New York Times Notices Sheriffs’ Refusal to Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws

 Weld County Sheriff John Cooke (center) (courtesy denverpost.com)

The stage is set for a bloody confrontation between gun owners who refuse to cooperate with post-Newtown gun control laws and law enforcement officials intent on enforcing draconian, unconstitutional legislation. Not that there are a lot of LEOs who answer to that description . . .

Fifty-two of New York’s 62 counties have passed official resolutions condemning the New York SAFE Act and/or vowing not to implement its provisions. Sheriffs throughout New York have publicly declared that they will not enforce the mandatory “assault weapons” registration, the seven-round restriction on handgun loading or any of the Act’s other requirements.

By the same token, Colorado sheriffs have stated their unwillingness to enforce that state’s new ammunition magazine-related laws or the “universal background check” requirement for private gun sales. As the New York Times points out in Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control, “all but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.” According to the Times, this unprecedented opposition to gun control from those charged with enforcing it is . . . a bummer.

The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado is playing out in other states, raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown will have a muted effect in parts of the American heartland, where gun ownership is common and grass-roots opposition to tighter restrictions is high.

So much fail in one sentence.

First, the “tougher” rules will have no effect where it matters: reducing criminal use of firearms; a fact about which Times scribe Erica Goode is either blind, indifferent or willfully ignorant. Second, the “tougher” rules will not have a “muted impact” on the “American heartland” (i.e. anywhere outside of Manhattan). The laws have already done much to [further] alienate gun owners from their state government, government in general and, by extension, the rule of law.

And third, if Ms. Goode thinks the impact of unconstitutional civilian disarmament laws is “muted” now, she should wait until law enforcement agents working for the State of New York and/or the State of Colorado take it upon themselves to enforce these deeply unpopular laws.

Because it will happen. The Sheriffs can bitch all they like, but Colorado and New York politicians have state police ready, willing and able to exert their authority on the matter. If not them, the ATF? Count on it.

According to the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services, since 2010 sheriffs have filed less than 2 percent of the two most common felony gun charges. The vast majority of charges are filed by the state or local police . . .

Countering the elected sheriffs are some police chiefs, especially in urban areas, and state officials who say that the laws are not only enforceable but that they are already having an effect. Most [Colorado] gun stores have stopped selling the high-capacity magazines for personal use, although one sheriff acknowledged that some stores continued to sell them illegally. Some people who are selling or otherwise transferring guns privately are seeking background checks.

Some people? Victory! Just as “some people” stopped drinking during Prohibition, I guess. The question now becomes: will the State attempt to bell that cat? The Times doesn’t address that issue for New York but makes it clear that Colorado’s poobahs are reticent to engage in a LEO bun fight.

[Colorado’s] top law enforcement officials acknowledged that sheriffs had wide discretion in enforcing state laws.

“We’re not in the position of telling sheriffs and chiefs what to do or not to do,” said Lance Clem, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Safety. “We have people calling us all the time, thinking they’ve got an issue with their sheriff, and we tell them we don’t have the authority to intervene.”

Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws around the country are in the minority, though no statistics exist. In Colorado, though, sheriffs like Joe Pelle of Boulder County, who support the laws and have more liberal constituencies that back them, are outnumbered.

“A lot of sheriffs are claiming the Constitution, saying that they’re not going to enforce this because they personally believe it violates the Second Amendment,” Sheriff Pelle said. “But that stance in and of itself violates the Constitution.”

Setting aside the outrageous statement about the number of sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun control laws and the inanity of Pelle’s take on his oath to the United States Constitutional, see what I mean about the conflict to come? There’s always some liberal/fascist with a badge ready to do the government’s bidding.

In the main, gun owners in “the American heartland” are not going to suffer gun confiscation and the loss of their gun rights inherent in the post-Newtown gun control laws without a fight. Whether or not this resistance erupts into an armed conflict and perhaps something even wider (and darker) depends on events. One thing is certain: the fuse is lit. Even the New York Times knows it.

comments

  1. avatar Ralph says:

    If cops can kill a boy holding a BB gun and get away with it, they will have no qualms about shooting a man holding a full-sized magazine.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      The fact is that a cop can shoot anyone at anytime, provided they are not already a publicly known person, and get away with it, unless there is video footage of the incident. I have lost count of the number of times I have read about a cop shooting someone they should not have and getting nothing more than paid vacation for it. Even when they are indicted, they skate almost unanimously.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        They can get away with it even if there is video of it. Cops have extra rights. What a civilian can’t morally do a cop can and does on a daily basis, and gets rewarded for it.

    2. avatar DB says:

      Just look at all the people the NYPD guns down every year and the cops get off scot free.
      They can come into your home and shoot you and say OOOOPs wrong house and its the dead home owners fault he got shot for resisting an illegal home invasion.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        In the world’s society, the U.S. being the leader, authoritarianism is the highest ideal.

    3. avatar robert says:

      I guess you didn’t notice the boy had broke the orange tip off the plastic gun so the cop had no idea it was fake.

      1. avatar Pablo says:

        Unless he was assuming a firing position, so what? You’re not defending yourself or others from someone who simply *has* a gun. If that were the case it would be open season on cops.

  2. avatar Jeff says:

    Colorado isn’t the “American heartland,” it’s the mountain west.

