Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Colorado Sheriffs To Ignore New Gun Laws

March 20, 2013 by  

Colorado Sheriffs To Ignore New Gun Laws
PHOTOS.COM

Two Colorado sheriffs have joined the growing ranks of sheriffs across the country who say they won’t enforce any new gun control measures — whether State or Federal — that infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

Weld County Sheriff John Cook says the laws just passed by the Colorado Legislature and waiting on Governor John Hickenlooper’s signature are unenforceable and would provide a false sense of security. “They’re feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable,” he told The Tribune.

One bill would expand requirements to have background checks for firearm purchases and charge a fee of $10 to legally transfer a gun. The other put a 15-round limit on magazine capacity.

Like other county sheriffs, Cook said he “won’t bother enforcing” the laws because it will be impossible for them to keep track of how the requirements are being met by gun owners. He said he and other sheriffs are considering a lawsuit against the State to block the measures if they are signed into law.

El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa also opposes the bills. He told an angry packed crowd at a meeting on Thursday in Colorado Springs he would stand firm against the measures.

Fifteen sheriffs associations, 340 sheriffs, one police chief and one deputy sheriff have stated they will not enforce any new gun laws, according to the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.

Hat tip: cnsnews.com

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Colorado Sheriffs To Ignore New Gun Laws”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Flashy

    This is dangerous to allow these elected officials to take the law into their hands and decide, by themselves, what is Constitutional and what is not. They are taking the stance they are the judge, jury, and decider on laws.

    they swore an oath, serve, protect and defend the Constitution. It matters not whether they agree with a law…until the courts state such is unConstitutional, these sheriffs are obligated by both oath AND law to enforce and observe those laws.

    it will be interesting to read the many comments in support of Sheriffs violating oath and law. And within minutes see the same swear allegiance to the Constitution.

    • Mike

      It is amazing to see how many times you mention The Constitution and you obviously have no idea what it says. Read The Declaration Of Independence first. Then The Constitution, and then read The Federalist Papers. Then you might get a clue. And learn why the 2nd Amendment was written.

      • Flashy

        So…you think it a good idea, one which deserves cheers … for an elected official to refuse to obey the law. it is not against the Constitution unless and until the Supreme Court so states. Doesn’t matter if i think or you think something is in violation. I do not hold myself out to be a constitutional scholar nor in a position to decide what is and is not allowed within that document. Apparently you think you hold such knowledge and position.

        So tell us oh scholar and decider…where does it state within that document and those you cited that an elected law enforcement official may decide ON THEIR OWN what is and is not constitutional. where they can place themselves above the law, above the courts, above the legislatures…

        Go ahead…i want to read your answer

        Read Marbury versus Madison.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        Flashy: So…you think it a good idea, one which deserves cheers … for an elected official to refuse to obey the law.

        Yes! If the elected official can prove that the law is unconstitutional then the elected official has every right to refuse to obey the law…it is merely an assumption on your part to suggest that an elected official(s) do not understand the Constitution. The mere fact that some refuse to enforce certain laws prove otherwise. If they didn’t understand the Constitution, as it applies to the laws they are refusing to enforce, why then would they choose to not enforce laws they deem to be unconstitutional? Under what grounds?

        Flashy: it is not against the Constitution unless and until the Supreme Court so states.

        The Supreme Court is not infallible, Flashy! Sorry to burst your bubble.

        Flashy: Doesn’t matter if i think or you think something is in violation.

        A preposterous statement. If it doesn’t matter what you think is in violation…by what criteria then, can you determine who does?

        Flashy: I do not hold myself out to be a constitutional scholar nor in a position to decide what is and is not allowed within that document.

        I suggest then that you get busy and start familiarizing yourself with said document. Btw, weren’t you the one who always made the claim that a copy of said document was never far from you?

        Flashy: Apparently you think you hold such knowledge and position.

        Who are you to say he doesn’t posses such knowledge? You previously admitted you do not comprehend the Constitution, and only the Supreme Court does. So then, if you have no idea what the Constitution speaks, how then can you determine who does or who doesn’t understand what the Constitution speaks?

        Flashy: So tell us oh scholar and decider…where does it state within that document and those you cited that an elected law enforcement official may decide ON THEIR OWN what is and is not constitutional. where they can place themselves above the law, above the courts, above the legislatures…

        Why don’t you get off your lazy duff, blow the dust off the document and find out?

    • Ken

      There are plenty in Washington that are sworn to uphold the laws that take it upon themselves to not uphold illegal immigration as well

    • http://Arkybill.com/.bizunderconstruction Bill Henry

      Do you realize how ridiculous it is for an avowed liberal progressive like yourself to defend a man who tramples the Constitution with every move he makes and word he says, and then criticize men who refuse to enforce such attacks on the document. You can have it one way or the other, but not both. I believe there is a word for that, which is one of your favorites. I was thinking maybe disingenuous, but that is too mild a word for it. Maybe hypocrite would better describe the trait.

      • Flashy

        BH….you hold yourself above that of the SCOTUS? The final arbiters of what is and is not permitted under the Constitution?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        Flashy: BH….you hold yourself above that of the SCOTUS? The final arbiters of what is and is not permitted under the Constitution?

        Final arbiters? Are you insane? Only a “religious-zealot” who has abandoned all critical-thinking could make such a chilling statement! You Flashy, should be excused from voting.

      • http://Arkybill.com/.bizunderconstruction Bill Henry

        I swore an oath when I entered service to the country. It included obedience to my superiors, but I can without reservation tell you that any order I received that would have been morally wrong in my opinion would not have been obeyed. There come times in a person’s life when they are faced with right and wrong, and they must make a decision and be guided by conscience. It has to do with responsibility and living with yourself. Traits which I find sorely lacking in so many young folks today. To obtain these traits requires that you be able to see past the end of your nose. Non sibi sed patraie.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Flashy,

      You write: “It matters not whether they agree with a law…until the courts state such is unConstitutional…” That is not and never has been so. To wit:

      [T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. –Thomas Jefferson

      A constitution defines and limits the powers of the government it creates. It therefore follows, as a natural and also a logical result, that the governmental exercise of any power not authorized by the constitution is an assumed power, and therefore illegal. –Thomas Paine

      It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped. –Thomas Jefferson

      In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. –Alexander Hamilton

      To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. –Thomas Jefferson

      The judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because the laws of meum and tuum and of criminal action, forming the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department. When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough… The people themselves,… [with] their discretion [informed] by education, [are] the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power. –Thomas Jefferson

      And from your hero, Mr. Flashy,
      [I]f the policy of the Government, upon vital questions affecting, the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their Government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal. –Abraham Lincoln

      Best wishes
      Bob

      • Flashy

        Mr. Livingston…please read Marbury v Madison and subsequent cases citing such. That will give you the education as to the structure of our system of government which you are making it appear is lacking.

        The courts decide what is allowable under the confines of powers given to the government under the Constitution. if you would cite any instance where Jefferson went against a SCOTUS decision..I’d be interested. Lincoln did …for a short time as he declared a state of emergency and war existed and THAT decision was never brought before the Court.

        Under your premise, if a town of 100 decided that all guns should be confiscated…and two held out saying it was their Right to own such, …they have no voice and the courts are powerless.

        Dangerous grounds Mr. Livingston…dangerous grounds. You call for the dismantling of any organized civilized society and your call is for mob rule.

        Tell me…you state owning a gun is your Right. I say you have no such right and it is only “organized authorized militias” that have any “right” to bear arms. Who decides?

      • Uknowho

        Flashy,

        Unfortunately the “mob rule” is the unintended consequence of Bob’s brand of libertarianism/conservatism.

        No law is valid unless Bob agrees with it. It appears he openly applauds those people who do not enforce the laws he disagrees with and has absolute contempt for our system of Gov unless it follows what Bob deems is correct and Bob’s interpretation of the Constitution and the laws are the only valid ones

        I am looking forward in a warped way to when the next GOPer gets into the WH. Will Bob L and the rest of the rightists here have the same indignation and venom towards that president and the laws that come down during that administration?

        We will see….

        • http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Day-Gettysburg-Lisa-Phillips/dp/1432710281/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363789000&sr=8-1&keywords=modern+day+gettysburg Lisa C. Phillips

          These “gun-control” laws are bogus. We either have a 2nd Amendment or we don’t. Societies without a 2nd Amendment include Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others. Anyone who wants to live under socialism/communism “for the good of us all” needs a psychiatrist, or needs to learn that history repeats itself.

          The 2nd Amendment was put in place to prevent a tyrannical government from taking over a free society. The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment.

          How’s that hope and change working out for you?

      • DavidOL

        Unfortunately for your position here, Bob, the Supreme Court, as well as our entire legal history, doesn’t agree with you. May I remind you that neither Jefferson, Hamilton, nor Paine were ever sitting judges.

        As you very well know Marbury vs. Madison established judicial review, and I’ll give you $10.00 (not $10,000) if you can find one court that agrees with the Colorado Sheriffs threatened behavior of selective non-compliance with the law. Under our system, as both a citizen and a parent, you know very well the importance of compliance first and objection and challenge second. Unilateral law breaking, as well as advocating law breaking, is tantamount to anarchy. Unless you raised anarchists, we all know what your position was when your son(s) or daughter(s) ignored your instruction to them because “they didn’t agree with it.”

        Any public official, because of conscience, can refuse to comply with the requirements of his or her job. They, however, can do this only by resigning. I give you Elliot Richardson as the quintessential example of this principle. If the Colorado sheriffs ignore the law, they will be disciplined if not fired. The choice is theirs, but the point is the same. To maintain social order and to avoid anarchy with all its ugliness and violence, we all must try to comply first and object second.

        Best wishes to you.
        DavidL

      • Don 2

        Someone who does not enforce laws that he disagrees with(Defense of Marriage, Immigration, Welfare Work Rules, Budget) and who has absolute contempt for our system of government(Wants a new constitution of government rights), means you must be talking about Barack Obama.

