US Sheriffs select which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore

Link to source

The story is from Colorado USA but it could be 100 different US counties where local law enforcement essentially run feudal states in their areas of jurisdiction.

How could anyone say they value the "rule of law" and support these agents of the state that simply judge laws as they go? Sticking to your principles is fine --so resign. Don't make matters worse by demonstrating entitlement above the law. IMO, it's immoral, disrespectful and corrosive to society. Leave it to the courts.

The Gundamentalists are thick on this forum. So, stop playing with your shooters long enough to write your thoughts on this.

Before even going there, realize I probably own more guns and ammo than you do and I live in one of the most restrictive jurisdictions in the US. So cry me a river about gun-grabbing nonsense.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass


Why should they enforce laws they don't like when the President doesn't enforce laws he doesn't like?

A culture of lawlessness starts at the top.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass

This is the very mechanism that allows living people who exist whether a Federal Government exists or not to lawfully resist an unlawful or damaging encroachment of Federal Power.

Sheriffs taking point as the representative of the community's standards *is* the lawful method.

The entire point is to create a non-violent, lawful, method for the grassroots people who have to actually *live* the repercussions of the laws being made to communicate back upward when the normal channels are no longer functioning.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass

The Gundamentalists are thick on this forum. So, stop playing with your shooters long enough to write your thoughts on this.

Out doing a little chumming eh?

OK here my thoughts, every one of those Sheriffs who have resisted the illegal laws put forth by Bloomberg and the Colorado democrats should form a posse and arrest those culprits for treason. How's that?

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass


So it's your feeling that the police should obey the laws?

Like illegal immigration?

InverseLookingGlass
Link to source

Before even going there, realize I probably own more guns and ammo than you do and I live in one of the most restrictive jurisdictions in the US.

And this is the elitist greed ruining our society. What I just read in your incredibly narcissistic bait line for the lurkers:

"I already have my ammo and guns, trust me it's more than what you have; so I have no issue making it harder for you to defend your self, what do I care as I'm grandfathered in as I already bought the guns that will protect and feed my family. Good luck doing the same for yourself, as I will vote to make it much more difficult for you than it was for me to accumulate my wares."

Me. Me. Me. Me. I. I. I. I.

Is InverseLookingGlass President Obama?

The core of elitism can be found in the OP.

reply to post by Bassago


Agreed entirely on your assessment and I do hope the good elected Sheriff's around the nation continue to fight the good fight, where they have the courage to do so.

@ Thread

The Sheriff is the most powerful law enforcement official in the United States .....within his county. If folks don't like their sheriff, well, not to belabor a point...THIS IS WHY WE VOTE. Local votes matter and that man is an elected official in every county across the nation which I'm aware of.

It's also WHY they are so powerful and who is elected to the position DOES matter. They are directly answerable to no one but the voters. No one can just walk in and fire a County Sheriff at the county level (Governors can, as we saw in Florida recently..but that's about what it takes.)

So... If a good sheriff is elected? Nothing better could be asked in a county. If a bad one is elected? The residents have only themselves to blame for the suffering they are about to endure.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass


This is why the NSA is spying on people like a serial stalker.

People want to stop these killing sprees. Ban guns. But no matter if you take guns away.

Killing sprees like this will still happen.

They'll be grabbing kitchen knives and stabbing people to death before they are stopped.

The issue is not the guns. it's the people behind the crime.

Our society exposed to violence all the time. In the news and on tv.

we need to stop the violence in our media. we are getting desensitized to it.

violence is ok yet you show a boob on tv and everyone loses their minds.

something is wrong with our society.

and I'm also curious to know if this guy was on any psycho therapy drugs.

if he was then big pharma should be help liable.

There's millions of laws on the books. No one could possibly even read them, much less remember them or enforce them. Sometimes I think the reason they catch so many ***-smokers is, that's the easiest 'catch' imaginable. Far harder to track down a murderer.

And if you're a DA and you want to indict a Goldman Sachs executive? Or a member of the Executive Branch? Probably not only nearly impossible, but life-threatening to boot.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass

This is the authority granted by the US Constitution. The elected sheriff is considered the last line of defense to US citizens. The sheriff can enforce or ignore at their will any law. They are consider the supreme law in the county over ANYBODY, POTUS included.

This is the law of the land: "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." If you study the origins of this statement, "well regulated" means "able to shoot straight," and "Militia" means every able bodied man (person) who is capable of bearing arms. "Militia" does NOT mean "National Guard" and "well regulated" does NOT mean encumbered with restrictions. A "well regulated" clock keeps perfect time. That's what it means.

Now, given that this is the law of the land, how can any jurisdiction ever add more laws to countermand this? It seems to me that so-called "laws" that restrict the second amendment are themselves illegal. For example, refusing to issue a "concealed carry permit," itself unnecessary given the second amendment, is a clear prohibition against the right to "bear arms." Places like California, Illinois, and New York do this as a matter of course. (Please note their gun crime statistics are higher than average and higher than places where gun laws are less restrictive. In other words, if the goal is to reduce gun crime, these laws demonstrably do not work.) That's why a lot of states have laws that reflect a "shall issue" provision which means the granting of such permits cannot be denied without some issue to the contrary.

These sheriffs who are refusing to "enforce" these restrictive laws passed by local politicians are doing so because in their view a higher authority, namely the US Constitution, says otherwise. In other words, these local laws are simply and obviously illegal. It would be the same issue if some law said you could not practice a certain unpopular religion, or that you did not have the right to peaceably assemble and present grievances.