    Reminds me of the infamous “America as seen by a New Yorker” cartoon

    http://sergiu.turcanu.net/wp-content/uploads/newyorker_1976.jpg

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      That cartoon exquisitely sums up the NYC attitude.

  3. avatar DonS says:

    I’m happy to note that my county Sheriff (Weaver, Douglas County) was one of the Sheriffs that is among the plaintiffs in the Colorado lawsuit.

    I hope it’s not “nit-picking” to note that no chief law enforcement officers in the City and County of Denver support that lawsuit.

    1. avatar SteveInCo says:

      And I hope that it’s not nitpicking to point out that it’s correctly known as “The City and Cesspool of Denver.”

      1. avatar DonS says:

        Not at all. That’s just a clarification.

  4. avatar tommyr says:

    I hope Dutchess County is one of the 52.

    1. avatar DanRRZ says:

      Yep, Dutchess passed an Anti-SAFE resolution.

      1. avatar tommyr says:

        YAY! thanks Dan! Great news!

  5. avatar Roll says:

    I”m happy with our Sheriff’s Offices here in AZ, most have told gun control groups to FOAD

  6. avatar Jus Bill says:

    “A lot of sheriffs are claiming the Constitution, saying that they’re not going to enforce this because they personally believe it violates the Second Amendment,” Sheriff Pelle said. “But that stance in and of itself violates the Constitution.”

    I believe that Sheriff Pelle is irrational, and so should be kept away from all guns and knives. That is an absolutely amazing statement.

    1. avatar Jim says:

      “But that stance in and of itself violates the Constitution.” YOU MAY believe that, but you cant have it both ways. You failed to explain how you can. What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, is confusing for you.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      So believing in the Constitution is against the Constitution?

      I wouldn’t be surprised to see a plaque saying “War is peace. Freedom is ignorance. Slavery is strength.” outside Sheriff Pelle’s office.

  7. avatar pwrserge says:

    My response to Liberal statists…

  8. avatar Adub says:

    What’s sad is reading the comments section on the NYT. I would never create a profile to comment there, but imbecilic nature of their comments astounds me.

    1. avatar Jeff says:

      The northeasterners don’t get it. People in western states are tired of being dictated to and blamed for the problems of the urban crapholes. Just look at how many comments there are from NYC, Chicago, etc. blaming rural states/counties for flooding their cities with guns. Yeah, obviously it’s our fault that a huge chunk of your population are violent criminals. They won’t be satisfied until the ridiculous firearms restrictions of NYC are applied as a blanket law to the entire county.

      1. avatar H.R. says:

        It’s the Northeastern urbanites (and the West Coast urbanites) who don’t get it. There are lots of rural people in the Northeast who’d be a lot more comfortable around well-heeled westerners than they would whining bed-wetters from NYC.

        Remember, the rural folks of PA were the ones who Obama directly insulted as “clinging to their guns and religion.”
        Turns out for many of them, that’s not such an insult.

        1. avatar Davis Thompson says:

          Amen, brother!

        2. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

          I’m starting to think the government should be broken up. With modern telecommunication we could have the house of each state be in a city in that state, and have each states house representatives be video conferencing with all the other states houses, put the senate in another city outside of DC, somewhere in the midwest, and keep the executive in DC. Keep the representatives closer to the people they work for, move the senate away from that east coast elitism.

          Probably more importantly you could put representatives in a normal office building with standard acoustic tiling, dropped ceilings and out of buildings that inspire a sense of grandeur.

        3. avatar Jeff says:

          Marcus, what you described is not all that different than what we have now – the only difference is as you pointed out, all state representatives end up clustered in DC and become isolated from their constituency.

          With modern telecommuting technology, there’s little to no reason for the representatives to be in DC, except for the obvious: the ability to hobknob behind closed doors, face-to-face with powerful lobbying groups who wish to charm, bribe, or bully our representatives.

      2. avatar EagleScout87 says:

        There is a pocket of NE unbranites who are strangers in a strange land. Not many, but they exist.

      3. avatar Jim says:

        LEts recount some facts about the STATE of NY. In the southeastern part of the state( ny city) are festering liberals. In the rest of the state, THE other 52 out of 62 counties, have adopted resolutions against This tyrannical act. this WOULD INDICATE THAT AN APPEAL PLACED ON THE BALLOT in 2014 would fly through. IT also indicates a lot less Democrats in the State legislature of Nov. 2014

        1. avatar Jeff says:

          I apologize to you rural NE folks. I should have clarified that I definitely was pointing my finger at the northeastern urbanites.

          Regarding the west coast – LA and SF are pretty much the only real anti-gun places around. Oregon and Washington have some flakes but are VERY pro-2A overall. I don’t need to say much about Colorado, as we all know how a lot of that state really feels after multiple successful recalls.

        2. avatar DB says:

          Anywhere outside of the NYC metro area you could be in rural Ark, Iowa etc. The people outside of NYC are totally different but they have to suffer for the social ills of the urbanites.

      4. avatar DB says:

        Its mostly the idiots in the urban centers. Maryland passed patently stupid gun laws because of the idiots in Baltimore and Saint Georges County. The rest of MD has very little gun crime but the liberals want to be able to say “resistance is futile”. Kind of like what happened in Ukraine with stalin in 32-33.

      5. avatar Cliff H says:

        “…NYC, Chicago, etc. blaming rural states/counties for flooding their cities with guns.”