      • ROGER, Irish-Canadian

        Pointless to argue with many of your readers,such as “Flashy”. No matter how wrong they are they MUST “prove” they are right. A desperate sign of immaturity. Being “right” is more important than discovering TRUTH. Sometimes I even get suckerd into arguing with them,UNTIL I realized they truly do not understand PRINCIPLES.I can remember when,on occasion some of your readers would even say I, as a Canadian, had no right to comment and of course I answered the only person who can, by RIGHT, make that decision is Bob Livingston……..Check my next email Bob

      • Uknowho

        Lisa,

        Are their limits on free speech in this country yes or no?

        Its a simple question.

    • Dr. Sack

      Flashy: Have you ever taken an oath to the constitution? Have you ever heard of an unlawful order or unconstitutional law being carried out and those that did so went to jail? One of the first things they tell you in the military is, you will not obey an unlawful order or unconstitutional order. You can be arrested and go to jail if you do. A unconstitutional law is not a law from the moment it is signed by the highest offical required. If you do obey such a false law and it is found that harm was done by doing so you can be charged with a crime. Those who brought about such a law should also be changed with a crime. However, few of these officals have ever been charged and they get away with this all the time. When such a case goes to court the officals that brought the laws about are not ever involed. It’d be tough to bring hunders of law makers to a court room and charge them all for the crime of voting in bad law. Law/Police officers, military officers and soldiers must know and understand the constitution and the laws they must defend and enforce. And yes they do have some lee-way as to what they can do, not ever speeder is given a ticket are they? I took an oath to the constitution long ago and I still stand by that oath and I will not obey an constitutional law. I’m an ex soldier, police office and safety officer retired.

      • Flashy

        “A unconstitutional law is not a law from the moment it is signed by the highest offical required.”

        Really? Care to cite any instance which this would be shown a valid premise? Once a law is enacted. it is the law. if someone who is affected by said law brings an action asking the court to declare it null and void as being against the Constitution, they may ask for a “stay”…if the Court decides the law is unConstitutional, they may issue a stay of enforcement until the issue is finally decided…by the SCOTUS. the law does not go away…it is not enforced. If the SCOTUS says it is indeed Constitutional, it is the Law of the Land. If it is decided it is not Constitutional, then it is nullified. That is how it works. To state you have the power to decide is ridiculous. Absurd. And a true sign of insanity. I fI disagree with you…who decides whom is correct? My gun? your gun? Ahhh…law by gun, a true sign of a civilized society…

        ” If you do obey such a false law and it is found that harm was done by doing so you can be charged with a crime.”

        When has this been the case?

        ” Those who brought about such a law should also be changed with a crime”

        LOL…

      • Dr. Sack

        Flashy: I do believe you need to read the Federalist Papers and do some more research into our history. If a soldier were to obey a unlawful order he to is subject to the same law as those who gave the order and will face charges for doing so. This is ture for the Constitution. Again, I ask have you ever taken an oath to the constitution? Below is what I use to support my statements.

        Unconstitutional Official Acts

        16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

        The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

        The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

        Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

        A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

        No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

        Jon Roland:

        Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a “law”, and should not be called a “law”, even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

        All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one’s life.

        Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

      • BrotherPatriot

        Dr. Sack: You are spot on.

        I took the Oath.

        I am pretty sure that if I were still serving in a Official capacity, I would have went the way of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin. I’m very certain that Barry isn’t a qualified candidate for President.

        I’m a ROOT level thinker. So the equation for me is a very simple one.

        Thank you for posting. Your information is not only valid but needed.

        God Bless.

    • dan

      no more dangerous than to let an unqualified foreign national that couldn’t pass the most basic security screening let alone get a US passport be POTUS…let alone fill the cabinet with terrorists and commies

      • BrotherPatriot

        dan: Isn’t it just unbelievable?

        It’s fricken surreal really if you think about it. Elephant in the room right in plain site. Isn’t it just incredible what $$$ can buy?

        But We the People are learning some Truths.

        God Bless.

    • Don 2

      Obama is obligated by oath and law also, but since when did that matter? You libs only give a crap about the Constitution when you don’t get your way.

      By the way, these sheriff’s oath is to uphold the Constitution, and that is exactly what they are doing.

      I salute them!

      • BrotherPatriot

        As do so many aware Patriots who stand beside you…just know People like me got yer back. :) We are indeed, actually out here as we are the natural counterbalance against what is happening in this world. I do believe in our life time the Clash is about to happen.

        Everything is going to change.

        We the People will either succeed & never allow a collective Agenda minded force such as the Illuminati gain so much control over us again…or we will lose & They will bring about their intended Agenda of creating a New World Order.

        ROOT level thinking.

        The sooner We the People come to recognize the Threat that we all face, the sooner we can stop letting them “dig in” to our Mother Homeland as They prepare to wage open war against us. It has been a Silent War for years but the internet has disseminated information & helped educate and awaken many American’s to what’s really going on. I’m a firm believer that people have various pieces of the “puzzle” when it comes to issue. Some people have more pieces than other and very few people have all of them to an issue unless they are actively involved…even then they could be being misled on purpose by an outside factor. The Illuminati are very adept at working both ends against one another as they infiltrate through the use of agents, into virtually all facets of the human existence & through their control of much of the worlds money supply…they get away with virtually anything they want to do. Our 9/11 is a perfect example & also the USS Liberty is another.

        God Bless us all.

    • k

      Flashy…we’ll all be “taking the law” law into our own hands soon. These guys standing up for our 2nd Amendment rights just might wake a few sleeping sheeple up and stand with us.

  • http://Aol Michael

    I appalude them for defending the second amendment, Barry won’t and he swore to uphold
    The Constitution Of The United States. It stood for 237 years and Barry is trying mto destroy it. Good stance fellas.:)

    • Flashy

      As an aside, and being curious, what actions by President Obama have been declared unConstitutional by the SCOTUS ? And of those, which has he not abided by the decision of the SCOTUS?

      Jeesh…the wacked contingent…making stuff up again. Y’all ever concern yourself with reality?

  • Rob

    These laws are null and void. Read the second ammendment. When laws become unjust, resistance is duty

    • Flashy

      I think bank robbery is null and void and unconstitutional. trust me, they are. So go forth and rob a bank. See where that gets ya.

      Unless and until a law or Act is declared unConstituional by the Supremes, it is the Law of the Land. If you want to applaud elected law enforcement officials to decide on their own and acting as a subjective judge, jury and legislature…you tread on dangerous grounds.

      Would you be applauding if these same officials later decided using drones for surveillance is within the confines of the Constitution and ignored any laws prohibiting such use?

      What is your answer on that?

      • Warrior

        Ah come on, everyone knows it’s only legal for gubmint and banksters to rob banks. Silly!

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “I think bank robbery is null and void and unconstitutional.”

        We’ve often suspected you were not just a gun-grabber. You seem quite willing to take anything that doesn’t belong to you.

        - Flashy: “Unless and until a law or Act is declared unConstituional by the Supremes, it is the Law of the Land.”

        No. If it is found to be unconstitutional then the government must release everyone persecuted under it and expunge their “record”. An unconstitutional law is null and void from INCEPTION. The court decision is merely an agreement from a government body that the “law” is unconstitutional.

        - Flashy: “If you want to applaud elected law enforcement officials to decide on their own and acting as a subjective judge, jury and legislature…you tread on dangerous grounds.”

        We tread on the grounds of the Constitution and our duty to uphold it against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. Notice that judging the LAW as well as the facts of a case is the proper duty of citizens regardless of their employment.

        - Flashy: “Would you be applauding if these same officials later decided using drones for surveillance is within the confines of the Constitution and ignored any laws prohibiting such use? What is your answer on that?”

        Of course not. Because they honor their oath to support and defend the constitution they wouldn’t decide to violate it.

      • http://Arkybill.com/.bizunderconstruction Bill Henry

        Some laws are apparent in their illegality, and as such make it a duty to disobey them. Any legislations that are an embarrassment to the rights of we the people are in and of themselves unenforceable. Without this safety valve all of the movements that brought justice to their participants would have proven fruitless.

  • Warrior

    Spending too many resources on stopping gun violence is not good for the gubmint coffers. Writing traffic and parking tickets is. Why do you think the main focus and resources has always been spent on the latter?

    Gun Control = more revenue from mr and mrs law abiding “citizen”.

    It’s similiar to when the pols adopt an idea like “fining” an illegal. What are they going to pay the fine with? Do you think “gang members” have resourrces to pay “fines”?

    As the great mayor daley once said “the police are here to preserve “disorder”.

    Sheriff, it’s time to do your duty and go arrest those useless “legislators” and make them pay a fine for being just that!

    • http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Day-Gettysburg-Lisa-Phillips/dp/1432710281/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363789000&sr=8-1&keywords=modern+day+gettysburg Lisa C. Phillips

      HI Warrior, there is a movement and some arrests have been made. Timothy Geithner was arrested and had to step down. The main stream media is not reporting these arrests, if only we could make the charges stick. Here is some info: http://www.crowdactivism.com/2013/03/first-post.html?m=1

  • DTConcerned

    These are responsible law enforcement agents attempting to uphold the Constitutional Laws of the United States of America.

    The Federal Government has been planning on this being resisted, why else do you think the HomeLand Security has over 1.6billion hollowpoint rounds. They plan on fighting a war within our borders for the fascist dictatorship. They plan on killing millions with the excuse thay are trying to save lives.

    The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was for the people to be able to defend themselves if or whenthe government tried to overthrow their constitutional rights.

    • FreedomFighter

      You are dead on…

      Laus Deo
      Semper FI

    • k

      Correct DTConcerned. The 2nd amendment was put in place for this exact reason! Thank GOD those Sheriffs still have a conscience to stand up to this Fascist move.