So accusing these sheriffs of "selectively not enforcing the law" is a silly accusation. These sheriffs swore an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States. They DID NOT swear an oath to do whatever Mayor Bloomberg says, or whatever city councilman decides everyone else should do.,whether it is to limit the size of a can of soda or prevent people from bearing arms.

If you value local illegal laws more than you do the Constitution, tyen in my view, that's tantamount to treason.

reply to post by Bassago


So whine about police brutality, then cheer when the police declare they won't enforce laws they don't personally agree with? I find this hard to understand, as these two things are inseparable.

So to synthesize all this:

In America there is one natural law. The law of me and how much violence and force I can bring to bear on others. Elections, courts and the like are moot if I don't agree and/or don't get caught. As long as I have the means at the ready to get violent or pay someone off. If I make it through the police academy, you'll be playing MY game. LOL

Quite an exceptional value system. I find that most Americans exploit it, bless it for foreign policy and then see nothing wrong with turning around and whining about how it hinders them.

BTW, the real outlier thought I'm just being selfish with my guns Nothing but net as it goes down the rabbit hole.

A bad law loses it's power to be bad when it's no longer enforced.

I wish more police did this with more bad laws.

There is no war if all the soldiers refuse to fight.

Some politician wants to enforce some nonsense then let that politician suit up and be first through the door.

There is this thing called discretion which very few people realize is an option. Justice may be blind, but those who supposedly dish it out don't have to be stupid about it, sometimes laws are violated completely by accident and nobody is harmed for it, it's called an honest mistake.

Justice and Tyranny are only an act of discretion apart, and if all of those 6 million or so laws were actually enforced, we would all be considered criminals.

I have no control over what type or size of fish bites on my line, the crime is when I take a fish that is too small or an endangered species instead of releasing it.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass

The Gundamentalists are thick on this forum. So, stop playing with your shooters long enough to write your thoughts on this.

"Gundamentalists"? Laughing My Fat Ass Off! (Can I say that or should I stick to the acronym, LMFAO?)

No... seriously, that's a great wordplay and I love it... even though I disagree with the reasoning.

Okay, I own guns. I haven't shot anyone, I don't want to shoot anyone but I hold my right to that ownership with the utmost respect and with no intention of surrendering it for the sins of others... or to satisfy the political agenda of any.

Saying that, do I dare assume we have a definition?

gundamentalist

gun·da·men·tal·ism [guhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a patriotic grouping in American Constitutionalism that is based on gun ownership by right granted in the US Constitution.
2.
the beliefs held by those in this group.

Okee dokee. That's me.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass


Every law enforcement officer takes an oath to uphold the constitution. If they see an illegal law and enforce said law, they are violating the constitution... a higher law.

That's the reason people prefer having local governments with their own elected officials.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass


Kinda makes you wonder which other laws he has chosen to ignore, doesn't it?

Who knew that when we go vote for someone to occupy the office of County Sheriff, we were actually electing a "king?"

There is absolutely no excuse for any law enforcement officer to refuse to enforce any laws that are in effect in his/her jurisdiction. None whatsoever! This is not only illegal, it's an absolute disgrace to law enforcement officials everywhere.

I have to wonder if Sheriff Cooke is OK with citizens who utilize the same line of reasoning and refuse to obey laws that they deem to be vague and/or unconstitutional. You know, like those who choose to use marijuana or make moonshine, etc...

I'm not saying that they would do it, but here in Texas we have a branch of the Department of Public Safety called The Texas Rangers who have the authority to arrest county sheriffs for breaking the law and I would only hope that they would act accordingly if this situation were to exist in our state.

If Sheriffs don't like the law, they have the same options as any other citizen, (no more and no less) which is to elect people to their legislatures who will change the law. But until the law is changed, they do not have the option to ignore it based on personal beliefs. I don't care how many of their constituents he/she thinks support their views.

His job is to enforce the laws of the land, as written.

P.S. While I do not own or wish to own any assault weapons, I am an avid hunter and I too own guns and ammo.

F&S for the OP!

reply to post by Flatfish


Time to round up all those damn sodomites!!!




Seriously, no thinking human being can honestly support a "law is the law is the law is the LAW" position. Therefore you must be being sarcastic or you are not a thinking human being.

As long as the sheriff isnt being discriminatory and enforcing the law for Jews and not for the Aryans for example then ignoring a bad law is a good thing.

Taking 50 years for due process to run its course is nice and all but in the meantime it doesnt un-arrest people. It doesnt un-destroy lives. The only way to not destroy lives affected by a bad law is to not enforce it in the first place.

Repeal of prohibition didnt resurrect the tens of thousand of people who died under that debacle. It didnt suddenly bring husbands home t their wives.

We can't undo these things so it's best to not do them in the first place.

Let the politician who so vehemently believes in his bad law stack up at the front door to confiscate.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I'm not saying that I agree with every law on the books but under our system of justice, the "law" is not up for individual interpretation, that's why we have courtrooms, judges and juries.

If I choose to ignore and/or break the law, I would have to be a fool to think that no one will enforce it and/or I won't be prosecuted because the sheriff & I believe it's a "bad law."

Hell, I don't like the voter new ID laws in my state either and on top of that, I believe them to be unconstitutional, but what do you want to bet they won't let me vote without one?

If you don't like the law, write your State or Federal legislator to get it changed. Ignoring it is not an option, it only turns you into a criminal.

reply to post by Bassago


Can we start with Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Hillary, and the rest of the 535 traitors who don't READ the LAWS before passing the Unconstitutional and economy breaking laws????