        Another cognitive disconnect by the elitist urbanites! The ONLY reason guns flood into their cities from rural states and counties is that people WILL exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected (elsewhere) RKBA and they CANNOT buy those guns legally inside the cities.

        I’m reasonably sure that those rural states/counties are not just collecting up guns and “flooding” them into the cities for the Hell of it. Seems much more likely that the people in the cities are creating the demand first.

      6. avatar IdahoPete says:

        Go to a search engine and type in “Bracken CW2 Cube” for a pretty grim discussion of this divide. “Bracken: The CW2 Cube — Mapping The Meta-Terrain Of Civil War Two”

        Are we heading for a Bosnia/Serbia/Croatia outcome? Seems to be where the Democrat Balkanization of the US interest groups is pushing the country.

      7. avatar Chris says:

        Is it any wonder they blame others ? That is the liberal mantra. Always the victim, never their fault, taking no personal responsibility for any actions they commit. All for the votes. Just vote democrat and we will take care of you.

        It is destroying this country. The only way to stop it is to vote and get others to vote in every local, state, and national election.

        1. avatar DBM says:

          Chris, Just admit it. Its all Bush’s fault! 🙂 Liberals will never allow themselves to accept responsibility for anything so they blame exeryone else. They will still be blaming bush in 20 yrs. I still hear them blame Reagan for the housing and stock market crash and for obama not being allowed to fix the country by edicts.

        2. avatar Joethecuckleburr says:

          One of the most liberty- destroying ideas today is believing that making the right choice at the ballot box, in a Federal election, will restore the Republic and therefore our liberty. TPTB will not allow you to have a real choice. One need only look at the outright criminal thuggery that was done to the Ron Paul campaign in 2012 by leaders in the GOP, the same bunch of criminal sociopaths that so many people are still depending on to make things right. When a sitting President (Bath-house Barry), or the GOP so-called frontrunner (Romney) were not getting a hundred souls to show up at their gatherings near the end of the campaign, Ron Paul was overfilling fucking STADIUMS. People were standing outside the stadiums in droves and climbing trees like Lazarus to hear and see a truthteller. And these were young people, the millenials, who the GOP claims to be trying to attract. I AM biased, but I do believe that Ron’s message of freedom for all would have pulled enough votes from the Democomms to slaughter Bath-house Barry in November. But what does the GOP hierarchy do? They take bullying to a new level for Presidential primaries so that their nominee ends up being the only person running who can’t attack Bath-house Barry at his most vulnerable point, which is Obamacare, because Romney was the daddy of the same thing in Massachusetts. It’s now obvious that the GOP loves Obamacare more than the want to occupy the Whitehouse. I stated publicly, just after Obamacare was rammed through, that the GOP would never repeal it. They just want to be the ones in control of it.

          I will not vote again in a Federal election. I will no longer sanction and condone my own destruction. Mark Twain said, “If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it”. And someone else said, ” Even when there are no elections, a man with a rifle still gets to vote”.

    2. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      I read them this morning and many of the comments boiled down to this: Sheriffs are not allowed to use critical thinking and decide if something is unconstitutional or not and they should just do as they are told.

      1. avatar Adub says:

        But their hypocrisy is amazing. “Sheriffs that don’t execute every law should be fired” vs. “Police shouldn’t enforce drug laws, statutory rape laws, immigration laws, etc.”

        Maybe we should link the story and flood their comments section? 😉

        1. avatar Jim says:

          This isnt a statutory law, IT is a Constitutional Right. And as such, the government has no authority to INFRINGE on that.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        …and Attorney General Eric Holder has no Constitutional authority to decide if Black Panthers should be indicted for violating the Constitution or if BATFE agents should face charges for violating (unconstitutional) federal AND international firearms laws. (/sarc)

      3. avatar Bill says:

        “Should just do what they’re told” lol that kind of brainwashed ignorance is sad. Sad you do not see how conditioned you are to just be submissive and obey even when you know it is unconstitutional.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Anybody remember Nancy Reagan? Just say no!

    3. avatar Tama Paine says:

      Understand that “newspapers” (online news organizations that still publish a paper version) are desperate to retain readers, which they are hemorrhaging.

      NYT, like WSJ, is moving or has moved in the direction of trying to consolidate their reader base by only allowing commenters who agree with them.

      Here is WSJ’s announcement of how they are planning to consolidate (for ad revenues, but they don’t say that) their reader base. Basically you have to subscribe under your real name or a Facebook account. OR pay to subscribe to the news organization’s fact feed.

      http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304864504579139232039637674

      The idea is to create and manipulate (for carefully engineered and managed programs of advertising revenues) a very particularized readership paying for very particularized comment. We must bear this in mind when we make the mistake of expecting “newspapers of record” to be anything other than the outreach and eyeball-harvesting arms of their advertisers.

      This will shut down diversity of opinion in favor of coherent, top-down editorial dictation of who can and cannot speak on a topic posted on the news organization’s web site. This is effectively private control of opinion, which countermands the First Amendment entirely legally.

      All the more reason that small, open, non-reader-expoitive Internet information sites like TTAG are very important.

      See also the WSJ’s opinion piece the other day entitled “Statistics and Other Taboos,” in which they discuss MLive media group’s determination that it is racist to discuss crime statistics.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        “…’newspapers’ (online news organizations that still publish a paper version) are desperate to retain readers, which they are hemorrhaging.”

