127 sheriffs now refusing to comply with Obama gun laws. 12 more pending in Missouri.

[Obama_Sucks]

seriously erode the constitutional rights of innocent and law abiding citizens. Neither I, nor any of my deputies, will participate in the enforcement of laws that violate our precious constitutional rights, including our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Yesterday, Collin County Sheriff Terry Box of Texas became the latest Sheriff to publicly pledge that he would not enforce proposed federal gun bans should they become law, according to Dallas News. Sheriff Box joins a growing number -- now at least 127 -- of sheriffs across the nation denouncing President Obama's proposed gun control legislation. Sheriff Box explained that recent gun deaths have prompted politicians to pass laws that would:

http://www.examiner.com/article/127...a-gun-laws-specter-of-door-to-door-gun-search

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yesterday, Collin County Sheriff Terry Box of Texas became the latest Sheriff to publicly pledge that he would not enforce proposed federal gun bans should they become law, according to Dallas News. Sheriff Box joins a growing number -- now at least 127 -- of sheriffs across the nation denouncing President Obama's proposed gun control legislation. Sheriff Box explained that recent gun deaths have prompted politicians to pass laws that would:

http://www.examiner.com/article/127...a-gun-laws-specter-of-door-to-door-gun-search

I don't believe it's actually a law, because it was not passed by Congress. I seriously doubt the president can single-handedly make rules such as this on this subject. It would seem to be beyond his authority.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Who needs courts and stuff when we have sheriffs decidin' what laws are Constitutional?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Who needs courts and stuff when we have sheriffs decidin' what laws are Constitutional?

So elect new sheriffs then....

 

[mercury14]

So elect new sheriffs then....

The new ones don't get to say what's Constitutional either.

 

[julybaby04]

Nice for some to stand up for the Constitution finally! I am sure they will be in Obama's crosshairs very soon....

 

[koalabear]

You may recall the Justice Department telling States they can't enforce fed immigrant laws. They are just agreeing with them and not enforcing any federal laws.

 

[about_average]

Who needs courts and stuff when we have sheriffs decidin' what laws are Constitutional?

Law enforcement personnel (including federal LEO's) decide every single day which laws they are going to enforce. They have to judge for themselves where to place their resources.
Nothing new here whatsoever other than them publicly stating it.

 

[mercury14]

Nice for some to stand up for the Constitution finally! I am sure they will be in Obama's crosshairs very soon....

What if a sheriff decides he's not going to enforce laws banning weaponized nerve toxin in his county because he interprets them as constitutional? Is that okay with you as well?

 

[ivantheterrible]

What if a sheriff decides he's not going to enforce laws banning weaponized nerve toxin in his county because he interprets them as constitutional? Is that okay with you as well?

are you drunk or retarded?

 

[mercury14]

are you drunk or retarded?

That line might get you laid on weekends but sorry bro, you can't have any.

 

[Liar]

Nice for some to stand up for the Constitution finally! I am sure they will be in Obama's crosshairs very soon....

This one never gets old.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

 

[SuprSalor]

This one never gets old.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

Mortenson for Pres.! Impeach Obama and appoint this fine American in his place! Vett can be VP. It's what the Founding Fathers would want. *nods*

 

[mercury14]

This one never gets old.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

I LOL'd.

 

[mark_j]

What if a sheriff decides he's not going to enforce laws banning weaponized nerve toxin in his county because he interprets them as constitutional? Is that okay with you as well?

Nice straw man. No one is talking about weaponized nerve gas you idiot.

 

[Mike_Yates]

Civilian law enforcement is being federalized and militarized.

One day, ALL local/county/state law enforcement will be controlled by the federal government/FEMA/DHS.

 

[mercury14]

Nice straw man. No one is talking about weaponized nerve gas you idiot.

Substitute the gas for hand grenades. Or explosive ammunition. The fact is the line as to what's legal and what's not depends on the whim of hundreds, if not thousands of judges and legislators. It's ultimately relatively arbitrary.

How come sheriffs get to have the final call?

 

[dan_c00000]

I don't believe it's actually a law, because it was not passed by Congress. I seriously doubt the president can single-handedly make rules such as this on this subject. It would seem to be beyond his authority.

