- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 14,012
- Reaction score
- 3,439
- Location
- Southern Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Local police chiefs and sheriffs typically swear to enforce the laws of their state. But a group called the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is intent on strictly enforcing their view of the U.S. Constitution and, according to a long new piece by the Center for Public Integrity, “its ambition is to encourage law enforcement officers to defy laws they decide themselves are illegal.” In essence, they are troubled by the overreach of the federal government in matters concerning guns, taxes and land management, and founder Richard Mack has described the federals as “the greatest threat we face today,” and his association as “the army to set our nation free.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ral-government-overreach-gains-size-momentum/
I couldn't agree more! :thumbs::thumbs:
Local police chiefs and sheriffs typically swear to enforce the laws of their state. But a group called the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is intent on strictly enforcing their view of the U.S. Constitution and, according to a long new piece by the Center for Public Integrity, “its ambition is to encourage law enforcement officers to defy laws they decide themselves are illegal.” In essence, they are troubled by the overreach of the federal government in matters concerning guns, taxes and land management, and founder Richard Mack has described the federals as “the greatest threat we face today,” and his association as “the army to set our nation free.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ral-government-overreach-gains-size-momentum/
I couldn't agree more! :thumbs::thumbs:
Somebody has to make a stand. In the case of abuse of the 2A you would think firearm owners would be protecting their turf. That is not a good reflection on people who should know better that unprotected rights are ripe for plucking by government. At what point in time are they going to say hands off?
Good to see opposition in action for once.
The neo-liberals have gone too far in many areas of policy and law. The increasing bigotry has further increased the anger at Constitutional Amendments having been redefined or overruled. The real question now is how strong the reaction will be.
Somebody has to make a stand. In the case of abuse of the 2A you would think firearm owners would be protecting their turf. That is not a good reflection on people who should know better that unprotected rights are ripe for plucking by government. At what point in time are they going to say hands off? Good to see opposition in action for once.
Ummm what action? I don't see any action, I see posturing. Pandering to their base like good politicians and not law enforcement.
Perhaps why the firearm owners are not as up in arms as you'd like is because they don't have the same fear factor. They don't see their rights as unprotected- especially after HELLER.
Face it the rabid right has been 'making a stand' for decades and still they scream as if the 'gun' grabbers are already out in the streets... :roll:
Not a very effective group I'd say...
Odd what some on the right think is gubmint over reach and what isn't...eace
The neo-liberals have gone too far in many areas of policy and law. The increasing bigotry has further increased the anger at Constitutional Amendments having been redefined or overruled. The real question now is how strong the reaction will be.
Local police chiefs and sheriffs typically swear to enforce the laws of their state. But a group called the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is intent on strictly enforcing their view of the U.S. Constitution and, according to a long new piece by the Center for Public Integrity, “its ambition is to encourage law enforcement officers to defy laws they decide themselves are illegal.” In essence, they are troubled by the overreach of the federal government in matters concerning guns, taxes and land management, and founder Richard Mack has described the federals as “the greatest threat we face today,” and his association as “the army to set our nation free.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ral-government-overreach-gains-size-momentum/
I couldn't agree more! :thumbs::thumbs:
The very first part of the oath sheriff's in my county take is to uphold and defend the constitution of the United states.If police refuse to enforce the law, they should be fired.
Note by the way, that if the local police are responsible for enforcing something, then it's a matter of state law, regardless of whether its federal or not (thus we have tolerated pot in some states, because only the feds can act).
Local police chiefs and sheriffs typically swear to enforce the laws of their state. But a group called the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is intent on strictly enforcing their view of the U.S. Constitution and, according to a long new piece by the Center for Public Integrity, “its ambition is to encourage law enforcement officers to defy laws they decide themselves are illegal.” In essence, they are troubled by the overreach of the federal government in matters concerning guns, taxes and land management, and founder Richard Mack has described the federals as “the greatest threat we face today,” and his association as “the army to set our nation free.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ral-government-overreach-gains-size-momentum/
I couldn't agree more! :thumbs::thumbs:
The very first part of the oath sheriff's in my county take is to uphold and defend the constitution of the United states.
If police refuse to enforce the law, they should be fired.
Note by the way, that if the local police are responsible for enforcing something, then it's a matter of state law, regardless of whether its federal or not (thus we have tolerated pot in some states, because only the feds can act).
Police officers who refuse to enforce the law they are paid to enforce should be fired for dereliction of duty and a refusal to do their jobs.
See post #13
This is NOT discretion. Its ideologically based rebellion for political reasons. Fire their sorry asses.
Why do liberals get all law enforcement when it comes to guns but approve of sanctuary Cities and harboring illegals ? :roll:
Police officers who refuse to enforce the law they are paid to enforce should be fired for dereliction of duty and a refusal to do their jobs.
Do I need to remind you that "I was doing my duty" is not an excuse for enforcing a bad law. People who have bad laws thrust upon them have a duty to OBJECT and not obey them.
All gun control laws are bad laws as there only intention is to deprive people of rights. It is not possible they can achieve anything else.
Ummm what action? I don't see any action, I see posturing. Pandering to their base like good politicians and not law enforcement.
Perhaps why the firearm owners are not as up in arms as you'd like is because they don't have the same fear factor. They don't see their rights as unprotected- especially after HELLER.
Face it the rabid right has been 'making a stand' for decades and still they scream as if the 'gun' grabbers are already out in the streets... :roll:
Not a very effective group I'd say...
Odd what some on the right think is gubmint over reach and what isn't...eace
Perhaps some do. I have not supported the thing you listed.
This is NOT discretion. Its ideologically based rebellion for political reasons. Fire their sorry asses.
Careful you may lost your libcard . :lamo
Which is neither here nor there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?