand that there is a whole other branch of government for that. I do understand how difficult the law would be to enforce and it seems like that you would be putting law enforcement in potentially dangerous situations, but there is no need for this statement. It just encourages people to select which laws they want to follow and which laws they don’t. A continued degradation of institutional control.
“I, among many others, believe that HB 5471 is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Therefore, as the custodian of the jail and chief law enforcement official for Ogle County, proclaim that neither myself or my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will we be arresting or housing individuals that have been charged solely with non-compliance of this Act,” the statements continued.
Is there any point in your mind where a sheriff's oath to the US Constitution overrides their commitment to the local jurisdiction?
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I think a sheriff takes an oath to enforce the constitution and the the law of the land. They don’t take an oath to determine what laws are Constitutional and which ones aren’t. Not their job.
Doublecluck
Well-known member
Laughable argument, I think there is a profound difference between people actively and intentionally breaking the law with an immediate victim (shoplifting) and legislation that simply at the stroke of a pen criminalizes otherwise law abiding people.
LE choose what laws to enforce all the time. You think everyone that gets pulled over with expired registration gets a ticket? Hell! there are all kinds of charges that are thrown or not thrown at criminals simply based on how well they cooperate. Many states/cities have prison and court systems so overrun they literally have policies of not arresting or enforcing certain laws because the system can’t handle them.
Last edited:
rjthehunter
Well-known member
You have unhealthy faith in the government don't you?
Law enforcement officers are people just like you and I. They face moral dilemmas when it comes to enforcing foolish laws. They serve and protect. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens just because someone behind a desk decided that it's the only option is asinine. At some point when the government is overstepping its bounds, there will be some form of resistance, whether it be LE officers not enforcing, or people pushing back by simply not listening.
Most LE officers I know own ARs. They're not interested in taking guns away from law abiding citizens. Because you know they're the only people who would turn them in. School shooters aren't going to give up their guns. Or lets say they do... They'll go down the street and talk to the gangbanger or drug dealer (both of which are ironically illegal, but still very prevalent) and buy a gun with the serial numbers scratched off.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
You miss the point. It is the prosecutors job to bring charges or not. I agree there are a lot of laws that are tacked on after the fact of an incident, like dog leash laws. LE’s have some discretion over the decision, but it mostly based on time, amount paperwork, and severity of infraction. None of that is what is being debated. This is about the leading enforcement authority in an area making a statement on what is constitutional. Do you want every LE officer to be able to do that? Just the sheriff? City police chief or Mayor?
We are a nation of laws. Let it be argued in
Court. All the complaining about the US falling apart, it is because of little stuff like this. Everyone thinks that they should get to decide what is right or wrong, good or bad. @TOGIE nailed it in noting that the person is elected and probably just pandering to populace for votes. I don’t like it when a city Mayor doesn’t arrest people in a protest that turns destructive for the same reason. I get there can be nuance, but it’s not about the law. Rather this recent trend to think certain laws don’t apply.
LuketheDog
Well-known member
Haha, yeah, Lori Lightfoot the crime-fighting champion, who has 1,000 vacant police positions and a nearly $2 Billion budget for law enforcement in her city. I heard the other day they were already up to 10 homicides for 2023, right on track for a typical year. I'm sure the new gun laws will slow that down...my friends in Chicago are thrilled with her
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Again, not about ARs or guns or anything else. If you can’t get that then I can’t help you.
Doublecluck
Well-known member
I believe the sheriff takes an oath to uphold the constitution, the law of the land that supersedes state law. If he/she believes a state law violates the constitution isn’t it duty to not enforce it? I mean if the voters pass a law tomorrow that says I can’t speak in public and anyone who does so gets 6 months, you are all good with the sheriff locking people up till the courts get it handled months or years later? I’m sure the voters in his area will have the final say but something tells me he wouldn’t be saying it if that’s not what the majority of his constituents wanted. You know, democracy and chit.
So since we are on the topic, sanctuary cities? I think that was the beginning of the decline. But hey I’m sure you were a good advocate for laws being enforced there right?
Last edited:
If the people in that sheriff's jurisdiction do not agree with their behavior or course of action then they should vote them out or follow procedures to have them removed. If they do agree, they should be working towards changing the state laws that they do not agree with. Feels like pretty normal politics to me and sheriffs are just another politician.
I'll suggest you read the book Ordinary Men. Pretty eye opening on the issue of just following govt orders and "doing my job". Hopefully we have more people like this sheriff stand up for us before we ever get to a point like that. I know it sounds far fetched. But a lot has happened in the last 3 years that I never would have believed regarding govt behavior. History tends to repeat.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
In your very unlikely scenario, yes, I would be ok with that (ok, it doesn’t really work that way, but it’s your fantasy world). it wouldn’t get that far because it would be challenged in court immediately, as this should be.
Again, we are a nation of laws. We have to agree on that or democracy doesn’t survive. Ogle county’s 50,000 residents may not like the law, but Cook county’s 5,000,000 residents do. It’s a State law. Democracy and chit. We can’t have counties deciding which laws they want to follow and which ones they don’t. Challenge it in court.
Doublecluck
Well-known member
So you would agree that there shouldn’t be sanctuary cities? We are a nation of laws right?
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Yes, But I refer you back to your own post where you seem to be ok with that too, for a lot of reasons that I also acknowledged.