        And their readers will more and more succumb to exsanguination due to GSW the more successful these same newspapers are in promoting anti-2A “gun control” to disarm citizens. Then where will they find new subscribers?

      2. avatar PG says:

        I’d take this a full step further; newspapers and the media are not beholden to normal economic forces of their advertisers, they are literally the propaganda mouthpiece of the government, or the people running the government.

  9. avatar JeffR says:

    I made the mistake of reading the comments to the NYT’s article. I had to stop after reading about 15 of them. The comments did not make me nauseous or make my blood boil. They scared the living crap out of me.

    1. avatar PeterC says:

      You have to take into consideration the mentality of the average NYT subscriber. As my dear mother used to say when I made some uncharitable remark about any given group of idiots, “Now, now, they haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.”

    2. avatar EagleScout87 says:

      +1

    3. avatar Pascal says:

      Its called “Righteous indignation” — a quality of many born and raised in NYC. Righteous indignation has a drug-like quality. The brain uses reinforcement learning, mediated by dopamine, to increase the frequency of certain behaviors and decrease the frequency of others. This is how those in progressive liberal confines are taught and the disorder reinforced.

      In drug addiction, the dopamine system is hijacked by the drug and “rewires” the brain to increase the likelihood and frequency of emotional states and behaviors leading up to taking the drug. The result is more drug taking.

      Arguably any personality trait that is stable over time for an individual is a trait that is reinforced, for whatever reason, by the brain’s reward systems.

      Righteous indignation certainly has a lot going for it in terms of being rewarding. For a few brief moments, righteously indignant persons are in a state of heightened emotional intensity in which they feel their moral superiority over others. They are also a victim, deserving of sympathy by any reasonable person, while dominating their alleged perpetrator with a condescending lecture on the perpetrator’s contemptuous ways. We all have a secret fantasy of being better than others. For a few moments, the righteously indignant person gets to live this fantasy with full realism.

      Which, pretty much describes progressive liberals and many of the comments in that article.

      I wish I had written the above, but it was quoted from this guy (http://www.quora.com/Does-righteous-indignation-have-drug-like-qualities).

      Due to my new work assignment, I deal with this on a daily basis while working in NYC.

      1. avatar Salty Bear says:

        Or in this case, unrighteous indignation…. or is it sinful indignation?

        1. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

          Wicked?

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        “In drug addiction, the dopamine system is hijacked by the drug and “rewires” the brain to increase the likelihood and frequency of emotional states and behaviors leading up to taking the drug. The result is more drug taking.”

        Oh, feh. That’s drug-warmonger-speak for “they do drugs because they like them.”

        1. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

          I know a couple of former/recovering heroine addicts, their pretty much needed up for life emotionally speaking. One is a good person, but still…off. the other is abusive and had been in and out of jail for domestic violence lately. The first has told me how much it messed her up and that the not wanting to quit *is* the addiction.

          But I can see how legalization could have prevented her from having much of her criminal record from some of the stories she’s told.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          I’m not saying that there aren’t some people who have problems with it, just like there are some people who have problems with alcohol. But declaring them criminals with the stroke of the pen does a hell of a lot more harm than good. Ron Paul has something to say about it too (I’ve embedded this clip on some other thread, so won’t embed it here): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL83WewagiM

    4. avatar H.R. says:

      There are a lot of howling, finger-pointing type responses that show a very real lack of understanding about what the “diversity” of this country really means.

      But there are a few reasonable responses.
      And much like here, their responses are full of people preaching to their choir. They’re a lesson to us that we also need to step outside our little TTAG circle every once in awhile to see what the rest of the world is thinking.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Even the people in the choir are “sinners” and can occasionally benefit from some interpretation of scripture they hadn’t previously considered relevant to their lives.

  10. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    I wonder if we will ever see in the news that a sheriff somewhere states that he will defend the county’s citizens against those that would enforce these laws even to the point of calling up the local militia.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Technically, they have the power to do so within their counties (though that may depend on the state constitution). Let’s see them lock up some Feds or state troopers.

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        Hell, after they do that, I’d love to see a few counties band their militias together and arrest all military personnel stationed in their state. I know even in Ohio, the military bases have had practice drills for attacking citizens who believe in the Constitution.

        1. avatar Salty Bear says:

          You can’t just issue a blanket warrant for all military personnel. Plenty of them are on your side anyways.

        2. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Salty, their allegiance is to the government, not the American people or the Constitution. I just spent a weekend on a military base and every conversation regarding guns with the personnel there came back to “peasants don’t need guns, only people who will blindly kill anyone they are told to should have guns” (paraphrasing, of course).

          The biggest threat to gun ownership is gun owners worshiping the military and police despite mountains of evidence showing that they are NOT on our side.

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Totenglocke says:
          “Salty, their allegiance is to the government, not the American people or the Constitution.”

          Not the Oath Keepers.

        4. avatar Totenglocke says:

          You mean people who claim to give a rats ass about those who are legally inferior to them? If they actually believe in upholding their oath to uphold the Constitution, they’d have forced our corrupt politicians out of office. Yet they sit there and just keep following orders. Their oath means as much to them as a politicians oath to uphold the Constitution.

        5. avatar jwm says:

          So, in order to impress totesack the military should force government officials from office at gunpoint. They’ve done that in a lot of countries. It’s ca;;ed a coup. Doesn’t normally work out well for us.