That's what executive orders are for. Just ask Bush II when he began giving away tax dollars to pay for faith-based-initiatives-that-don't-work.

Also keep in mind that the more guns, less crime idea is full of shit. So it would be a good thing to prevent people from shooting each other.

 

[about_average]

What if a sheriff decides he's not going to enforce laws banning weaponized nerve toxin in his county because he interprets them as constitutional? Is that okay with you as well?

While yours is an extreme example (I do get the point though), on the flip side, do you think a sheriff should enforce anti-sodomy laws even if he or she thinks them unconstitutional?
Where do you draw the line on right or wrong?

 

[Boxlicker101]

That's what executive orders are for. Just ask Bush II when he began giving away tax dollars to pay for faith-based-initiatives-that-don't-work.

Also keep in mind that the more guns, less crime idea is full of shit. So it would be a good thing to prevent people from shooting each other.

Let's put it this way: Suppose the president were to pass a law (or edict) making it illegal for any newspaper and television or radio show or individual to say anything critical of him or his wife. Suppose he also declared everybody in the nation was going to have to adopt Islam and face the east and pray to Allah three times a day. Then suppose he were to call on sheriffs and other law enforcement personnel to enforce these new laws He had just passed. Since they are so patently contrary to the Bill of Rights, would those cops, etc. be justified in refusing to do so.

What we have here is somewhat similar. The Big O is trying, by personal edict to put a big dent in the Second Amendment. The sheriffs who are the subject of this thread recognize the unconstitutionality of this edict, as they would of the other examples I gave, and are refusing to waste their time and the time of the courts enforcing it.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Let's put it this way: Suppose the president were to pass a law (or edict) making it illegal for any newspaper and television or radio show or individual to say anything critical of him or his wife. Suppose he also declared everybody in the nation was going to have to adopt Islam and face the east and pray to Allah three times a day. Then suppose he were to call on sheriffs and other law enforcement personnel to enforce these new laws He had just passed. Since they are so patently contrary to the Bill of Rights, would those cops, etc. be justified in refusing to do so.

What we have here is somewhat similar. The Big O is trying, by personal edict to put a big dent in the Second Amendment. The sheriffs who are the subject of this thread recognize the unconstitutionality of this edict, as they would of the other examples I gave, and are refusing to waste their time and the time of the courts enforcing it.

That's what we have the judicial system for, you stupid son of a bitch.

I can see where an ignorant yahoo with a gun making arbitrary decisions on the Constitutionality of a given law would have tremendous appeal to a semi-literate mouthbreather such as yourself.

This is America where we have longstanding methods and procedures in place to address Constitutional issues. Having the Roscoe P. Coltranes of the world short-circuit the process is not part of those plans.

p.s. Your unswerving support of Sheriff Box gives your Lit nickname "Boxlicker" an entirely new meaning.

 

[about_average]

That's what we have the judicial system for, you stupid son of a bitch.

Of course, one or more people have to be willing to break the law, likely spend years in jail and have the money to go through the long multiple appeals process to get to the supreme court and hope it's a sympathetic court.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Of course, one or more people have to be willing to break the law, likely spend years in jail and have the money to go through the long multiple appeals process to get to the supreme court and hope it's a sympathetic court.

I guess you must've been absent from class the day the "speedy trial clause" (6th Amendment) was discussed.

And if something was blatantly unconstitutional, it'd be overturned at the first level of appeals. Wouldn't even need to go to the Supreme Court.

 

[colddiesel]

It would be interesting if Obama introduced legislation requiring all the states to establish a well regulated militia ( as noted in the Second amendment), and then required the said militias to follow a 'model' of what is well regulated specified by the feds, under threat of the withdrawal of federal funds if they did not.

There is plenty of precedent for this, the establishment of national road safety conventions being an example.

 

[about_average]

I guess you must've been absent from class the day the "speedy trial clause" (6th Amendment) was discussed.

Yeah, all cases always go speedily to appeals. Silly me.

And if something was blatantly unconstitutional, it'd be overturned at the first level of appeals. Wouldn't even need to go to the Supreme Court.

Overturned assuming it was a "friendly" court.

Even so, people would still have to spend time in jail and pay for one or more lawyers.