Certain sheriffs in Colorado and other states have something in common. None of them will ever have to say “I was just following orders” as an excuse for failing to respect the right of an individual to bear arms.
They’re simply not following those orders.
In Colorado, Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County says that in addition to being unconstitutional, the state’s new gun-control laws are so vague as to be unenforceable. Before July 1, it was legal to sell or transfer a 30-round magazine. After that date, not. In explaining his policy, Cooke flourishes two such identical-looking magazines, one purchased before July 1, one after. Then shuffles them. “How is a deputy or officer supposed to know which is which?”
John Cooke is one of 55 elected sheriffs (out of 62 total) across Colorado who joined a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new law. Also, two Colorado lawmakers have been recalled by voters for supporting it; and a third resigned rather than face a recall.
“In my oath it says I’ll uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado,” says Sheriff Cooke. “It doesn’t say I have to uphold every law passed by the Legislature.”
We all know that the vagueness, ludicrousness, or unconstitutionality of a law doesn’t necessarily stop officials from coming down on citizens like a ton of bricks. So the sheriffs’ refusal to obey is commendable. And an example to follow.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
9 replies on “You’re Not Under Arrest”
It causes me great fear to have the sheriffs determine which duly enacted laws to enforce, and which not to.
Sadly the correct answer has already been expressed by one wiser than I in the statement that the best way to get rid of a bad law in to enforce it vigorously.
Force it into court, have it ruled void for vagueness or constitutionally unsound, and then suspend enforcement by a judicial ruling.
This is dangerous, not only in the “empowerment” of the sheriffs, but in leaving the law on the books to be enforced selectively in a tyrannical manner by those who will eventually find such expeditious in dealing with their “enemy” fellow citizens.
While the actions of the Colorado sheriffs’ appears laudable on its face, it will have unintended consequences and does not reach the final resolution. It is very dangerous precedent.
Therefore I must respectfully disagree with this opinion of yours, a rare occurrence.
JFB, this article only scratches the surface of the situation.
The constitutionality of the laws is already being challenged in court (at least one of the lawsuits comes from a group of Colorado sheriffs themselves).
As Cooke points out, it isn’t just a matter of choosing not to enforce some of the laws, it is impossible to do so.
Last point – the sheriffs are elected by communities to protect and serve the interests of those communities. As a resident of one of those communities, I’m very pleased with them taking the initiative in sticking to their oaths.
Mr. jacobs,
Aren’t you one of those (I am, also) who disapproves of Attorney General Holder who picks and chooses which laws to enforce?
I agree with JFB–it is a dangerous precedent laws a law enforcement officer shoudl follow and which not.
Let’s say there’s a new law requiring police officers to round up Jews for the purposes of annihilating them in Nazi concentration camps. Do Jay and JFB feel that the “unintended consequences” of refusing to cooperate in the murder of innocents make it objectionable to refuse to participate in such evil?
OBviously there’s a difference in scale here, but not with respect to the stipulated legality of such a law. The examples could be multiplied. Suppose church on Sunday were outlawed. Okay with Jay and JFB that officers of the law start raiding churches where mass is being held? Or would the nebulous concerns about the “unintended consequences” of not attacking innocent people fail to dominate your thinking in this case?
I agree with the sheriffs that they are not obliged to act like thugs merely because there’s a law on the books authorizing them to do so. And if it’s “wrong” for officers of the law not to diligently enforce every law on the books, regardless of how vicious and stupid it is, how many laws that are not dead letters, never enforced by anybody, will have to be dusted off and used to harass us anew?
typo: I meant “…how many laws that are now dead letters…will have to be dusted off and used to harass us anew?”
Obama and Holder only enforce the laws they like. Why should anyone else enforce or obey ALL the laws. It starts at the top, right.
[…] « You’re Not Under Arrest […]
I personally support the right of law enforcers (from Obama down to your street cop) to choose to not enforce laws where violating the law harms no one. This provides some restraint on enforcing laws that shouldn’t be. It doesn’t excuse government when they don’t prosecute those who’ve harmed others.
Others have expressed their opposition to this (although without the qualification about the type of law). And I appreciate the fact that many laws exist, so if someone in government wants to harass/bully you, they can find a law you’ve broken (e.g. see “Three Felonies a Day”) so as to target you. These of course, should be repealed. Doing so would make the law more legitimate, protecting our liberties rather than restricting them.
All of this depends upon the integrity of those in government. Unfortunately, neither Obama or Holder has any IMHO. But that’s the fault of voters, and we’ll all suffer as a result.
Now let’s get to work on “DUI” checkpoints.