  • Norm

    Luckily for the country, every tin horn sheriff or law enforcement officer doesn’t get to decide what laws he agrees or disagrees with. The law has been passed and signed. Failure to support it is clearly insubordination and should be dealt with by dismissal or prosecution.

    • ROGER,irish-Canadian LIBERTARIAN

      NORM, since when did Laws take precedence over th Constitution? ALL Laws, from my understanding are ABROGATIONS of NATURAL RIGHTS and thus the related documents such as the Constituion and the Bill of Rights. It is the same in Canada.NATURAL RIGHTS are the SUPREME LAW.

  • Uknowho

    What new gun laws? Congress just stripped the assault weapons ban from the gun safety legislation moving through Congress the other day..

    The NRA and Gun Manufacturers won again.

    Playing into the conspiracy theorists that Bob helps fan the flames of…. Looks like Obama had those kids in Newtown CT killed for nothing. Right rightists?

    But now they hate background checks for ALL firearm purchases… I guess like the NRA, they really don’t want any laws around gun safety at all. The NRA spent much of the last 20 years weakening the ATF and other existing laws around guns.

    So these people want to weaken the ability of law enforncement to do their jobs, take money away from treating the mentally ill and keeping guns out of their hands….

    I guess we should only follow the laws we wish to follow. That is great for society. The sheriffs that do not enforce the law should be fired for insubordination. The police can’t enforce drug laws either but that doesn’t stop them from trying and wasting our tax dollars and time by putting non-violent drug offenders in jail because they are idiots and the end result is they come out of jail better criminals… But hey, the GOP in my state of AZ are making money hand over fist with the private prison system. Sherriff Joe Arpio wants to double the budget for his prisons and Gov Brewer says we have no money for education.

    This is the warped priorities of the GOP dominated states.

    But these conservatives are all patriots…. Give me a break.

    • Don 2

      Toughen up cupcake…..you’re not getting my guns.

      Apparently, these 341 experienced ‘heads of law enforcement agencies’ just didn’t get your all important anti-gun memorandum. Don’t they know who you are?

      • Norm

        If you break the LAW you too will pay the price, just like any other felon. Simple.
        Law enforcers who don’t enforce the law are useless. Many men and women in the military don’t agree with their orders, but they obey them anyway.

      • Don 2

        A soldier does not have to obey an unlawful order.

        Obama has repeatedly broken both the law and his oath. So, when exactly can we expect him to pay the price?

      • Uknowho

        I don’t want your guns Creampie with nuts on it…

        It would be nice if the conservatives cared as much about the rule of law as they said they do during the Clinton witchhunts or after 9-11 when they tried to get everyone to fall in line with Bush when he got us into war with Iraq.

        Now the fight will be against background checks for ALL gun purchases, or a national database to help law enforcement do its job, or they will tell us we have no money for better mental health in this country as they fight tooth and nail to keep the 700B “defense” budget.

        This issue of gun violence has little to do with the gun or size magazine size as it has to do with the lax attitude we have on guns and their use and a complete lack of responsibility when it comes to guns and violence as the first thing to go to when there is a disagreement? The NRA has made it clear through their actions, they do not want what laws their are enforced, not to help law enforcement to do its job better.

        You got it lemon meringue pie?

      • Vicki

        Uknowho writes:
        “You got it lemon meringue pie?”

        You got milk?

    • http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Day-Gettysburg-Lisa-Phillips/dp/1432710281/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363789000&sr=8-1&keywords=modern+day+gettysburg Lisa C. Phillips

      You mean the law abiding citizens like Bill Clinton? The Mena, Arkansas cocaine trafficking cover-up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FH2KEjLcjs – I would HOPE people would protect themselves from government thugs like Clinton, the Bushes, bankster apologists McCain, Palin, and the list goes on and on. Stop the useless debate of Democrats/Republicans who are both working on the same agenda, full control and a “utopian” New World Order agenda with one world government. Open your eyes to the Euro collapse, UN Agenda 21, the North American Union. Turn off your television set. Your brain has been fried with propaganda.

    • Don 2

      Uknowho,

      I got it cupcake…..Clinton lied, remember?

      By your very own admission, “The issue of gun violence has little to do with the gun or the size magazine.”

      So why do the proven to be genetically inferior liberals keep trying to take our guns and reduce the size of our magazines?

      • Uknowho

        Well BÛCHE DE NOËL,

        I know that it is people that pull the trigger, not the gun itself. An assualt weapons ban or not does not change the culture of this country.

        But the difference is that I understand that getting rid of assualt weapons helps but is not the solution and is not an attack on the 2nd Amendment as those who think otherwise say.

        So, are you involved with genetics? Could you please explain what makes conservatives gentically superior to liberals? Tell me is it the fear the Conservatives have over oh… I don’t know… everything that they don’t understand? Is it the completely logical reasoning why two homosexuals should not get the same rights and protections as heterosexuals? Or could it be the selective amnesia they exhibit when their people are out of power and think that their movement has no bearing on today’s reality? How about the tax and spend policies of their record? How about saying til their are red in the face the gov doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove that very thing by their actions?

        I am interested to hear what makes conservatives so superior. Please enlighten me. I am just a poor liberal in need of education that only a conservative can provide.

      • Vicki

        Uknowho says:
        “But the difference is that I understand that getting rid of assault weapons helps but is not the solution and is not an attack on the 2nd Amendment as those who think otherwise say.”

        Proof by bald assertion.

      • Don 2

        Uknowho,

        First, maybe you could explain why, as a homosexual, you do not feel that you have the same rights as a heterosexual?

      • Uknowho

        Vicki,

        Maybe you do not bother to read all of my posts on the subject but I talk about gun violence in terms of a societal issue not that guns are “out there”. I think owning a gun is a right and responsibility and there are limits on the kinds of weapons people can own.

        [comment has been edited]

      • Vicki

        Uknowho says:
        ” I think owning a gun is a right and responsibility and there are limits on the kinds of weapons people can own.”

        I think owning a car is a right. USING a car has some implications as to responsible behavior. I think there should be limits on the kinds of cars people can own. Of course I can not force those limits because to do so would violate YOUR right to own a car.

        Now in the case of guns your right to OWN (keep) guns is a SPECIFICALLY enumerated right. See Amendment 2, US Constitution. Your right to own cars is craftily hidden in the 9th Amendment of that document.

  • red neck

    You know that if this “law” becomes an issue on the doorsteps of the “supreme court” it will go the way of obama-care and be found constitutional even though it clearly is not.

    • Flashy

      I know Red neck…you are better placed and as competent as the SCOTUS in deciding what is and is not Constitutional…heck, why have the SCOTUS when we can ask you ?

      The wacked nutjobs are out in force today 1

      • http://www.facebook.com/forrest.morgan.94 Forrest Morgan

        When the Supreme Court of our Great Land, makes wack job Unconstitutional almost criminal decisons. The Patriots of this Great Country need to make their voices heard. The Second Amendment, has been CLEARLY defined many times in the past. By the Supreme Court. We do NOT need to change it to suit liberal wack jobs, and their agenda to promote the decay of society.

      • dan

        …any worse than a wise latina with little legal expertise or
        a feminist battle-ax/political apparatchik?

      • Flashy

        “The Second Amendment, has been CLEARLY defined many times in the past. By the Supreme Court.”

        Really? Care to cite those cases where the Court addressed the Second and what it means? There is the one case in the 1930′s (or was it the 20′s) where they stated it didn’t apply to hand grenades, tanks etc. There was the recent DC case where they stated that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. (note…”within federal enclaves”, leaving aside whether a state may ban guns)

        OK…so you can’t own grenades, tanks etc. And within federal enclaves, the government cannot enact a complete gun ban.

        Note, that is it. The SCOTUS was and has been notorious for deciding cases without needing to address the 2nd.

        Now..as to these “many times in the past”.

        Typical edged crazy … facts don’t matter because they ruin a good rant.

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “There is the one case in the 1930′s (or was it the 20′s) where they stated it didn’t apply to hand grenades, tanks etc. ”

        Ummm.. Actually that is where they stated that absent proof of utility to a militia/military a short barreled shotgun would NOT be protected. Hence they clearly implied that hand grenades, tanks etc ARE protected.

        http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/miller.htm
        “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” 42

      • http://google gary gerke

        The supreme court and the lower courts found that the national healthcare act was in fact unconstitutional, however, the federal government argued that the monthly premiums are a tax and not a premium. The court ruled that Congress has the right to impose taxes on the American people! Just a fact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

    To protect our individual rights to possess guns we are going to need to become more knowldegeable about the source of, or authority for, those rights, which requires us to stop blathering about the Second Amendment.

    The Second Amendment is one of the most grossly misunderstood constitutional provisions, widespread ignorance about which will fuel the fires of the gun control prohibitionists. “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.” Those who try to pound their square peg of personal possession interests into the square hole of those purposeful words would be better off studying and thinking on fundamental things, and on what the Framers really felt about people protecting themselves, their homes, their families, and their goods.

    As reported in Blackstone’s Commentaries and elsewhere, it is and was a fundamental component of rights to life, liberty, property, and familial well-being that one has the right to own and possess arms to protect those things. That was so fundamental that it required no specific recognition in the Constitution, because the national government [the sole focus of the Bill of Rights, remember] never arguably granted the national government power to encroach on those fundamental things. And it is not a right created by government.

    The purpose for the Second Amendment is found in two phrases, and in study of the considerable concerns the Framers had of the possibility of erosion of state sovereignty by a possibly usurpatious national government that might start spilling over its intended boundary lines [as is dramatically the case now]. Those two illuminating but misunderstood phrases, which mutually impact and define each other, are “well regulated Militia” and “bear Arms.”

