Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control
Last edited Mon Dec 16, 2013, 10:26 PM - Edit history (2)
Source: New York Times
GREELEY, Colo. — When Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County explains in speeches why he is not enforcing the state’s new gun laws, he holds up two 30-round magazines. One, he says, he had before July 1, when the law banning the possession, sale or transfer of the large-capacity magazines went into effect. The other, he “maybe” obtained afterward.
He shuffles the magazines, which look identical, and then challenges the audience to tell the difference. “How is a deputy or an officer supposed to know which is which?” he asks.
Colorado’s package of gun laws, enacted this year after mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., has been hailed as a victory by advocates of gun control. But if Sheriff Cooke and a majority of the other county sheriffs in Colorado offer any indication, the new laws — which mandate background checks for private gun transfers and outlaw magazines over 15 rounds — may prove nearly irrelevant across much of the state’s rural regions.
Some sheriffs, like Sheriff Cooke, are refusing to enforce the laws, saying that they are too vague and violate Second Amendment rights. Many more say that enforcement will be “a very low priority,” as several sheriffs put it. All but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-laws-on-gun-control.html
There's a simple solution: Fire Them! Primary Them! Impeach Them!
If elected, they do not deserve re-election.
Most LEOs want stricter gun control.
Rachel is reporting that the sheriffs that are not enforcing gun laws are secessionists.
Just sayin'
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
truthisfreedom
(23,143 posts)Seriously, if you can't tell something legal from something illegal, the law is ineffective. ALL magazines above a certain size should have been IMMEDIATELY illegal. And any in anyone's possession should be sold out of state on eBay or some other mechanism. Designing law is an art, not a defeatist game.
riqster
(13,986 posts)If it can be proved that the purchase was illegal, then bust the buyer.
If not, then the cops have no case. Happens all the time, in lots of cases. Another example: back in the '80's, my old man bought a '66 Mustang with no seat belts. In Ohio, that was legal, even though new cars had to have seat belts. Because the car was made before a certain date, it was legal.
The cop is trying to confuse the issue: the item itself is not illegal, only its purchase under certain conditions.
hack89
(39,171 posts)therefore the cops cannot demand such documentation. People don't keep receipts for everything they purchase.
riqster
(13,986 posts)If the law does not require that documentation, then in all probability it can not be enforced, so these LEOs are just grandstanding, looking for votes.
Typical politicians, in other words.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Not that easy.
Almost all "Sheriffs" are elected officials. I've long had a problem with that; since they are elected officials they are often more concerned with re-election than with maintaining lawfulness.
In this particular instance, it's very likely they can be "tea-bagged" and compelled to nullify law by refusing to enforce it. In fact, they are more likely to be "fired" for upholding the law than refusing. In effect, local pockets of winger populations can thwart the efforts of lawmakers.
Add to that the fact that the law seems to be vague, giving them the excuse to pander to locals, and it becomes a media-fueled campaign tool.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., a senior member of the United States House of Representatives, was embroiled in scandal, specifically around allegations that he had refused to pay a judgment ordered by a New York court, misappropriated congressional travel funds, and illegally paid his wife a congressional staff salary for work she had not done.'
It answered the question of whether Congress has the authority to exclude from being sworn in and enrolled upon its rolls a person who has been duly elected or appointed by the people or the executive authority of his/her district or state and who otherwise meets the requirements set forth in the United States Constitution for serving in Congress.
The Court reasoned that the authority of Congress in this matter was post facto, i.e., after a member elect had been so created by his/her election under the laws of the state in which the congressional district resided; after his/her qualification for standing in such an election according to the qualifications specified in the U.S. Constitution; and after accepting the oath of office and enrollment upon the rolls of the Congress, determine the qualification(s) of its members.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/486/case.html
Lots of democrats tried to "Fire" Powell. McCormack was the Democrat speaker of the house. Although the Sheriff facts are some what different only the voters can get rid of him, in the absence of a felony conviction (And good luck there getting a jury to go along with that)
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)while you ignore the few sentences of the post you replied to?
no. not playing games.
hack89
(39,171 posts)rural LEOs not so much.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they work for us - their opinions do not deserve special consideration.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)And if they're elected officials, and refuse to obey the law, and get re-elected, what then?