          So you hate and distrust the military but you just spent the weekend on a base?

        6. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Trust me, JWM, I wasn’t around the fascists for fun. It took everything in me not to laugh out loud during a formal dinner when a Colonel made a comment about “protecting our freedoms” by murdering innocent Arabs who’ve done nothing wrong besides have the wrong skin color / religion.

          As for overthrowing the government? If they actually gave a damn about the oath they swore (to defend the Constitution), then they would forcefully remove politicians from power. They do not need to take over the government, simply step in and arrest the offending politician(s) and then we have an election for a new politician. It would work similar to the recall elections in Colorado, only we would no longer have politicians who willfully ignore the law and harm Americans in office.

        7. avatar jwm says:

          So which general gets to decide if the pols are violating their oaths? How does a civilian government function with the military breathing down it’s neck? You used the term “fascists”. Sounds to me like that’s exactly what you’re hoping for in this country.

          As a vet, I trust the military. But in this country the military is subordinate to the civil government and should remain out of politics.

  11. avatar John says:

    Here is Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado response for writing the Colorado high capacity magazine ban law. The crazy starts at 2:50. I have no words.

    1. avatar DonS says:

      Yep. Nut job or idiot. Tough call.

      When called on that nonsense, her staff replied that she really meant “clips” which, of course, “cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism”. Yikes.

      1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

        Two weeks ago I reloaded all of my M1903A3 clips. I bet she would piss herself if she saw that they are reuseable!

        1. avatar DonS says:

          She’d probably piss / defecate / vomit on herself if she saw what I have… 22 30-round mags, 10 48-round mags (with Nordic extensions), 2 40-round mags. And all of them reusable! The horror!

        2. avatar SteveInCo says:

          When you have that many magazines, it’s properly known as a “subscription.”

        3. avatar jirdesteva says:

          She would do a fantastic Linda Blair imitation!

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      She talked about mental health screening. I think she should be one of the first recipients.

  12. avatar Vhyrus says:

    There are some epic mustaches in that picture.

  13. avatar Hawaii Marine says:

    Wow, I was just as astounded when I read those NYT comments, and I live on Long Island….

  14. avatar DanRRZ says:

    My local sheriff has gone one record in pointing out all the shortcomings of the law, and the general problem that criminals by nature do not regard laws in their decision making process.

    While this is comforting to a degree, the point RF brought up about strict enforcement by State police negates any confidence boosting effects regarding your Sheriff having your back on the issue.

  15. avatar DrVino says:

    “tougher” implies an escalation of disciplinary action.
    Kind of like the Nazi occupiers had to get “tougher” with the locals in my home town for harboring and aiding Jews.

    This word, “tougher”, reveals much of their mindset: gun rights are not to be regulated, they are to he suppressed, squelched even.

    That’s because the same people who want “tougher” gun laws, refuse to be tough on criminals, excusing them because of their ethnicity, low income, whatever and not demanding of them personal responsibility and accountability.

    As an immigrant, I struggled and wore K-Mart clothing while the kids in my school enjoyed the benefits of their parents higher incomes.

    I did not cry about income inequality. I did not steal or rob. I did not deal in stolen goods, contraband or illicit drugs. Instead, I did what I could to better myself and my future.

  16. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Let’s make the Kurt Russell epic “Escape from New York” a reality.. . . . . put up a wall and let the animals have at it.

    1. avatar Adub says:

      I was actually just going to recommend that same thing, without evacuating the law abiding “citizens” first.

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        me thinks their servants will abandon them in the towne cars to save themselves . . . . . sorta like the folks did in I am Legend when they evac’d NYC

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Unfortunately that movie title is misleading, it should have been Escape From Manhattan Island” since the blockade did not include the other four boroughs.

      We could, however close the airports and rail stations and install “Severe Tire Damage!” strips on all roads leading out of the city.

    3. avatar PG says:

      Too funny, “escape from New York” was either way before its time, or some very intentional predictive programming.

  17. avatar Gregolas says:

    NOW I remember why I avoid reading NYT articles, it’s the instant 20 -point IQ drop!

  18. avatar H.R. says:

    “The laws have already done much to [further] alienate gun owners from their state government, government in general and, by extension, the rule of law.”

    Exactly. There’s more than less a happy medium of laws that work. A little restrictive and people will accept it for the common good most of the time. We all do it – things like stopping at stop signs even when there is no traffic just because that’s the law – just because we accept that our general compliance is usually better for society overall. But tighten the collar too tight though and people start ignoring laws they don’t like or openly defying them.
    That’s not necessarily good. I’m not a barbarian so I accept that some laws are necessary for us to live in peace with each other. But one of the quickest ways a government can lose the legitimate authority to govern, granted by the will of the People, is to pass laws that alienate them.

    Guess we’ll see how it plays out.

  19. avatar Gary Slider says:

    obama goes by laws that congress refused to pass. obama states that he will not enforce some laws and even tells people not to follow a passed law. The Sheriffs see this so they are doing the same thing he is doing. Now the people see this and have lost respect because of the stupid laws passed so they will not go along with them either. It will spiral out of control and then some officers will try to enforce one of those stupid laws and people will end up dead. Then it will really escalate!

  20. avatar peirsonb says:

    I think the thought process at the core of the NYT article is just plain disbelief. It astounds them that elected officials (the sheriffs) would actually uphold the Constitution AND their constituents wishes….