    In inverse order, the term “bear Arms” means other than individuals carrying them. You and I could own, keep, and carry our own guns for our own and family protection from now until doomsday and not be “bearing” those arms, because bearing arms has an official, martial connotation. It signals a focus on one participating in…, well, a regulated militia or other sort of quasi-official, paramilitary community protection service. At the time of the framing, communities across the Fruited Plain had groups of local militia drilling up and down the community green, the ultimate and most dramatic example being the “Minutemen” of Lexington and Concord fame.

    And it was felt that the surest way to protect those communities from national invasion and encroachment was to retain those militias, but the states might not have the resources to arm all of the people necessary for an effectively protective militia, so the militia members could arm themselves and keep those arms at home for purposes of “bearing” them in service to the community if the national government did not respect its intended and narrow boundaries, as defined in Article 1, section 8.

    That community protection role had nothing to do with the fundamental individual right to self and family protection firearms, which are protected by a proper reading of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

    So, the modern debate on our rights to self-protection firearms should not revolve around the Second Amendment, because that opens the door to correct assertions by the anti-gun lobby that it does not confer an individual right to firearms. That is technically correct, because that individual right, again, is not conferred by government at all: it inheres in our natural rights to life, liberty, property, family, home, etc., and is recognized by the unenumerated values in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

    So when these so-called “conservatives,” most of whom are police power state-ists and very, very few of whom have ever studied the Framers’ intents, such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Huckabee, the new Giuliani, Romney, Hewitt, Benoit, Beck, and so many others trumpet “we support the Second Amendment,” the query should then be, “Fine, but do you also support our individual rights to possess guns?” Their eyes will glaze over and they’ll give you the empty stare characteristic of Dan Quayle, because they have no idea what you are asking or what they are saying.

    The Second Amendment was a protection of the structure of federalism; we have individual fundamental rights quite broader and quite otherwise.

    And this reality of the Second Amendment makes me concerned about the pending litigation in the United States Supreme Court regarding the District of Columbia gun ordinance. At least two problems lie there.

    One is the fact that the litigators don’t know the difference between what the Second Amendment protected and the natural rights for firearms, as discussed above. The other is related to the constitutional structure of the nation and how it came about, as discussed in previous posts.

    The states gave up some of the power, retaining a sizeable residuum, to a government whose power is enumerated and limited by Article 1, second 8, and the Second Amendment is to protect the states’ residuum from encroachment. One of the limitations inhering in the enumeration is that the national government does not have police power over the states. But the District of Columbia is different.

    The District of Columbia [“DC”] was not a sovereign enclave that surrendered limited powers to the national government but retained its police power; it is a 10 miles square area that Article 1, section 8, expressly recognizes to be an area over which the national government has plenary power. The national government does exercise police power over the DC. The DC has no residuum of police power, nor retained and inherent government prerogatives recognized in the Tenth Amendment. It is not an area that enjoys protection-of-federalism concerns of the Second Amendment or otherwise.

    So, true Second Amendment concerns, the protection of the grantors [states] from the grantees [national government], does not apply whatsoever to the DC. Residents of DC have always been able to be treated differently from residents of virtually all other areas in the Republic, evidenced by the fact that it has no voting representation in the houses of Congress.

    Notwithstanding that DC’s residents could argue that they enjoy the inherent, fundamental right to arms possessed by all people of this Land, so long as the argument is ineptly [read “ignorantly”] phrased solely in terms of the Second Amendment, scalawags on the High Court could accurately and credibly proclaim that the Second Amendment does not limit the Congress in its regulation of the citizens of DC. That would drive a weighty nail in the coffin of the death of individual gun rights for us all, because the proponents would lose even more credibility in ensuing litigation than they already have lost with me by then urging “Uh, well, what we really mean is the fundamental right to own self-protection arms, and not really the Second Amendment issue.”

    But it has to be done right on this first modern attack, or the loss will redound to the benefit of the gun prohibitionists and will embolden the evil sorts who want to disarm the nation.

    There is no substitute for people knowing what they are talking about before opening their mouths or uncapping their pens, and there is no provision of the Constitution where Justice O’Conner’s parting admonition that people need to study the thing to prevent loss of the Republic is more apt than the Second Amendment. -by Capmotion Constitutional defense attorney: Lecturer, practitioner, teacher.

    • dan

      just take the next step: the rights that a government grants,it can regulate…
      an UNALIENABLE RIGHT is one that exists aside from government and cannot be given away

      …and thanks for the Mexican drug cartel/military gun link…certainly dwarfs fast and furious

      • Vicki

        dan says:
        “just take the next step: the rights that a government grants,it can regulate…”

        Rights granted by government have a name.

        Privileges.

    • mark

      You forget to include the historic fact that the vast majority of the time the militias of the colonial era and the Early Republic used their arms it was not to defend themselves from invasion but rather to launch invasions of their neighbors’ territory, mostly those Amerindian tribes that lived beside them to murder them, their women and children, and to rob their land through terror and violence at the point of a gun. That is what your sainted militia did most of the time with their muskets and rifles. They did not defend liberty – they robbed and murdered people and then sanctified it with terms like “expansion,” “empire of liberty,” and “Manifest Destiny.” Like the Soviet and Nazi killers of another age, they masked their murder and robbery with an ideology of liberation. But ask their victims, ask the Ameridians (difficult to do so, since most are dead) what the white man’s liberty meant for them, what the white man’s right to bear arms meant to their slaughtered thousands. Killers for Liberty, they were. But Ameridians called them by their real names – thieves, murderers, child-killers, and hyprocrites. When they get the chance these Amerindians deface their statues in the town squares with spray paint, calling them out for who they really were. I salute them for this.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        mark: You forget to include the historic fact that the vast majority of the time the militias of the colonial era and the Early Republic used their arms it was not to defend themselves from invasion but rather to launch invasions of their neighbors’ territory, mostly those Amerindian tribes that lived beside them to murder them, their women and children, and to rob their land through terror and violence at the point of a gun. That is what your sainted militia did most of the time with their muskets and rifles. They did not defend liberty – they robbed and murdered people and then sanctified it with terms like “expansion,” “empire of liberty,” and “Manifest Destiny.”

        Those were British-forces that engaged in such behaviour, dumb dumb…the “Militia” or more accurately, “Settlers”, were busy “settling” and protecting themselves and their families…

        mark: Like the Soviet and Nazi killers of another age, they masked their murder and robbery with an ideology of liberation. But ask their victims, ask the Ameridians (difficult to do so, since most are dead) what the white man’s liberty meant for them, what the white man’s right to bear arms meant to their slaughtered thousands. Killers for Liberty, they were. But Ameridians called them by their real names – thieves, murderers, child-killers, and hyprocrites. When they get the chance these Amerindians deface their statues in the town squares with spray paint, calling them out for who they really were. I salute them for this.

        You just described the “Bush-Obama” administration, mark…and quite accurately, may i add.

      • mark

        No WTS/JAYS, as I stated in my original-thinking post – no political party talking points or lifted article, there – U.S. militia forces from the Early Republic in fact all the way up until the 1860s took part in Indian land robbing raids and massacres – the 1864, Sand Creek massacre for instance. These were U.S. local and state militias not British colonial militias. Even the colonial militias by the way that killed Indians and stole their land were led by many of the later U.S. Revolutionary War commanders, such as Colonel George Washington.

    • mark

      WTS/JAYS, Another one? And this “lifted” piece is a repeat from 2 days ago. Are you going to just keep recycling articles written by others day after day – even repeats like on summer television? I’d like to hear your own views on these issues. Too difficut to articulate? Apparently.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        Yes mark, another one. I have many more…please stand by!

  • http://gillysrooms.blogspot.com Gilly from Australia

    Well thats setting a bad presedence even though they opose the Laws, the Sheriiffs who wont obey the Legislators have decided they know best have they and basically declaring a police state. Is that what you really want as gun owners? Do you really want the Sheriffs to do their own thing, make their own laws and take over the job of the politicians because you dont agree with the new laws whatever they are?

    • Don 2

      Gilly,

      Yes, I really want the Sheriff’s to do their own thing, and not enforce unconstitutional laws.

      • Vicki

        Yes we want the Sheriff to uphold his oath. We want the state and federal government agents to do so too. When they don’t I am glad that the people elected at least some Sheriff’s who actually intend to honor their oath.

        http://www.oathkeepers.org

  • http://gillysrooms.blogspot.com Gilly from Australia

    Lawlessness starts from the top and percolates down the line until no one is safe with or without guns when you have dictatorial Sheriffs turning a blind eye to certain offences and before long other offences.

    Mind you I dont mind Americans having guns to protect yourselves from the real foreign enermies, but your government is not your enermy for gods sake. You all need to work as a team not break away into little dictatorships in the counties and states…you’d be going backwards not forward as a nation.

    • Don 2

      Gilly,

      I’m glad that you, from Australia, do not mind me, as an American, having guns. It really makes me feel better that we Americans have your approval. By the way, what kind of drugs do you use?

    • larry ryan

      The government has made itself our enemy. The sheriff’s are right to refuse to enforce laws that unconstitutional. In fact, it is their duty do do so.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

    Remember when gun-control activists insisted that loose purchasing regulation of American firearms had led to a massive uptick in arming the drug cartels in Mexico?

    Advocates demanded action to curtail gun sales in the US, and the Obama administration responded with new efforts at the ATF and Department of Justice — including Operation Fast and Furious.

    Now it seems that the big spike in arms supply to cartels didn’t come from local gun shops at all, but from the US government approving a rapid increase in direct sales from manufacturers to the Mexican government, whose purchases got diverted to the cartels — a fact known to the Obama administration all along.

    Sharyl Atkisson continues her excellent investigative reporting for CBS on OF&F with this exposé:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57337289/legal-u.s-gun-sales-to-mexico-arming-cartels/

  • Robert E Smith

    I am glad that some of the law enforcement departments are fighting against our rights to own, but legally maintain firearms, to within reason, to have magazines over the 7 rounds, and to try to keep track of all the legal and illegal individual rights. The laws in the USA indicate that if you are a US Citizen, over the age of 18 years old, are not a criminal or are of anyother illegal character, are mentally well, and will maintain a weapon, then you are entitled to own and use a weapon. That this use of a weapon, will be for all legal purposes, for target practice, for self-protection and will not use it or those weapons for any illegal purpose.