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)you can't tell which is which. I say ban both.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)The same legislature that just lost 2 Democrats to recall efforts because of the very gun control legislation we're discussing here.
Think they'll take it up anytime soon?
bossy22
(3,547 posts)Some inner city chiefs do but mainly because they tow the same line as their bosses (the mayor)
geomon666
(7,512 posts)So because you're too stupid to do your job you're not going to do your job? Fantastic.
bossy22
(3,547 posts)To tell the difference
denverbill
(11,489 posts)These idiot sheriffs are proclaiming themselves to be the ultimate determiners of the constitutionality of a law. We've already got people who are appointed to do that. They are called judges and justices, not sheriffs.
No sheriff would be expected to look at a magazine which was produced in identical versions before and after the ban and figure out which was which. But it's pretty fucking easy to identify one with date stamps or design changes. And if they happen to find a receipt or proof of purchase information, that's another easy catch. But these pompous asses are declaring they won't do that, because THEY are the ones interpreting the constitutionality of the law and they've decided it's illegal.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)and not one of them have a date stamp, so, how are LEO able to tell if a mag was manufactured before or after the ban? Unless the CO. legislature passes another law that requires date stamps be put on mags, then this law is unenforceable, and remember, that law would only be for CO, other out of state manufacturers wouldn't have to comply.
And guessing that, at this point, there is no appetite for further gun control laws in the CO legislature.
denverbill
(11,489 posts)Did any of them come with a gun you purchased? Do gun/clip manufacturers never change their designs or materials?
If they can't tell the difference, fine, don't enforce the law, IN THAT CASE. But if they find a receipt dated today listing an illegal clip and find the clip laying there still in it's original package, what's their excuse then?
Jesus, that's like saying if you can't prove who murdered someone in one case, you just aren't going to enforce the laws against murder.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)that's the Sheriff's main concern, and unless you are required to carry receipts with you, this law is completely unenforceable.
Hell, even my federal govt. issued Glock mags don't have serial numbers or date stamps on them.
denverbill
(11,489 posts)I specifically stated that just because you can't tell what's illegal in one case is no excuse to ignore the law in all cases, especially when the evidence is staring you in the face.
If a sheriff stops you and sees your magazine and asks you when you got it and you say 1967, and he has no way to tell by looking to prove you are lying, fine, don't press charges.
But if he sees a brand new model rifle with a brand new large clip which he knows wasn't even made until 2014 (assuming this happens next year), or if he's executing a search warrant and finds a receipt for a clip purchased in Kansas in 2014, or finds it documented on your Amazon or Ebay purchases, what's the excuse not to enforce the law in those cases?
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)then the law should be enforced, I think what this Sheriff is saying that he's not going to waste his, probably, meager resources enforcing an unenforceable law unless the evidence is clear.
denverbill
(11,489 posts)"Some sheriffs, like Sheriff Cooke, are refusing to enforce the laws, saying that they are too vague and violate Second Amendment rights. "
I don't have a problem with them not enforcing the law when there is no clear proof that a clip is illegal. That's no different from any other law they enforce, from speeding to theft to drugs laws to murder. If you can't prove your case, you don't have a case.
Any THIS is where I REALLY have a problem:
"Most gun stores have stopped selling the high-capacity magazines for personal use, although one sheriff acknowledged that some stores continued to sell them illegally. "
One of these sheriffs knows that a store is actually selling these illegally and he's not going to enforce the law?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Most gun fanciers are just one gun law they don't like away from becoming a felon.
Moron Labe.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)but your so blinded by hatred that you will never acknowledge it.
