so if a bill gets passed and made into law...

[butters]

is it okay for a sherriff to refuse to uphold that law and keep his job? i'd have thought the answer to that was no

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/31/us/colorado-red-flag-gun-law/index.html?cid=web-alerts&nsid=54772776

this one sheriff is more or less saying 'no way, josé', whereas the former boss of the sheriff's deputy killed by someone a risk to others is firmly behind the bill.

The push for legislation followed the death of Zack Parrish, the 29-year-old Douglas County sheriff's deputy killed in 2017 by a man with an arsenal of weapons who authorities said had a history of bizarre behavior, including threats to police.

Parrish's former boss, Sheriff Tony Spurlock, has been one of the most vocal advocates of the bill and says he believes it could have prevented Parrish's death. Democratic House Majority Leader Alec Garnett, one of the bill's primary sponsors, agrees.

The other House sponsor is Rep. Tom Sullivan, whose son, Alex, was killed in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting in 2012.

Garnett says he won't lose any sleep if Reams or another Colorado sheriff opts for jail instead of enforcement of a court order.
"What I'm going to lose sleep over is, if that's the choice that they make and someone loses their life, someone in crisis goes on a shooting spree, (or) someone commits suicide" because a gun wasn't taken away, he said.

so, basically, these 'you'll take guns away over my dead body' types don't give a shit about the personal safety of people who are considered a threat to people, or the safety of those they may attack with firearms, because they feel the red flag law goes too far.

as in, firearms can be taken without the person appearing in court but the person may attempt to get their guns back at a court hearing that must be within 14 days - yeah, just 2 weeks without their guns. if they are shown not to be a risk to themselves or others, they get them back, if not, the guns can be held for up to a year.

what's the huge problem with that?

 

[Sean]

As I understand it, they need them in case George III decides to take the colonies back.

 

[Ann_Tagonist]

As I understand it, they need them in case George III decides to take the colonies back.

Still pist over that one, eh sgtspidey?

 

[pointless]

As I understand it, they need them in case George III decides to take the colonies back.

the argument that gun ownership was a defense against tyranny was a good one. sadly, it was then co-opted by a bunch of psychopaths just trying to make a shit ton of money selling guns and ammo with paranoid propaganda. try reading an american gun magazine sometime. they are run on fear.

 

[Dribble]

That is the problem with Republicans...the law only applies if they agree with it.

Edit: fucking phone spelling

 

[someoneyouknow]

If the place becomes a "sanctuary" city, will the con artist stop sending federal dollars their way?

 

[Hal9000_]

Sheriffs are generally elected officials, themselves.

So, it's tough to "fire" one.

 

[butters]

Sheriffs are generally elected officials, themselves.

So, it's tough to "fire" one.

sooooooo, if they refuse to do their job they still get to keep the job and get paid for it? wtf? and what if they go to prison, does that make them ineligible to be re-elected?

 

[Dazzle1]

is it okay for a sherriff to refuse to uphold that law and keep his job? i'd have thought the answer to that was no

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/31/us/colorado-red-flag-gun-law/index.html?cid=web-alerts&nsid=54772776

this one sheriff is more or less saying 'no way, josé', whereas the former boss of the sheriff's deputy killed by someone a risk to others is firmly behind the bill.


so, basically, these 'you'll take guns away over my dead body' types don't give a shit about the personal safety of people who are considered a threat to people, or the safety of those they may attack with firearms, because they feel the red flag law goes too far.

as in, firearms can be taken without the person appearing in court but the person may attempt to get their guns back at a court hearing that must be within 14 days - yeah, just 2 weeks without their guns. if they are shown not to be a risk to themselves or others, they get them back, if not, the guns can be held for up to a year.

what's the huge problem with that?

How about the cities that are violating immigration laws by harboring illegal alien, a far more important issue

 

[Hal9000_]

sooooooo, if they refuse to do their job they still get to keep the job and get paid for it? wtf? and what if they go to prison, does that make them ineligible to be re-elected?

No, but it's difficult to fire any elected official. Look at trump.

 

[bellisarius]

The answer is YES!!

The sheriff is an elected official answerable only to the residents of the county. He/she does not answer to any mayors or to the governor. The sheriff is the last stop gap between the people and totalitarian/unconstitutional enactments.

 

[Pocketshaver]

its nearly impossible to prove your "sane enough" to get your guns back.

This is a NORMAL step in most divorces or seperations. Woman wants to hurt the man, so she claims he abused her, and gets his guns taken away.

These gun seizure laws make it even easier to do that to someone. And lets you go after anyone you don't like.

For example the LAWS as set up, is so that a relative or friend can tell the local po-po that their relative is suicidal, and can be disarmed.

In reality, any girlfriend dumps a guy, she claims abuse/suicidal idea/threat was made... and hes disarmed.

Don't like your neighbor because they have guns? claim they threatened you and get them disarmed.