    What should be added, is if these weapons are used illegally, then all criminal charges, all legal actions against that person, should be enforced, and that in some cases, if a death occures during the illegal use of a weapon, that the death penaty could be used, or the individual can be tried to the fullest of the laws of the land. In return, if a person is required to use a weapon for self-defense, or the in the defense of another individual, family member, or in the case of a terrorist attack, then it should be investigated, but with the proper investigative results, the individual will not be charged with a crime. That does not mean that you (or anyother person) will go out of your way to look for trouble, but if it does occure, then this use of a weapon, maybe justified to either stop a crime, or in the case of a death of a criminal, or terrorist, that it will be deamed legal and no charges will be filed.

    I as well as others, have the right to own and use a weapon legally, and for self-protection. period. That in the case of California, we have one of the strictest gun control laws in the United States, are charged per weapon to be able to purchase a weapon, and also to transfer the said weapon, additional charges to be paid to transfer that weapon, if more than one weapon, additional charges will be paid for that transfer.

  • http://gravatar.com/brotherpatriot BrotherPatriot

    Speaking of sheriff’s…I just got notice of this regarding Sheriff Joe & his legal team’s attempts to bring their evidence to the higher ups in Washington DC.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RQCrMr2xtwU

    Can we actually have hope or is this another false hope like Lt. Col. Terry Lakin’s attempts to be granted Discovery by sacrificing his military career.

    I do believe, Terry…that one day America will formally recognize your sacrifice. God Bless you, good Sir. You Terry…are a true America Patriot as much as Sheriff Joe is.

    True American’s who understand what the Constitution is & what it means…stand ready to protect the American dream & water the tree of liberty if it’s needed. I have hope that we can avoid the bloodshed but people in power rarely give that power up without the need for blood and these “people”…have been in power for a VERY long time. It all dates back to Napolean…and beyond.

    God Bless us all during these troubling times.

    • Uknowho

      Sherriff Joe is fond of wasting tax payer’s money for his own desire for power and fame.

      http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/07/joe_arpaios_new_birther_eviden.php

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

      http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/arpaios_volunteer_investigator_profits_from_birther_probe.php

      This nonsense, bringing in Steven Segal to train his cops…its comical if it were not for the fact that I pay taxes to fund this guy’s adventures in self-promotion.

      • Don 2

        No one is more fond of wasting taxpayers money that Barack Obama, flying all over the country in Air Force One at a cost of $181,757.00 per hour just to play golf. Let’s see, he’s played over 100 games of golf, his family has taken 16 or more vacations, sometimes seperate. Michelle’s Spain vacation alone was $470,000.00. Heck, Sheriff Joe sounds like a real bargain.

      • Uknowho

        Don,

        I hate to break it to you but I know that the conservative talking heads have told you to get all upset about the trips Obama has taken but here is the reality

        http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/20509217/how-president-obamas-vacation-time-stacks-up

        Obama has taken less vacation than Bush or Reagan

        “Here’s how Mr. Obama stacks up against more recent Presidents, if he keeps pace with 168 vacation days over eight years. President George W. Bush took all or part of 297 days at his Texas ranch. Bill Clinton took 174 days at Martha’s Vineyard and Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and Ronald Reagan vacationed 349 days at his California ranch over eight years. ”

        But the faux outrage machine needs fuel….

      • Don 2

        Uknowho,

        I hate to break it to you, but I was actually discussing Sheriff Joe and Barack Obama.

        By the way, except for Democrat Bill Clinton, who was busy diddling his intern under the desk and telling lies to Congress and the American people, those other presidents actually governed the country, as opposed to Obama, who is still campaigning.

      • Uknowho

        And Don,

        I just busted up your right wing talking point. Why don’t you add up those vacation days and the use of AF1 by Reagan and Bush?

        Clinton lied… you are right… about sex. The IC was supposed to be investigating what again? Oh yeah… Whitewater but thats what happens when you install your hitman in as the IC and misuse the IC for political points and leverage

        Bush 2 and Reagan led alright, they led this country to ruination.

        Obama is far from perfect but he is better than anyone on the Insane Clown Posse side. CPAC was the precise collection of people why the GOP is so out of touch with the rest of the country.

  • Bimbam

    I wouldn’t obey the ILLEGAL LAW either and I’m not even a sheriff.

    But I will ACT LIKE ONE and arrest the person that committed TREASON!!!

  • http://midcontent ridge runner

    Why would any think the dumbocrap elected official not sign such a moronic law. Since demorats all are corrupt law makers and think more restraints on law abiding citizen is the best way to stop illegal activities. These pukes show time and time again, they don’t pay their taxes due, lie under oath time after time, and get off with out jail time and/or stiff fines. Where as citizens would be sitting in Levenworth, fined till they csn not pay attention, Tom Daschle is a good example of a democrat tax fraud, and a party model. Thank God there are sheriffs that understand their oaths of office, and they do have the spine to tell other criminal elected smucks to fo.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

    Flashy says: As an aside, and being curious, what actions by President Obama have been declared unConstitutional by the SCOTUS ? And of those, which has he not abided by the decision of the SCOTUS? Jeesh…the wacked contingent…making stuff up again. Y’all ever concern yourself with reality?

    When Barack Obama appointed three officials to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 without Senate approval he was acting unconstitutionally, according to U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.

    In a unanimous ruling, U.S. Circuit Judge David Sentelle wrote, “Considering the text, history and structure of the Constitution, these appointments were invalid from their inception.”

    . Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President authority to appoint senior federal officials if the Senate is in recess. In this case, they were not.

    Obama has willfully ignored our laws. He ordered his Justice Department to no longer enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and has consistently refused to allow States to enforce immigration law. He ignored the WARN Act just before the election.

    He refused to prosecute New Black Panther Party members who disenfranchised voters in Pennsylvania.

    He will not allow illegal immigrants married to homosexuals to be deported.

    And he oversaw the huge Fast and Furious Operation and subsequent cover-up, an illegal operation meant to gain support for gun control that led to the deaths of several Americans.

    He has violated Habeas Corpus by signing into law the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the government to detain United States citizens without a trial.

    And he authorized the use of military force in Libya without Congressional approval, and Members of Congress are worried he is going to do the same thing in Syria. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war.

    After criticism Obama said, “I DON’T EVEN HAVE TO GET TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.”

    He claimed the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council authorized his declaration. The last time we checked, our Constitution does not give the United Nations the power to declare war in this country.

    source: http://www.conservative-daily.com/2013/01/27/president-obamas-actions-ruled-unconstitutional-he-must-go/

    • Flashy

      Ummm…so you can’t cite any program or policy which the SCOTUS states was/is unconstitutional and which this president refused to abide by.

      That’s all that’s needed. The rest is BS rantings of nothingness in attempting to obscure that…once again, you can cite the “facts” you stated. In fact, they aren’t “facts”…pure lies and made up.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        There are no zealots as fanatical as you, Flashy. When presented with facts, those facts which condemn the “mad-man” you call your president, your response is always the same; denigration, polarization, humiliation, ridicule, mockery, lies, false-accusations, projection, etc..these are all tactics you are highly skilled at. You refuse to acknowledge the facts as they are in reality…just like the “Imam” in the WH . Your contribution/mission is the same, day in and day out…poison the water, so no one can drink from it. Behold…you are a sad and twisted monstrosity. Who is like you?

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

    Granted that conservatives are not always the sharpest knives in the drawer. We right-wingers sometimes have difficulty grasping the deep, elusive logic of intellectual elitists on the left like Barack Obama when it comes to great and serious questions concerning the U.S. Constitution.

    For example, we find it difficult to understand how it is that man who invented ObamaCare, which has been ruled unconstitutional by two separate courts, feels qualified to unilaterally decide that the Defense of Marriage Act, law of the land for 15 years, is suddenly unconstitutional, thereby freeing himself from the responsibility to defend said law in fulfillment of his Oath of Office.

    What next, Mr. President?

    According to unreliable sources, it appears that President Obama will make a major announcement that will CHANGE everything in America.

    The gist of that announcement: The U.S. Constitution is unconstitutional because women and racial, sexual preference, and religious minorities were all under- represented in 1776.

    Indeed, without any openly men or transgender people involved in the crafting of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, all such documents must be declared null and void.

    Other excluded minorities include women, terrorists, and illegal aliens. Without factoring in the wishes and needs of terrorists and illegal aliens how in the world can our democracy function?

    The answer, of course, is that it cannot, which is why Obama will soon declare the Constitution itself unconstitutional!

    Of course, if Obama really gave a tinker’s dam about the Constitution, he would scrap his outrageous law suit against the state of Arizona for protecting its citizens from invaders.

    He would move to scrap ObamaCare, which was rammed down the throats of unwilling Americans with legislative sleight of hands and bribery when the votes were not there to follow the rules.

    He would understand that forcing citizens to purchase health care insurance, or face the ravages of the IRS, is barbaric and unconstitutional.

    He would understand that the Constitution is very specific when it comes to the eligibility of any person to serve as president. Thus, he would make every effort to be completely honest and transparent with the American people concerning questions about his own eligibility.

    He would understand that the Constitution sets forth provisions for separation of powers, meant to assure that the Executive Branch is accountable to the people through the oversight function performed by Congress.

    He would understand that installation of stealth Czars in order to circumvent Congressional oversight is a repudiation of the Constitution.

    He would understand that voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party is not acceptable simply because the intimidated are not people of color.

    He would understand that actions taken to grant rights reserved for citizens to terrorists are anti-American acts of treason.

    He would understand that the Constitution requires the president to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws so as to protect the American people.