At this time I believe that we're done here.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I've never met a gun-owner who admitted to breaking the law or being irresponsible... 
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I thought the same about differentiating undocumented workers from others in AZ, but many of the LEO's there seem to relish it rather than call it impossible.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)Or other discerning markings to differentiate them.
How would you suggest they tell the magazines apart while still following the law as currently written?
spin
(17,493 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 16, 2013, 01:07 PM - Edit history (1)
or date stamps and tell which was manufactured after the cut off date.
Perhaps you could journey to Colorado and instruct these "stupid" sheriffs on your technique so they can use it to enforce the law.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)so how the hell are LEO to know if they're legal or not?
It sounds like the Sheriff isn't the stupid one here.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)If there's clear evidence that the mag is a banned one, then the law needs to be enforced.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)"Feel Good" Gun Control Law."
The solution is simple. The state legislature just writes the law to ban the possession of all high capacity magazines. No longer does a sheriff have to determine when the magazine was manufactured. He simply arrests anyone he finds who has one.
The reality is that the people who pushed this law must have feared that the votes didn't exist for a total ban on high capacity magazines and simply decided to pass an impossible to enforce version hoping that it would convince their constituents that they were doing everything possible to stop firearm massacres.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)of a "High Capacity Magazine"?
spin
(17,493 posts)a firearm.
A standard magazine for a Glock 17 holds 17 rounds. The optional hi-cap magazines hold 19 or 33 rounds. After market manufacturers can supply 50 or 100 round drum magazines.
The AR-15 rifle is sold with 20 or 30 round standard magazines but 60 and 100 round magazines are available.
The politicians who write our gun control laws seem to have a problem defining what is a high capacity magazine. Most seem to label any magazine that holds over 10 rounds as high capacity but some pick other arbitrary numbers such as 15 or 7.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Granted that this sheriff is making this an issue because he may dislike the law and sees it as an infringement on Constitutional Rights. However, how do you tell the difference between the two magazines? It's a reasonable issue.
Just like other legislation, it sounds like the law needs a few tweaks.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)or just the headline?
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Really? How? Short of voting them out of office, you can't fire a Sheriff. 
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)or removal procedures.
obviously you're just posting that to discredit the OP.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)made a false statement and I corrected him, as others here did also, did you correct them too?"\
Or do you have a problem with me specifically?
And discrediting the OP is real simple when he posts ridiculous statements like that.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you posted during the government shutdown about the payment of federal salaries.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)So why should I not correct misinformation also?
And the OP realized the mistake and has since edited the thread to correct it.
BTW, I and my colleagues were still paid during the shutdown.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)who the hell cares if you were paid? what does that prove?
you're unthinking --"well i got so and so, therefore the capitol hill police got exactly the same thing" is nonsense.
and a sheriff can be "fired" by the voters --it's called defeating them in an election.
they can also be "fired" through the processes which remove them from office.
you're so out to lunch on this that you think "being fired" is actually a literal term that needs to be used properly.
no. people aren't "fired" either, unless you actually set them on fire or put them in front of a firing squad, Mr. I want to be pedantic but I just can't cut it...
no, people are removed from their positions, they are terminated, they are forcibly retired.
quit with the nonsense, the only thing you're trying to do is divert the thread because it's about guns.
and you're not even doing it accurately which is the basis you're trying to use to justify your nonsense posts in this group.
Kingofalldems
(38,444 posts)Well we're getting paid so it ain't so bad.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)olddad56
(5,732 posts)
rollin74
(1,973 posts)there is no practical way to determine when someone purchased or came into possession of a magazine
sounds like the sheriffs have a valid point
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Anyone having a problem with this has an issue with guns, not the enforcement or the cops.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and yes, my mother really was once ticketed for a 37 in a 35 in the old fashioned, you-people-don't-belong-in-this-nice-neighborhood police stop...
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Sheriff's are almost all elected officials in the US. Thus you are asking the State Legislature to remove such Sheriffs and replace them with people, who has no support among the people who elect the Sheriff. In theory easy, in reality hard.