 

[Dribble]

How about the cities that are violating immigration laws by harboring illegal alien, a far more important issue

Not really the issue is it? See, if the Courts ruled differently on immigration...you would have a valid argument. But they didnt. So wanna try a different diversion instead? Lol.

 

[bellisarius]

Not really the issue is it? See, if the Courts ruled differently on immigration...you would have a valid argument. But they didnt. So wanna try a different diversion instead? Lol.

It's exactly the same issue you congenital moron. And the "progressives" have lost every fucking case they've filed against the Trump admin.

 

[Que]

is it okay for a sherriff to refuse to uphold that law and keep his job? i'd have thought the answer to that was no

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/31/us/colorado-red-flag-gun-law/index.html?cid=web-alerts&nsid=54772776

this one sheriff is more or less saying 'no way, josé', whereas the former boss of the sheriff's deputy killed by someone a risk to others is firmly behind the bill.


so, basically, these 'you'll take guns away over my dead body' types don't give a shit about the personal safety of people who are considered a threat to people, or the safety of those they may attack with firearms, because they feel the red flag law goes too far.

as in, firearms can be taken without the person appearing in court but the person may attempt to get their guns back at a court hearing that must be within 14 days - yeah, just 2 weeks without their guns. if they are shown not to be a risk to themselves or others, they get them back, if not, the guns can be held for up to a year.

what's the huge problem with that?

Ask Eric Holder, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, or Kim Foxx.

 

[Dribble]

It's exactly the same issue you congenital moron. And the "progressives" have lost every fucking case they've filed against the Trump admin.

You should get your news from a better source. A quick Google once again proves you wrong...moron.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The bill is not law, and may never become law, so it is certainly not enforceable. Even if it is passed, it appears to be contrary to the Second Amendment. It may also be contrary to the due process amendment, because it calls for the confiscation of something of value without any proof of anything. It would be akin to seizing somebody's car because he might run somebody over some day.

 

[KeithD]

Sheriffs are generally elected officials, themselves.

So, it's tough to "fire" one.

Unfortunately, this is true. If he is in an elected position, it will take longer to bring him around or eject him than otherwise.

 

[BotanyBoy]

is it okay for a sherriff to refuse to uphold that law and keep his job? i'd have thought the answer to that was no

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/31/us/colorado-red-flag-gun-law/index.html?cid=web-alerts&nsid=54772776

this one sheriff is more or less saying 'no way, josé', whereas the former boss of the sheriff's deputy killed by someone a risk to others is firmly behind the bill.


so, basically, these 'you'll take guns away over my dead body' types don't give a shit about the personal safety of people who are considered a threat to people, or the safety of those they may attack with firearms, because they feel the red flag law goes too far.

as in, firearms can be taken without the person appearing in court but the person may attempt to get their guns back at a court hearing that must be within 14 days - yeah, just 2 weeks without their guns. if they are shown not to be a risk to themselves or others, they get them back, if not, the guns can be held for up to a year.

what's the huge problem with that?

Sheriffs aren't required to enforce blatantly unconstitutional laws.

Just like soldiers aren't required to execute unconstitutional orders.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Unfortunately, this is true. If he is in an elected position, it will take longer to bring him around or eject him than otherwise.

Yes......damn all that democracy there to keep tyranny in check.

Authoritarians weep.

 

[phrodeau]

How about the cities that are violating immigration laws by harboring illegal alien, a far more important issue

Why is that far more important?

 

[Pocketshaver]

Sheriffs aren't required to enforce blatantly unconstitutional laws.

Just like soldiers aren't required to execute unconstitutional orders.

Unfortunately you have never read the military code of justice pertaining to the following of orders and pertaining to illegal orders.

ANY soldier knows that it takes a court martial to actually render an order lawful or unlawful. Hence if your CO says shoot a whiney ass liberal street thug raping a toddler in Times Square,,,, if you yell "illegal order" and refuse....


You can be court martialed and LOSE your case if the court rules the order to save the child was legal.

However, IF you shoot that liberal street thug mid rape, and the JAG decides the order was illegal, you can and will be court martialed and convicted because the JAG feels the order was illegal.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Unfortunately you have never read the military code of justice pertaining to the following of orders and pertaining to illegal orders.

Actually I have. I don't get where you seem to have so certainly determined otherwise.

You can be court martialed and LOSE your case if the court rules the order to save the child was legal.

Which is why you better be damn sure about what you're doing before you tell the officers above you to lick your ass.

 

[OldJourno]

That is the problem with Republicans...the law only applies if they agree with it.

Edit: fucking phone spelling

Like sanctuary cities.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Like sanctuary cities.

I may be wrong, but I believe all sanctuary cities are run by Dems. So is the sanctuary state of CA. And, of course, the Jim Crow laws, even after they were nullified, were still enforced by Dems. And, I believe, if you look at rioters, they are mostly Dems. Generally speaking, Democrats are a pretty lawless bunch.