    He would understand that it is the president’s Constitutional obligation to serve as America’s Commander-in-Chief, which requires him to use war powers prudently to defend the American people, rather than using those powers as political footballs.

    Above all else, if he were genuine, President Obama would understand that the will of the people should be the first priority for any political entity wishing to govern, and that that applies to taxes, illegal invasions, health care, terrorists, and all major issues of the day.

    The fact is that Barack Obama views the Constitution as an impediment to his Marxist agenda.

    source: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/33811

    • mark

      WTS/JAYS, another giant “lifted” article. Why? Just put up the link and people can click on it if they want.. Or better yet make an original argument yourself? It takes forever to scroll down on this site with all these giant pasted articles written by others from other blogs. Formulate your own response without relying on other people’s “lifted” ideas. I know it is difficult but you should try. Make the effort. This is how we educate ourselves.

      • http://personalliberty Alondra

        mark, are you talking for yourself?

        mark, STOP YOUR LIBTARDIC WHINING AND COMPLAINS.
        LIKE SOME BRAIN-WASHED OBAMANIST/ALINSKIST

        mark, STOP YOUR NONSENSICAL MADNESS

        JUST STOP IT!

        STOP IT, RIGHT NOW!

        FREE US FROM YOUR RIDICULOUS CRY!

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        mark, these are not, GIANT articles. They take approximately 5 minutes to read…they are well written and informative, and, most here, appreciate them. You do not have to read them…but, i suspect, because they are usually a critique of your misapplied-values, and those of your party, naturally then, you perceive them as distasteful. But, should i post an article critiquing the GOP, and i have, your response, if there be one, would no doubt be favourable. Believe me, I understand. You are not as open-minded as you claim to be, and that’s okay…suffice it for now that most here recognize that about you, and our sincerest wish is that one day you will see it to!

  • Wylma Cooley

    Hats off to the sheriffs and others in their stand. What a terrible place to to make that choice. As front line peace keepers, they know first hand who the abusers of gun safety and “true gun control’ are. True gun control is safely handling and caring for, and respecting the gun. Just like teenagers take car control/driver’s education, so do the true gun owners. The percentage of the LACK OF CAR CONTROL with vehicular manslaughter far out weigh the issue of deaths due to guns, as far as my limited news knowledge goes.
    It is hard to take a stand, but those peace keepers, sheriffs, state troopers, etc, are in a duel position of being a citizen of the USA, with the right to bear arms,and in their chosen profession. We need to realize that our military personnel are in the same situation. The more I think about the selfishness of a few yelling demanding to beard, without considering the far greater number of those on the front lines that have the greater grasp of the reality of life and the consequences of decision, their voices should be the greater and wiser voice heard. The gun control will achieve making more honest and law respecting and abiding citizens into criminals.

    • Vicki

      Wylma Cooley writes:
      “The gun control will achieve making more honest and law respecting and abiding citizens into criminals.”

      Which is why the ~300 MILLION of us who did not shoot anyone need to rise up and demand that politicians STOP punishing the INNOCENT for the acts of a very few.

      Oh and I checked and found that there are

      ~5 MILLION Americans living in Colorado who did not shoot anyone either.

      STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a very few.

      Stop it
      Stop it NOW.

      • mark

        STOP WRITING STUPID, MINDLESS SLOGANS!

        LIKE SOME BRAIN-WASHED NAZI OR COMMUNIST

        JUST STOP IT!

        STOP IT, RIGHT NOW!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki I have never shot anyone. That doesn’t mean I can be trusted with a gun. Countless people who do not own guns or know how to shoot guns did not shoot anyone. That doesn’t mean we let all those people have guns. Countless people drink alcohol. That doesn’t mean we make it legal to walk or to drive while intoxicated. If the standard for whether or not a law should exist is whether or not it affects people who do not break it then there will be very few laws. I don’t crash my car or injure people with it. That doesn’t mean I am being punished by having to obey speed limits or stop signs or traffic signals. Yes when I am in a hurry it may feel like a punishment. But that does not change the fact that I have to obey the law. Ignorance of how to use a gun can be just as dangerous as wicked intent with a gun. People who have not been trained to handle a gun are just as capable of endangering themselves and others as someone who knows how to handle a gun and intends to use it to commit a crime. If I were to suggest that people be required to have training in the use and safe operation of a gun in order to buy a gun would you say I am punishing innocent Americans.

      • JeffH

        Vicki :) I find it utterly amazing how easy it is to bring out the “stoopid” in some folks…mainly the progressives and liberals with a “slogan”.

        Are they forgetting some of the slogans they liked and which probaly helped to influence their vote…”hope and change”, “Forward”, yes we can”, “Change We Can Believe In”, “Stand for Change”, “A New Beginning”, ” America , we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone.” and this ones really a hoot, ” America , we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone.” Or how ’bout “Change in America doesn’t start from the top down. It starts from the bottom up.” and this kicker “I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . I’m asking you to believe in yours.”

        What is important is that ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

        ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

        Join us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

        STOP IT

        STOP IT NOW

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Jeff. I am a liberal and a progressive. I know its important to walk the walk and put your money where your mouth is. And as my last sentence shows I am also a fan of catchy slogans and phrases. There is nothing wrong with quantifying your message into a particular phrase or catchy quip. Ultimately what matters is whether or not you follow up with actions which match your rhetoric.

      • JeffH

        Sure Jeremy…and pigs can fly too. Considering that your reasoning on almost any topic discussed here at PLD is circular at best I don’t think I’m going to take your word for anything today, tomorrow or anytime soon. There is the real world and then there is Jeremy’s world.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Jeff I don’t consider my “world” to be that different from the real world. I admit my logic is a at times circular. I will try to correct that. I would appreciate it if you would at least take the effort to engage me in discussion as oppose to just dismissing me as crazy while providing no evidence to back up your claim.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        mark: STOP WRITING STUPID, MINDLESS SLOGANS! LIKE SOME BRAIN-WASHED NAZI OR COMMUNIST JUST STOP IT! STOP IT, RIGHT NOW!

        mark, if can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen…lol!

      • vicki

        JeffH says:
        “Vicki :) I find it utterly amazing how easy it is to bring out the “stoopid” in some folks…mainly the progressives and liberals with a “slogan”. ”

        Yes it is very amusing. Especally since it is not a slogan. It is an easy to verify self-evident truth. We have always known it but it is so obvious that we never stated it before. That truth is the law abiding have a statistical value. ~300 million. When we use that value we discover that the liberal anti-gun people want to punish more than 99.9% of the population for the acts of a VERY few. Even children know it is unfair to punish the innocent for the crimes of others. So now we can be sure that “fairness” is just another piece of propaganda from the liberals who always holler for “fairness”.

        - JeffH: “Are they forgetting some of the slogans they liked and which probaly helped to influence their vote…”hope and change”, “Forward”, yes we can”, “Change We Can Believe In”, “Stand for Change”, “A New Beginning”, ” America , we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone.” and this ones really a hoot, ” America , we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone.” Or how ’bout “Change in America doesn’t start from the top down. It starts from the bottom up.” and this kicker “I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . I’m asking you to believe in yours.” ”

        Now those are slogans. Not even simple facts as in my assertion (easy to prove as you know) that

        ~300 MILLION Americans didn’t shoot anyone.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a very few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        :);)

      • vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “Vicki I have never shot anyone.”

        Good. That means you are one of the ~300 million that the anti-gun crowd wants to punish for the acts of a few. You should be mad as H E L L that they would deny you your rights because someone you never met and probably wouldn’t like did evil where tool=gun.

        But instead you try and justify the taking of your rights by saying:
        ” That doesn’t mean I can be trusted with a gun.”

        You can’t be trusted to write either but we have told government that it is not allowed to stop you.

        - Jeremy Leochner: “Countless people who do not own guns or know how to shoot guns did not shoot anyone.”

        We have talked before about stating the obvious. why do you continue to do it?

        - Jeremy Leochner: “That doesn’t mean we let all those people have guns.”

        Are you unfamiliar with what rights are? YOU have no say in the matter. Their rights were given them by their CREATOR, not a piece of parchment and certainly not by YOU.

        - Jeremy Leochner: “Countless people drink alcohol. That doesn’t mean we make it legal to walk or to drive while intoxicated.”

        Since walking and driving do not equal drinking and do not equal possessing your point is irrelevant.

        – Jeremy Leochner: “If the standard for whether or not a law should exist is whether or not it affects people who do not break it then there will be very few laws. I don’t crash my car or injure people with it. That doesn’t mean I am being punished by having to obey speed limits or stop signs or traffic signals.”

        Driving does not equal possessing so again you point is irrelevant.

        – Jeremy Leochner: “Ignorance of how to use a gun can be just as dangerous as wicked intent with a gun.”

        Far less dangerous

        – Jeremy Leochner: “People who have not been trained to handle a gun are just as capable of endangering themselves and others as someone who knows how to handle a gun and intends to use it to commit a crime.”

        Not even close to accurate.

        - Jeremy Leochner: “If I were to suggest that people be required to have training in the use and safe operation of a gun in order to buy a gun would you say I am punishing innocent Americans.”

        Since you are infringing upon their natural right to buy and sell private property and infringing on their natural right to possess and carry firearms of course you are.

        Now since you, unlike a lot of liberal posters, actually try for reasoned discussion I will point out the error of your argument.

        It is NOT possible to compare possessing something and using / mis using something.

        Your entire point about cars rests on how the car is USED and not the simple possession of a car.

        Yes you can buy and sell cars without background checks and you don’t even have to have a drivers license to buy/sell/possess a car.

      • JeffH

        Jeremy, I have no desire nor the patience to debate(been there, done that) you or anyone else for that matter. I prefer to deal in reality and facts and therefore will no longer waste my breath and my time…no concessions, no compromises.

