Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Colorado Sheriffs: Gun Control Laws Dead on Arrival

The sheriffs in Colorado are organized into an association called the County Sheriffs of Colorado, appropriately enough, and that organization has already announced by way of a position paper that they are in opposition to the recent spate of gun control laws that include bans on "assault-style weapons" (key word there: style) and magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.
The County Sheriffs of Colorado know first hand that strict gun control laws do not deter criminals from getting firearms illegally and committing crimes.  Rather, they hurt law-abiding citizens who may be left unprotected because law enforcement cannot arrive in time to stop a criminal's bullet once he has pulled the trigger.
By association, the sheriffs are also directing their criticism against the 23 executive orders issued by Obama that are supposed to "crack down on gun violence", though they would have done practically nothing to have prevented the mentally disturbed attackers in Aurora or Newtown.
Law enforcement officers carry high-capacity magazines because there are times when 10 rounds might not be enough to end the threat.  County Sheriffs of Colorado believe the same should hold true for civilians who wish to defend themselves, especially if attacked by multiple assailants.
Several of the sheriffs and some county commissioners had previously and independently issued similar statements.

Now comes news that 37 of the state's 62 sheriffs are separately filing a lawsuit that addresses the new laws, which have already resulted in several long-established companies that support the firearms industry, such as MagPul and HiViz, to announce that they are moving out of state to a more supportive business atmosphere. 

The suit will allege that the laws are a violation of the Second Amendment that allows citizens to keep and bear arms, and the Fourteenth Amendment "which bars states from abridging the 'privileges and immunities' of citizens." 

Several of the other sheriffs state that they are not joining the lawsuit but are supportive of its aims.  The suit is in response to the fact that the state legislature ignored the position paper filed during debate on the measures.
In a letter to residents last week, Douglas County Sheriff David Weaver warned that the state's new gun laws are going to be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce and won't stop another mass shooting.
Sixteen of the sheriffs held a news conference last week to counter Obama's visit to the state to showcase his push for tighter restrictions on gun ownership.

This trend in Colorado follows the pronouncements of a number of sheriffs in other states that they find such laws unenforceable or even illegal as an infringement on state sovereignty, a move which seemed to take impetus after the publication of the letter of Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County in Oregon.

Allusions have been drawn to the Obama administration's announcements about not enforcing several federal statutes, such as the Defense of Marriage Act or crimes of a racial intent directed against Whites, as was discovered in Justice Department memos involved in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case.

It used to be that the Left would often say that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" (at least, during the Republican administration of George W Bush).  They find themselves in that old 'sauce for goose and gander' conundrum, but with the aid of the press they will try to muddle through anyway.

As for the sheriffs, this move is in the tradition of Andrew Jackson concerning the Supreme Court ruling in Worcester vs Georgia (1832): "Well, [Supreme Court Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision.  Now let him enforce it."


  1. Indeed, the snooze media gets even snoozier when the Dumbocrats are in the White House. And just in case they should wake up and start reporting on the bad economy, there's the gun control distraction, when the gay marriage distraction isn't working.

  2. Kudo's to law enforcement for standing for individual liberty, when our elected class fails to do so.

    Depending on the cable outlet, the media is merely political lobby outlets.


Comments are welcome and discussion is open and encouraged. I expect that there will be some occasional disagreement (heaven knows why) or welcome clarification and embellishment, and such are freely solicited.

Consider that all such comments are in the public domain and are expected to be polite, even while contentious. I will delete comments which are ad hominem, as well as those needlessly profane beyond the realm of sputtering incredulity in reaction to some inanity, unless attributed to a quote.

Links to other sources are fine so long as they further the argument or expand on the discussion. All such comments and links are the responsibility of the commenter, and the mere presence herein does not necessarily constitute my agreement.

I will also delete all comments that link to a commercial site.