Now, surveys of Law Enforcement Officers do NOT show Law Enforcement Officers want gun control, in fact most such surveys show the opposite:
http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/
http://www.policeone.com/police/news-reports/6185420-P1-Gun-Control-Survey
Through this is more true of Law Enforcement Officers in General, then Police Chiefs (i.e .Police Chiefs tend to want more gun control):
http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/news/2013/10/22/iacp-2013-chiefs-call-for-universal-background-checks.aspx
http://www.theiacp.org/
http://www.policemag.com/list/tag/gun-control-advocacy.aspx
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Gun fucks will lose down the road.
Bye.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The closest I was able to find was the Association of Chief of Police, which I did cite. They support gun control (Through the comments on the site tend to the right wing).
This is NOT unexpected, most Police Officers I have met tend to be right wing on the issue of Gun Control (on the other hand you be surprised of the number of officers who oppose capital punishment, want improve schools, and increase welfare payments, i.e. many are LEFT WING on everything EXCEPT gun control).
They want to be able to buy weapons for their own use. In some jurisdiction it is still required (i.e. the Officer MUST buy his own weapon and ammunition, he is compensated for it with a set amount each year to pay for the weapon and Ammunition).
Austin Texas only phased out the practice of having officers buy their own weapons in 2010:
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/austin-police-to-start-carrying-same-guns-1/nRysq/
Chicago has that policy to this day (Wikipedia gives NO citation for this observation):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Police_Department
I have several local township police departments following the same rule, thus the officer, who may work for several local rural townships, each on a part time basis, keeps only one pistol, the one he purchased. They also do NOT want to deal with the paperwork to get a weapon "reserved" for Police use (i.e. automatic weapons), they want to go to the local gun dealer and buy what they want. Thus they oppose most gun controls, for such controls always exempt police departments, but the paper work involved such officers do not think is worth the effort.
Thus a lot of right wingers join the Police to shot and buy weapons. If they are willing to do the paperwork, even obtain weapons that civilians can NOT obtain. Thus it is NOT surprising that most Law Enforcement Officers oppose gun controls, they see such Gun Controls as preventing them from owning the weapons they want to own.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)
happyslug
(14,779 posts)If you arrest someone under a Citizen Arrest, you have to be sure it is for a felony or misdemeanor, you can NOT do it for a Summary offense. Furthermore the general rule is if you make a Citizen's arrest and it turns out NOT to be a Felony or Misdemeanor, you are guilty of the felony of false imprisonment.
You can ONLY make a Citizen's arrest for a Misdemeanor, if the Misdemeanor is done in your presence (hearing of it is NOT good enough). A person can make a Citizen's arrest for a Felony NOT done in his or her presence (But remember, the person making the Citizen's Arrest has to show a Felony was done, no Felony no right to make a Citizen's arrest):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest#Common_Law
Thus what is the crime his Sheriff is doing? Is it a Felony, a misdemeanor, a Summary offense or just a violation of a Civil Law? If this law has no punishment tied to it, it is NOT a Felony, a misdemeanor, or even a Summary offense and thus NO Citizen's arrest can take place. If it is a violation of Civil Law that also means NO Citizen Arrest can be done.
Sorry, to do a Citizen's arrest is always done at great personal risk, both physically (if the person being arrest fights back, remember he can defend himself if the arrest is NOT legal) AND by being sued, if the person arrested was exempt from arrest for any reason.
Sorry, the best choice is to turn this into the Attorney General and see what the Attorney General does. The Attorney General is the Top Law Enforcement Officer in any state and will do what is needed under the law. DO NOT state things like making a Citizen's arrest. I just do NOT see that causing anything but the person doing such an arrest, being arrested themselves and serving time for false imprisonment (And being sued for false Imprisonment on top of the Jail Sentence).
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,338 posts)I can't see the cop's face.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)n/t