12-16-2013, 09:45 AM
Above the Law?
![[Image: r-JOHN-COOKE-SHERIFF-huge.jpg]](http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1516781/thumbs/r-JOHN-COOKE-SHERIFF-huge.jpg)
Some sheriffs are publicly refusing to enforce new laws in states that have limited magazine capacity and implemented universal background checks.
They're citing second amendment rights, which is a helluva stretch. The second amendment allows for a well-regulated militia. It does not guarantee or specify rights to own any type or any volume of guns/ammo to every citizen.
I think it sends a really wrong message about law enforcement officers to loudly and very publicly position themselves as being above the law, the lawmakers, and their police chiefs - which is the case in Colorado. Why not pledge to enforce the laws, as is their duty, but just make aggressively pursuing violations of those new laws low priority in their districts?
That's what Sheriff W. Pete Palmer of Chaffee County did; he's one of the seven sheriffs who declined to join the federal lawsuit because he felt duty-bound to carry out the laws. He he has neither the resources nor the pressure from his constituents to make active enforcement a high priority. Violations of the laws are misdemeanors.
“All law enforcement agencies consider the community standards — what is it that our community wishes us to focus on — and I can tell you our community is not worried one whit about background checks or high-capacity magazines,” Palmer said.
I understand Palmer. If some tragedy occurs in his district that could have been prevented by more proactive/aggressive pursuit of gun law violations, he'll have a lot to answer for in prioritizing gun law enforcement so low. But, he's not suggesting that he's above the laws and essentially telling people that they're not required to be law-abiding just because he doesn't agree with the legislation, nor is he crying constitutional violations when they don't exist.
Sheriff Cooke (front left in photo above), on the other hand, is doing just that - claiming he's not required to follow the laws because they're not constitutional. Why would he do that rather than take Palmer's approach? Well, maybe the fact that he's running for Senate in 2014 and benefits from NRA-backing has a tiny bit to do with it.
I think Cooke and company's approach is irresponsible and, in some cases, for political gain only. STILL, they all get to say whatever they want, despite the potential impacts - that 1st amendment right is indeed applicable here, so we'll see where it takes them.
Anyway, the band of sheriffs led by Cooke filed a federal lawsuit, but it was quashed because they have no authority to do so as a band of sheriffs, but are free to do so as individuals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/she...ntrol.html
Some sheriffs are publicly refusing to enforce new laws in states that have limited magazine capacity and implemented universal background checks.
They're citing second amendment rights, which is a helluva stretch. The second amendment allows for a well-regulated militia. It does not guarantee or specify rights to own any type or any volume of guns/ammo to every citizen.
I think it sends a really wrong message about law enforcement officers to loudly and very publicly position themselves as being above the law, the lawmakers, and their police chiefs - which is the case in Colorado. Why not pledge to enforce the laws, as is their duty, but just make aggressively pursuing violations of those new laws low priority in their districts?
That's what Sheriff W. Pete Palmer of Chaffee County did; he's one of the seven sheriffs who declined to join the federal lawsuit because he felt duty-bound to carry out the laws. He he has neither the resources nor the pressure from his constituents to make active enforcement a high priority. Violations of the laws are misdemeanors.
“All law enforcement agencies consider the community standards — what is it that our community wishes us to focus on — and I can tell you our community is not worried one whit about background checks or high-capacity magazines,” Palmer said.
I understand Palmer. If some tragedy occurs in his district that could have been prevented by more proactive/aggressive pursuit of gun law violations, he'll have a lot to answer for in prioritizing gun law enforcement so low. But, he's not suggesting that he's above the laws and essentially telling people that they're not required to be law-abiding just because he doesn't agree with the legislation, nor is he crying constitutional violations when they don't exist.
Sheriff Cooke (front left in photo above), on the other hand, is doing just that - claiming he's not required to follow the laws because they're not constitutional. Why would he do that rather than take Palmer's approach? Well, maybe the fact that he's running for Senate in 2014 and benefits from NRA-backing has a tiny bit to do with it.
I think Cooke and company's approach is irresponsible and, in some cases, for political gain only. STILL, they all get to say whatever they want, despite the potential impacts - that 1st amendment right is indeed applicable here, so we'll see where it takes them.
Anyway, the band of sheriffs led by Cooke filed a federal lawsuit, but it was quashed because they have no authority to do so as a band of sheriffs, but are free to do so as individuals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/she...ntrol.html