      • JeffH

        Vicki, thanks for pointing that out…I should have known better…my bad. :)

      • Vicki

        JeffH Welcome :):)

  • mark

    These same sheriffs have agreed not to enforce any immigration laws either by arresting illegal immigrants. At least they are consistent. They are in fact against enforcing the majority of Colorado’s current laws. Doing so has a tendency to interrupt them while they are having coffee and donuts and planning their retirements on the very generous, new pension plans that their union all voted for themselves. Don’t panic, though. These same sheriffs will still continue the traditional practice of pulling over everyone on the road who is driving while being black. So the Republic and the Constitution are safe. You can all rest at ease.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

      mark: These same sheriffs have agreed not to enforce any immigration laws either by arresting illegal immigrants.

      That’s because they are not immigration-officials, mark.

      mark: They are in fact against enforcing the majority of Colorado’s current laws.

      Don’t be so vague/misleading…specifically what laws are they refusing to enforce?

      mark: Doing so has a tendency to interrupt them while they are having coffee and donuts and planning their retirements on the very generous, new pension plans that their union all voted for themselves.

      So now you are against unions?

      mark: Don’t panic, though. These same sheriffs will still continue the traditional practice of pulling over everyone on the road who is driving while being black.

      Slander, vilification, character-assasination, denigration…your only talent. Something you are very good at!

      mark: So the Republic and the Constitution are safe. You can all rest at ease.

      No doubt you lie awake at night wishing it weren’t so!

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

    Since there are many more conservatives than liberals, and conservatives have so many guns, people often wonder why conservatives don’t just round up all the liberals and ship them to Antarctica to be forced to mine for jewels and gold. Well, there is a very good reason for that: by a strict constructionist interpretation of the American Constitution, there is no support for being able to deport liberals to a mining camp.

    Now, if conservatives were a bit more flexible with their view of the Constitution, they would say things like, “Well, we have to remember it’s a living document, and the Founding Fathers hadn’t even thought of the threat of hippies running around free when they wrote it.” And then they’d look to the Commerce Clause and say, “Well, keeping liberals from meddling in America and forcing them do something useful like mining sure would help the economy, so it’s within the government’s power.” And then it’d just be a manner of scheduling all the boats to get liberals to Antarctica.

    But that would violate the spirit of the Constitution since, by plain English interpretations of the government’s powers, we can’t forcefully ship liberals to Antarctica no matter how much people may think that would help the country. And that’s the point of the Constitution: people are constantly changing their ideas of what is good and bad, but the Constitution is much harder to change. It puts limits on what the government can do, and those limits can only be changed when huge majorities agree to it through the amendment process. And even after ObamaCare, there inexplicably isn’t enough support for a “Liberals Are to Be Sent to Mines in Antarctica” amendment.

    After the hysterical way liberals reacted to the reading of the Constitution by Republicans to open Congress, with Democrats objecting to it, left-wing newspaper editorials denouncing it, and liberals online freaking out over it, no reasonable person would argue that liberals don’t hate the Constitution, but the reasons why aren’t as obvious. So the question becomes, why do liberals hate the Constitution so much — especially when it’s the only thing protecting them from freezing to death with pickaxes in their hands?

    We are all aware that liberals want the Constitution to be a living document, like if Geppetto wanted Pinocchio to become a real boy so it would be easier to strangle him to death. They want it living so they can render its words meaningless. To them, the Constitution is this cryptic document only the most educated Ivy Leaguers are able to interpret. Recently, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein even stated that “the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago.” And then we have all these court decisions — much longer than the document itself – that find all these hidden rights not mentioned in the Constitution and explain away the ones that are clearly stated. And don’t argue with liberals on the subject, because they’re really smart and the only ones able to understand what they’re talking about.

    Thus the freakout over the Constitution being read aloud. No matter how much liberals try to mystify the Constitution and obscure its meaning, hearing the actual text of the document quickly destroys that fiction. It almost reads like a direct condemnation of all the government expansion and power grabs liberals have been up to lately. You can’t hear its words without imagining the ghost of George Washington punching hippies. So you can see why they’d rather it not be brought to the public’s attention.

    A big way gun rights proponents won their war was by putting the text of the 2nd Amendment everywhere. While “scholars” liked to pretend there was some debate on whether there is an individual right to bear arms, there wasn’t among the general public because anyone literate could read the amendment and quickly identify that the only operative part is “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Words mean things to most people, so asking the average American whether there is a right to bear arms is like asking what two plus two equals. Ask a liberal judge, though, and he’ll say, “Two and two of what? And ‘equals’ can mean so many things. It’s a very complicated question.” So when people see the long, rambling reasons from someone like Justice Breyer on why the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it says versus the simple language of the Constitution, they start to realize they’d be much better served by having a twelve-year-old with basic reading comprehension as a justice.

    The Constitution meaning what it says is only part of the problem liberals have with it, though. In the Constitution are the means to change the Constitution, and liberals are perfectly capable of proposing amendments to force people to buy health care or to get haters like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck off the air. Of course, they’d need to get a huge majority of the country to go along with them. And there is the problem. If the Constitution puts strict limits on government power and the only way for liberals to increase that power is to get a huge majority of the public to agree with them, then liberals would have to govern with the consent of the governed! Think of the indecency; liberals could barely do anything unless those nasty Tea Party people and fans of Sarah Palin said it was okay!

    And while liberals do like certain freedoms, in their hearts they don’t really like this whole democracy thing. If liberals were only voting amongst each other, that would be great, but you can’t actually let everyone — some who only went to community college — have a say in what the government can and can’t do. Much better to have only the elites deciding themselves what they can do, based on their best intentions. It’s like what now ex-Representative Phil Hare said when questioned on the constitutionality of ObamaCare: He didn’t worry about the Constitution. If liberals are trying to change things for the better, why should there be any limits on them… especially ones enforced by the ignorant masses?

    And so liberals hope that no one reads the Constitution and that everyone leaves all the questions of what the government can do to left-wing judges who will make decisions based on what they feel is right. Then liberals will be freed from having to get the consent of the unenlightened American public who give their kids Happy Meals and eat trans-fats. They will then have the ability to force people to do what’s best and give the government all the power it needs for a better, more ordered, peaceful society.

    Until they’re shipped off to the mines.

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-liberals-hate-the-constitution/2/

    • mark

      WTS/JAYS, can’t you do anything else besides cut and paste these giant propaganda blogs from other sites ad infinitum? Can’t you think for yourself and come up with an original opinion?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        mark: WTS/JAYS, can’t you do anything else besides cut and paste these giant propaganda blogs from other sites ad infinitum? Can’t you think for yourself and come up with an original opinion?

        mark, can’t you do anything else besides hurl insults at anyone who doesn’t agree with you? Can’t you do do anything else besides spread hate, bigotry, and lies?

        As for original opinion, you are the last person who should accuse anyone of lacking original opinion, considering your constant parroting of your party-line predictable talking-points!

        As to your posts, one can hardly consider them to be original, in that they contain the same old “talking-points”, devoid of any variation, or originality. However, i do marvel at your creative-ability to re-package the same ole hate and lies that is so characteristic of the party you obviously represent. If your posts reveal anything, they reveal your madness, your hate, your intolerance, your bigotry and your narrow-mind.

        Original? You are no “original”, mark. You are nothing more than a rabid, “attack-dog”. Snapping and snarling at anyone who doesn’t see it your way or is in possession of an original thought, that being; criticizing the madness that afflicts your party. Rather than foster original-thinking, as you claim to champion, to the contrary, your presence here is but for the purpose to disrupt debate, and squash “original-thinking”. Naturally, then, i will dismiss your latest response to me as being nothing more then a response from a viscous, hateful, and bigoted mad-man!

      • mark

        WTS/JAYS, I’m a rapid attack dog? Read your own reply to my criticism of your “lifted” material. It’s remarkably calm compared to your raging off-the-wall attack on me. (Full of overemotional inaccuracies, I might add) Keep your cool, WTS/JAYS. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. But just spare us all the cutting and pasting of other people’s tired, old ideas.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        mark: WTS/JAYS, I’m a rapid attack dog? Read your own reply to my criticism of your “lifted” material. It’s remarkably calm compared to your raging off-the-wall attack on me. (Full of overemotional inaccuracies, I might add) Keep your cool, WTS/JAYS. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. But just spare us all the cutting and pasting of other people’s tired, old ideas.

        That would be “rabid” not “rapid”, mark.

        mark, read some of your posts attacking PLD and the readers who happen to disagree with you…they are remarkably “viscous” and “hateful” compared to my measured response to you. My response to you was neither overemotional or inaccurate.

        For all your talk about tolerance and peace, you are the most intolerant and hateful here…maybe second only to Alex.

        I keep and i kept my cool with you, mark. A rather difficult task in the face of your hate, bigotry and damning lies.

        As for taking the heat…you have no heat, neither are you a very good cook. Rather, you are crazed, rabid-dog…full of hate and bile.

        As for the cutting and pasting, there are many here who appreciate a well written article. They are a refreshing change from the hate-filled poison you spew. So needless to say, you will not be spared.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      I love how liberals are the ones violating the constitution and disregarding the rights of others. And yet you begin your argument by casually discussing how you wish you could ship liberals out of the country. Apparently liberals don’t have the right to be liberals. Or rather you wish they did not.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

        You read out of context, Jeremy. Please read it again.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    I love the fact that the sheriff says that these laws are “unenforceable”. Perhaps the reason is that he refuses to enforce them. I don’t deny that laws governing transfers of guns can be difficult to enforce. For that matter numerous laws can be at times difficult to enforce. But that doesn’t mean we don’t have them. It doesn’t give law enforcement an excuse to disobey or refuse to enforce laws they personally disagree with.

    • Vicki

      Jeremy Leochner says:
      “I love the fact that the sheriff says that these laws are “unenforceable”. Perhaps the reason is that he refuses to enforce them.”