    1. avatar Jeff says:

      you don’t quite understand what it means to “follow the constitution” to these types of folks: what it means to them is that all laws are constitutional simply by virtue of existing, and that NOT following a law is the act which is “unconstitutional” – even if the law not being followed is patently in violation of the BoR.

      watch for it and you’ll notice it.

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        I was about to launch into a tirade….then I realized you weren’t talking about the sheriffs 🙂

        I can see that argument….

        1. avatar Jeff says:

          yes, sorry, I was talking about people such as the commenters on the NYT story, not the sheriffs.

          the attitude I mentioned is just another variation on the “it’s settled law!” argument – a surprising number of people just accept the validity of all laws without question.

  21. avatar Werewolf1021 says:

    And, in the NYT ready room, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    They want those sheriffs to enforce the law…. unless they disagree with the law.

    But, what can you expect from the birthplace of “stop and frisk”….

  22. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

    The irony of the highest rated comments for the NYT piece is delicious. The resounding opinion is that these sheriffs are duty bound to enforce the law and must do so regardless of their opinion; no exceptions. I guess “Vee var just folloving orders!” is fine and dandy so long as your politics lean towards a hammer and sickle instead of a swastika. What a fvcking joke.

  23. avatar Matt says:

    Have we seen/heard anything similar in CT from any government officials etc?

    I personally haven’t gotten wind of much from the law enforcement side opposing our new laws publicly but there are a few representatives/senators who opposed the new laws and have been going out of their way to get legal consultation and opinions on the new laws, fight the laws, and make as many resources available to their constituents as possible to help them comply with the laws.

  24. BEST NYT BLOG POST SINCE 1851:
    (HAS A BIG RED “X” NEXT TO IT)

    Eric Maine NYT Pick

    So, inferring from the previous 97 posts –

    Police officer refuses order to join local mosque and report back on all activities he sees: Good.

    Police officer refuses to beat / roust Occupy Wall Street protester: Good.

    Police officer walks past your stoop in Park Slope and doesn’t arrest you for drinking beer: Good.

    Police officer walks past your blanket at Shakespeare in the Park and doesn’t arrest you for drinking wine: Good.

    Police officer refuses to meet “Stop and Frisk” quota: Good.

    Police officer refuses to arrest person “Stopped and Frisked” for the joint in his pocket: Good.

    President of the United States refuses to enforce Federal law against medical marijuana dispensaries: Good.

    Theoretical Southern police officer refuses to arrest Black person for drinking from wrong water fountain / sitting in wrong seat: Good

    Theoretical German refuses to harass / beat / kill innocent Gay / Jewish / Gypsy person during World War II: Good.

    Western sheriff refuses to enforce law he believes to be unconstitutional: Bad

    Got it.

  25. THE NYT LEAVES THIS QUESTION UNANSWERED:

    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.

  26. avatar calvin says:

    Molon Labe – I hear it some by I haven’t seen it. Are we really ready to act on our slogans?

  27. avatar Shane says:

    I sure wish right-wing conservatives would stop with terms like “liberal/fascist” which only serve to offend liberal-minded gun owners who do in fact support the Second Amendment. I’m a life member of the NRA and I also contribute to the ACLU (which incidentally is working with the NRA on a lawsuit). I am pro-Second Amendment all the way, but sometimes I just want to bitch-slap simple-minded right-wingers even though we’re together on this particular issue. You do realize that we liberal/fascists sometimes have to vote for candidates that we otherwise can’t stand just to be sure there aren’t too many anti-gunners in government? It’s not easy to vote for people who think global climate change is a conspiracy, or that the President was born in Kenya (and Indonesia) (and Pakistan), or that the world is 6,000 years old, or that the CEO of Dollar General deserves to make 2500 times as much as his cashiers. We often have to sacrifice on matters of conscience on other important issues to help defend the Second Amendment, and it gets really tiring to hear other gun-rights supporters stereotype us as some monolithic block of voters. We’re not.

    1. avatar squarebob says:

      liberal/fascist Shane – Global climate change is a conspiracy. The President was born in Kenya, and the ACLU is usually on the wrong side of the fence. You also suffer from wealth envy……….I am glad you somehow support the 2A. Good Day.

    2. avatar H.R. says:

      I’m far from conservative myself. I used to vote R a lot, but these days, I just can’t justify it. You’ve got people in that party yammering about “legitimate rape” versus some other kind of rape and who think that calling someone a “queer” somehow distinguishes them as something other than an ignorant moron. It’s not fair to say that really – I know some great people who vote R, but on the whole, that party needs a serious update, it needs to stop pushing theocracy, and it needs to shut a lot of loudmouth bigots up.

      And on the left you have some decent people who have some valid points, but there are also a bunch of fascists who are all about the Bill of Rights as long as you count out the one they don’t like. They’d call Republicans a bunch of bigots, but it’s OK for them to judge me on my support of the Second Amendment and paint me as a wild-eyed lunatic who rejoices every time some asshole shoots an innocent person. In other words, they’re also bigots – they’re just in denial about it.

      So yeah… it’s pretty hard for a reasonable guy to find someone worth voting for.

      1. avatar Jeff says:

        I totally agree with you on the front of Rs pushing for stupid theocratic laws, but here’s the deal: those laws are laughable in the potential damage that they can do to this country when compared to the things that the modern socialist-leaning Democrats are pushing.

