• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control... [W:137]

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
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:
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

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.
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

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 overreach was bound to produce a blowback. There should be no surprise there.
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

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.
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

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.

Is that not the responsibility of firearm organisation to control and direct that anger to good purpose like making grievances known, how it impacts the public known, what is happening to our rights known. The one thing firearm owners cannot afford to do is allow gun control to control public opinion because that is the same as controlling VOTES.
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

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... :peace
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

Ummm what action? I don't see any action, I see posturing. Pandering to their base like good politicians and not law enforcement.

I said take a stand and that is action. It maybe posturing to you but when it hits the news it is encouragement for others. I'm going to guess you do not know much about politics, propaganda or winning.

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.

Good grief governments courts are going to protect us from government. That sounds sensible, not. The constitution is but a piece of paper. It is powerless to protect itself. The constitution is our laws the government must obey. Who do you think enforces and protects the constitution and what were you taught?

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:

Gun grabbers out in the street are NEWS and good NEWS is encouragement of others. It also demonstrates COMMITMENT in that somebody who feels strongly enough to get off his tired backside will probably vote with his belief. Now if firearm owners were out in the streets making news and putting forth their grievances and ensuring the public were aware of the consequences to their safety how much better off do you think we would be?

Not a very effective group I'd say...

Never said it was but what works to get people off their bums is. You think people are just going to get up and go demonstrate? I have news for you.

It's a beginning that does not need tearing down from gun controls friends and helpers. You could always show the correct way.....

Odd what some on the right think is gubmint over reach and what isn't... :peace

When government tramples constitutional rights what is it? Oh! If governments courts agree it is OK. Is government your master? Is government the peoples master? I think we need to start right there with responsibility and duty which nobody today accepts because our leaders have devalued our rights to nothing worth protecting.
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

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.

It will be as strong as our leaders make it.
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

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:

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).
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

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).
The very first part of the oath sheriff's in my county take is to uphold and defend the constitution of the United states.
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

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:

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.
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

The very first part of the oath sheriff's in my county take is to uphold and defend the constitution of the United states.

Which is neither here nor there.
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

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).

One thing I learned early on in police work....a cop has wide latitude and much discretion in "how" they enforce the law. It's all about priorities. Silly liberal Gun laws in my county, are given very low priority.......
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

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
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

See post #13

This is NOT discretion. Its ideologically based rebellion for political reasons. Fire their sorry asses.
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

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:
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

Why do liberals get all law enforcement when it comes to guns but approve of sanctuary Cities and harboring illegals ? :roll:

Perhaps some do. I have not supported the thing you listed.
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

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.
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

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.

They will do what they will do and the government will do what it has to do. And if that means firing their sorry asses for not doing the job they were hired to do, fine..... they can learn to say WELCOME TO WAL MART for a third of the money - if they can get hired.
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

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... :peace

Notice the call for more gun control after Scalia's death? Lefties couldn't wait to take advantage of that. Precisely why no liberal should be allowed on the court. You people are ****ing dangerous. You don't understand the Constitution, nor do you like it.
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

Perhaps some do. I have not supported the thing you listed.

Careful you may lost your libcard . :lamo
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

This is NOT discretion. Its ideologically based rebellion for political reasons. Fire their sorry asses.

Since sheriffs are elected officials that will be up to the voters of that locality
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

Which is neither here nor there.

We have a sheriff here in el dorado county revoke federal LEO authority to enforce california law. This was after many complaints of harassment of people legally shooting in the national Forest. This forest ranger liked to cite and confiscate legal firearms from legal shooters.
 
Re: Sheriffs' Group Calls on Officers: Refuse to Enforce Gun Control...

They are to uphold the law, whether they like it or not. But of course ICE is too, and we can see how well that works. If the law is at the discretion of the interpreter, we may soon see chaos. So I don't know. I am all for the 2nd and our right to carry, but am also for upholding the law, whatever it may be.
 
Back
Top Bottom