      They are unenforceable because they are unconstitutional and thus null and void from inception. He is upholding his oath to refuse to enforce unconstitutional “law”.

      - Jeremy Leochner: “I don’t deny that laws governing transfers of guns can be difficult to enforce. For that matter numerous laws can be at times difficult to enforce.”

      Laws that are difficult to enforce are by their very nature bad laws.

      - Jeremy Leochner: “But that doesn’t mean we don’t have them.”

      Doesn’t mean we should have them either.

      - Jeremy Leochner: “It doesn’t give law enforcement an excuse to disobey or refuse to enforce laws they personally disagree with.”

      http://www.oathkeepers.org And you should study the Nuremberg trials.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki

        1: As you know depending on the issue people can have differing views as to what exactly is constitutional. I am not saying my view or any particular persons view is correct. But just because you or this sheriff says this law is unconstitutional does not make it so. I understand this man is a sheriff who has sworn an oath to serve and protect. But I believe this statement by him is based more on his own personal politics than the constitutionality of this law.

        2: I would have to disagree with you about laws that are difficult to enforce being automatically difficult ones. People don’t want to be denied the ability to do as they please. That does not mean we allow them to do as they please.

        3: I agree with you that it doesn’t automatically mean we should have them. My whole point is at least from what this article is saying this sheriff based his argument for not enforcing this law on its unenforceability. He seemed to be using enforceability rather the constitutionality of a law as the basis for whether or not to enforce it. To me that seemed rather biased and petty. It sounded as though this sheriff was simply trying to find an excuse to not enforce a law that he disagrees with politically.

        4: I have a basic understanding of the Nuremberg Trials. I do not agree with everything that was done there. I do not agree with every law. But my disagreement with a particular law does not give me grounds to disobey it. When I am in a hurry you can bet I disagree with speed limits. But that does not give me the right to disobey a speed limit and place innocent people in danger.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “1: As you know depending on the issue people can have differing views as to what exactly is constitutional.”

        With some issues yes. Amendment 9 is consistently causing people problems.

        Most of the disagreements cease to exist when people learn that the Constitution is a SPECIFIC set of enumerated powers delegated to the government along with a VERY SPECIFIC set of enumerated rights that must be protected. One of those rights is the right (not privilege) to KEEP and BEAR (carry) arms. This right is a right of the people. It must NOT BE infringed. Simple English. Not at all complicated to understand even by non-native English speakers.

        - Jeremy Leochner: “But just because you or this sheriff says this law is unconstitutional does not make it so.”

        We don’t just say the law is unconstitutional. We give multiple valid reasons.

        - Jeremy Leochner: “2: I would have to disagree with you about laws that are difficult to enforce being automatically difficult ones.”

        Circular statement.

        4: I have a basic understanding of the Nuremberg Trials. I do not agree with everything that was done there. I do not agree with every law. But my disagreement with a particular law does not give me grounds to disobey it.”

        If a law is in violation of the Constitution you are duty bound to ignore it.

        - Jeremy Leochner: “When I am in a hurry you can bet I disagree with speed limits. But that does not give me the right to disobey a speed limit and place innocent people in danger.”

        Irrelevant. No relation to the subject of possession of private property. We are discussing possession not (mis)use.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAYS

    A LIBERAL COMES CLEAN: WE HATE THE CONSTITUTION

    I frequently bait the law professoriate with the axiom that if you really want to understand constitutionalism, and the U.S. Constitution in particular, don’t take constitutional law at an elite law school. There you will only receive systematic mis-instruction in the subject.* Joe Knippenberg reminds me that my AEI colleague Walter Berns always said that the problem with law professors is that they taught constitutional law, not the Constitution. Hence most constitutional law professors treat the Constitution as a plaything from which to extract whatever outcome they want.

    In some cases the general wording of clauses of the Constitution (like the Fourth Amendment’s “unreasonable” search and seizure clause) does require exercising judgment about how to apply the text to changing circumstances and technology. But then there are those pesky clauses written with sufficient specificity (such as the “embarrassing” Second Amendment—as some liberals call it) that not even the inventive Cass Sunstein can find a clever interpretive workaround to generate the desired liberal result. At such times this impulse yields to the suspicion that many liberals don’t really like the Constitution at all, and would junk it if they could.

    Woodrow Wilson professed this openly. But the Founders built well, knowing that the Constitution—the documentary embodiment of the Rule of Law replacing the Rule of Man (or Rule of the King, as practical matters had it in the 1780s)—would work only if it became an object of reverence in place of a monarch among the people. As such, directly attacking the Constitution has always been a non-starter in American politics. Instead, liberals typically repair to the doctrine of the “living Constitution.”

    Thus it is helpful when a liberal’s impatience with constitutionalism yields to the impulse to rip the façade away and declare their contempt for the Constitution. Georgetown Law School professor Louis Seidman thus does us the favor of candor with his New York Times op-ed today entitled “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.”The first paragraph is enough:

    “AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions”.

    here is the rest: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    There’s active commentary about it going on all over the blogosphere today. (Start with Jonathan Adler and Wesley Smith if you are a glutton.) As I sometimes like to say, “Our Constitution may not be perfect, but it’s better than the government we’ve got.” Those “evil” and “archaic” provisions are why, despite 100 years of largely successful “Progressive” assault against our constitutional principles, the United States is still the freest nation in the world.

    Let’s hope the higher education bubble breaks first and hardest at our intellectually corrupt law schools.

    * There are a handful of isolated worthy exceptions, such as Mike McConnell at Stanford, Richard Epstein at NYU, Randy Barnett at Georgetown, Gerard Bradley at Notre Dame, John McGinnis at Northwestern, and most of the happy band who appear on the Volokh Conspiracy. But as a proportion of the law professoriate they have to represent less than 5 percent of the total. -Steven Hayward

  • http://www.dhamilton Haskell Dale Hamilton

    You Liberal, progressives are so ignorant that you will only realize how stupid you are when your own rights are also trampled on. Until then we will have to put up with your unbelievable ignorance and even then we won’t be able to escape your company when you are enslaved with the rest of us.

  • Jon

    The Liberals can take the Constitution but it will be neither clean nor peaceful.The usefulness of the Second Ammendment will now be fully understood to all left standing.Our forfathers were indeed insightful to freedom and the tools to keep it.Have people become so educated that they have actually become ignorant?It would seem so.

    • Jeff

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      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

      “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Sounds similar to the 2nd amendment, doesn’t it? Does that mean absolutely anything goes? You can say anything anytime you like? You can write or publish anything you want? How about child pornography? The 2nd amendment equivalent of child pornography is assault weapons with large-clip magazines. If you think the 2nd amendment protects your right to ANY WEAPON, I think you will find little support for that view. Even Scalia, perhaps the most conservative Justice since the days of Dred Scott, won’t go that far.

  • Charles W

    It’s encouraging to know that some law enforcement officers still believe in and honor the Constitution.

  • Strightothepoint 2012

    Good For Them,Let The Goverment try to get “OUR” guns!!!!If its a dam war Congress wants they won”t have to worry about the middle east or Asia,,because they”ll Have One Here!!!

  • Brian

    The sheriffs are right you can’t inforce a law that goes against the constitution of the USA vote the liberals out!

  • Dr. Sack

    I keep hearing this statement of the majorty wants this and that and they must get what they want just because they are the majorty. They demand more laws for gun control and so-on. There is one big problem with this concept, that’s not how our governing system works. If it did work that way, long ago a number of the races that are now in this country would have been removed. Many of the things we injoy in life would be gone. There would be no rich or maybe even we’d all, but a small few, would be poor. A land ruled by majorty will fail in a short time. Athenian Greece was the first nation city to have a true democracy. Their democracy gave each free adult male who had completed their military training as ephebes an intitlement to vote. You can see how this works out in the long run. Our governing system is not a democracy, it is a republic. There is a big difference between the two. There is a reason our founders setup a republic and not a democracy, as they knew in time that it would fail. We have three branchs of the government to prevent to much power within one branch.
    To add, the reason the founders wrote the Constitution was to not give the governing leaders some basic guide lines to follow but, to set the limits of their autority and power. And to give the people the autority and power to defend them selves and to prevent the govenment from abusing their authority and power. The 2nd, amendment is the one amendment that gives the people the physical ability to defend them selves and to stop an abusive powers of a government. Any unconstitutional law inacted that effects the 2nd amandment or any part of the Constitution is an unlawful act. The problem is that we’ve stood by for so long and let so many laws pass without acting to prevent them or to remove them most people no longer know right from wrong. It takes a great deal of money and time to fight these unconstitutional laws in court or to repeal them. So, most people just stand by and live with them.
    This is what most of these tyrants expect to happen, for the people to seat on their hands and let the laws do their damage before any action can be done to correct the mistake. They are not interested in public safety, I do believe they want disorder. With disorder and chaos comes a demand for more order. With the order they will offer comes more power and control.
    Unconstitutiona Acts – Defined
    http://www.heidifortexas.com/unconstitutional_acts_defined

    • Sheep Dog

      You are correct about our complacency in allowing laws to be passed without resistance. And now, we’ve become use to having these laws shoveled down our throats and we allow these crooks to shovel more. Our Constitution tells us that any law that goes agains the rights confirmed in it or against the Bill of Rights is an unjust law and one that the people do not have to obey. Thus, if we are smart, we simply ignor their BS legislation and work to remove them from office or maybe we should seek to prosecute them as traitors and as the domestic enemy..

  • R. Fine

    Gee, officers of the law saying that they will not uphold the law! Very interesting concept.

  • Liberterian

    It is the right thing to do, the gun control that the legislature has proposed and passed with due disregard for all of our well being is insane. I have been in law enforcement near 40 years now and have seen the real problem and that is violence in our society and a need for more mental health, not for more government proposed restrictions by ignorant feel gooder’s, that have little to no effect. Shame on them for not adhering to our sovereignty as citizens under our constitution.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.