        So an R pushes for sodomy laws or changes to abortion law? So the hell what? Those laws are so meaningless, toothless, and unenforceable that there’s literally no point – it’s just pandering to a religious base.

        I used to consider myself a liberal/Democrat but today I would take ANY of these Republicans over what I’m seeing as the dominant viewpoint and desires of the current Democratic party.

        After seeing what the Democrats want for the past five years, I will vote Libertarian or Republican 100% of the time now, unless some miracle occurs and the Democrats take a massive reversal in policy against the current status quot of their party and begin acting like Americans and not some quasi-European socialist party.

        1. avatar H.R. says:

          I have to admit that nothing the extreme element of the Republican party pushes would really have a personal impact on me. I’m not gay so when/if I get married, it’s going to be to a woman. Since I’m a guy I won’t ever need to personally worry about an abortion. I’m not an atheist so you can pray in front of me all you want an I’m not going to whine about it.

          But there’s just so much ignorance. And really, although you could maybe keep attacks on RKBA at bay for a few years if you can keep R’s in office (assuming they’re not the NYC version of a Republican), is that realistic long-term strategy? Popular political views in this country are shifting away from a lot of the things that Republicans typically push for. They’re eventually either going to have to change or they’ll lose. Tying the RKBA to their success, or to any one political party, is a short-sighted strategy. It, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, should be non-partisan. Those rights belong to all Americans, now and forever (if I have my way).

          As much as it would probably pain me to do this, I wonder if the best thing we could do is register as Democrats and use primary elections to influence that party in a more acceptable direction. I know there are people on the left who are pro-gun… I just wonder what the tipping point would be to make gun control a non-starter within that party.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          The Rs and the Dems are really just the two wings of the Statist party, which wants maximum government control and ultimately Zero Liberty for anyone. Their ultimate goal, unbeknownst to most people, is the Death of all Free Will, since they’re ultimately powered by Ahriman, more popularly known as Satan. The bottom line is, Armageddon is in process as we speak; it’s the final battle between Life and Death. The end of the world is here, and it’s up to each individual to choose whether they want the chaos, adventure, and beauty of eternal Life, or the stasis and reverie of permanent Death. Read all about it at http://www.godchannel.com . Deity really wants Life, but doesn’t want anyone to get hurt in the process of putting Death in its Right Place, which is outside Creation in the Void. The tricky part, of course, is to ensure that any essence which seeks Life doesn’t get entrained with the unloving essence which must be banished.
          Spirit explains it a lot better than I can at http://www.godchannel.com

    3. avatar PG says:

      You are complaining of being stereotyped, yet much of what you write is stereotypical??

      1. avatar SysEng says:

        “You are complaining of being stereotyped, yet much of what you write is stereotypical??”

        He wouldn’t be a liberal if he wasn’t such a hypocrite. It’s funny how liberals get upset when they are called fascist. They support modern progressive/liberalism and don’t even know the true history of the movement, where their roots really come from, and who the party supported in the early 1900’s.

      2. avatar H.R. says:

        So what if he is a liberal?

        When you vote Republican, I have to admit that most of the time you’re probably looking at a candidate who at least will support RKBA out of fear of the consequences (meaning losing his or her office). I often disagree with them on other things and their support of RKBA isn’t necessarily assured, but it’s usually more likely. Probably true – I’ll give you that one.

        When you vote Democrat, unless you’re in a rural area with a strong gun culture, you’re probably voting for someone who supports more gun control. And those people don’t fear “you” because they’ll never win your vote and they won’t lose because you don’t vote for them. They know you’re voting for their opponent, so they don’t care how you feel. You’re the 49% that they don’t care about.
        But a liberal, someone who is voting within that party’s primaries or who is registered D and looking at a candidate kind of cross-eyed over gun rights, that person is something that someone running for office on the left may need to worry about. A bunch of liberal gun owners is a block of votes they could lose and that may cost them an election.

        So from my point of view, you should be happy to team up with as many RKBA supporting liberals as you can find.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          The apparent R/D dichotomy is nothing more than Divide and Conquer so that Satan, the God of Power, can keep the two sides squabbling while he quietly destroys all Life. It’s time to get to know the God of Love, who speaks at http://www.godchannel.com

  28. avatar Grumpy in Kali says:

    Sheriffs willingly choosing to ignore their duty and enforce the laws on the books? Yeah, this will have no legal ramifications.

    Better hope they still enforce laws on theft, robbery, rape, and murder…..

    1. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

      Actually, it is the sworn duty of every law enforcement official to REFUSE to ignore any law that is beyond the legislative authority of government. The SAFE act was, technically, illegal for the state legislature to pass, so these sheriffs are PERFORMING their duty in refusing to enforce these laws. Whether you go by any state amendments in the NY state constitution or apply the first section of the 14th amendment to the 2nd amendment.

      You have to remember that any amendment (state or federal) that protects a right can only do so by denying authority to government to interfere with, suspend, or infringe upon, that right. (who gives a f*ck about an oxford comma, I’ve seen those english dramas too-oo…)

      1. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

        Correction: refuse to enforce, not ignore.

        Missed it by 2 seconds.

  29. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    Did this part of the article make anyone else’s head hurt?

    “Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws around the country are in the minority, though no statistics exist.”

    So let me see if I read that right: you’re saying that the sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws are in the minority, but in the same breath you admit you have absolutely no proof to that very claim whatsoever?

    This… this is journalism?

    1. avatar jirdesteva says:

      Yeah WE know they can’t count. 52 out of 62 is a minority by overwhelming numbers. A$$ for the journalism question yes YELLOW!

    2. avatar ThomasR says:

      Nope, this is not journalism. What they are is propaganda. They support the proper group think needed for their masters to keep the “useless eaters” in line.

  30. avatar jwm says:

    Completely off topic. Is that dude to the right of the photo, behind and between the 2 four star generals, wearing a hair bowl on his head?

    1. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

      That whole picture is what happens when all the stylists and barbers in the state are secretly antis.

  31. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    What amuses me about liberals is their lack of self-awareness.

    Here they are, hyperventilating in righteous indignation about how the various sheriffs are bound to enforce the law, but I’ll bet every one of these pearl-string-clutching types sees no problem with Obama picking and choosing what parts of the PPACA he will enforce.

    I never failed to be amused at the thought process of modern American liberals. All feeling, no thought.

  32. avatar Pat says:

    Knock knock. Oink oink. Bang bang.

  33. avatar Mat says:

    People will begin seeking to abolish the Office of the Sheriff.

  34. avatar Michael says:

    Well if the President of the country can pick and choose which laws he will enforce, so following the elected leader of our country has set an example for them.

  35. avatar Marine 03 says:

    I was reading about John Brown’s siege of Harper’s Ferry. Ironically Robert E. Lee led the union forces that put down the revolt. He arrived with about 80 U.S. Marines from Baltimore and found that local militiamen had already surrounded the Federal Armory buildings. He noted that though the discipline and training of the militia was poor (many were aparently drunk) they had swarmed in with great number and effectively cut off the raiders escape route. This enabled Lee and the marines to storm the holdout and capture or kill John Brown’s raiders before they could start their slave revolt with the captured weapons. One interesting side note was that several officers recommended putting the town under martial law until the battle was over but Robert E. Lee overruled them saying that the people who would cause trouble in town were the VERY ONES who had formed into a militia and saved the day by surrounding the federal armory! I better not write any more (NSA and all) but it’s relevant to today’s current events if you examine it closely. The people the Feds might have feared causing problems had actually arrived first, well armed, and swarmed the surrounding woods like ants. Lee recognized this and applauded their contribution to the mission’s success.

  36. avatar Joethecuckleburr says:

    There are only two “laws” that a human can violate and NO central government (Even one whose symbol is a vicious predator with the ability to fly, has forward looking eyes, talons to capture with, and a beak to rip apart the flesh of weaker prey.) has any business getting involved with; and they are Assault (Including murder, rape, kidnapping or any other non-defensive violence upon another person) and Theft of another person’s property (Whether by violence, force, coercion, fraud, or the threat thereof.) These are universal laws. Whatever country on this planet you may find yourself in, you have a pretty strong notion that these things are against the “law”. Any restrictions other than these two are nothing but arbitrary “rules” that were “passed/legislated/enacted” for the benefit of the few to the detriment the many, and that give the state permission to do things that would be unlawful for an individual to commit. Understand, except for local offices, voting has become absolutely irrelevant. We will not vote our way out of tyranny. I have never condoned violence and do not now; but I’m still waiting for someone to cite one instance in history when people got their freedom back without violence. I say this to patriot and statist alike. If you are LEO or military, you are on the front line. You are the one the elite/statist are depending on to do their dirty work. When all fiat currencies are worthless, how do you think you will be paid for oppressing your neighbors? Do you actually think the elites are going to issue you gold or silver, or pay you with the essentials that you and your loved ones will need to survive? Do you actually think that when the Federal rats relocate to their bunker under Denver that YOU will have a place at their table? Do you plan to get a good-paying job standing outside, guarding one of the elites personal bunkers? Or, do you plan to shed your government costume and trade being in a government criminal gang for being in a roving renegade gang? But here’s the real kicker; do you actually think that at least a few of the millions of Americans that are armed to the teeth won’t know WHO THE FUCK YOU ARE, AND WHAT YOU DID, when there is NO PAY and NO HELP from the state? If you haven’t already, it’s way past time for you to choose a side, if only in your mind.

  37. avatar HooDoo says:

    It’s going to happen and eventually the truth of what happened, will leak out no matter how the media spins it or controls access to the facts and circumstances.

    It is at that time when the shit will hit the fan and rightly so. You are not absolved of responsibility for enforcing unconstitutional laws and do not think to be forgiven. There will be civil war.

    The politicians and media will try to control it and keep it to a minimum but many now realize, that they’ve been lied to and manipulated constantly by this bunch over the years, and aren’t listening anymore. Even so, imagine trying to plead for mercy from the family members of someone you’ve killed because you violated your oaths and pulled the trigger anyway. You’ll be lucky if they shoot you. Most likely, they’ll hear your screams in Fiji.

  38. avatar Jeff says:

    People need to google the right of citizens to resist false arrest. If you have done nothing wrong and a cop tries to arrest you it use force to make an arrest, you have the right to resist and even kill the cop. This has been rule on in several states many times over by the US Supreme Court.

  39. avatar Raargh Wunderkzin says:

    Jeff is correct. In Texas, the right to shoot a police officer who is using excessive force or violating the law is explicitly spelled out in the CHL statutes.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email