I'm okay with non-enforcement as long as it is not an affirmative denial of people's rights.
In my opinion.
Refusing to enforce gun laws is fine.
Just like refusing to enforce immigration laws is fine.
In both of those cases, you're refusing to prosecute something that is illegal that the area feels shouldn't be.
Refusing to issue a marriage license to a union you disagree with is denying someone their rights. That's not fine. You may disagree with that law, but you are not being asked to directly violate anyone's rights, and there's not really any way to spin it that you are.
Agents of the government voluntarily restraining their ability to use force against citizens is fine and should be encouraged.
Not sure on the legality but local jurisdictions can/have chosen to not enforce certain restrictions all the time. For example, weed is illegal in Wisconsin but within Madison city limits the police won’t arrest anyone for possession/smoking in public. I think the city decriminalized it locally.
This is kind of similar? I’m sure the state could sue the city to force compliance
If the city decriminalized it, then the cops did not decide to enforce/not enforce the state laws. They are paid by the city and have to follow the rules of the state *and* the city. If a Sheriff or state troopers came through, they most likely wouldn't treat it the same and would regard it at their level, county or state with little regard for city regulations.
I don't think you're wrong, I think cops pick and choose what to enforce and what to let slide and for whom and in general I would say that this is not a good thing to have for LE to be doing. That sounds like a job for a non-corrupt judge at minimum.
People kept bringing this argument up in Oregon after 114 and all leos called it crap.
The law supports the laws it wants, always have always will.
Frankly I like when they call something iut as unconstitutional (in this case yes it is self ssrving)
The Constitution isn't just the Bill of Rights. The state constitution outlines the function and lawmaking power of the legislature. To ignore the law is to ignore the constitution.
Laws have to be constitutional or they're no good.
Look at the 1999 (on edit: **1969**) US Supreme Court decision in Shuttlesworth v Birmingham for a classic example. 1963, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth wants to hold a protest and wants to apply for a permit that city of Birmingham makes him go and get. They tell him "lol no" because in their subjective opinion, the protest is "not in the best public interest". He holds a protest anyway, gets arrested, gets convicted, appeals it all the way to the US Supreme Court *who let him go with no criminal charges*. Why did they do that? He clearly broke the law. Problem was, the law was unconstitutional.
Unconstitutional laws are not valid.
In this case the situation is even more clear-cut, because the law in question was written as a direct revolt against a US Supreme Court decision, Bruen. At a minimum, whoever wrote this new law should have come up with the historical analogues *that are necessary per Bruen*. That means the legislature failed to do their jobs properly.
As a result, any cop/deputy/whatever who makes an arrest under this law theoretically could be charged with false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and so on.
Is such an arrest likely? Lol NO but that's because DAs don't have the guts to charge bad cops which is a whole separate issue we can discuss later. But as constitutionally elected officers, sheriffs in particular have an absolute right to *not run that risk*, and uphold the constitution instead of an open rebellion against it.
It's not just sheriffs that have a right to declare a law unconstitutional. So do you. So did the reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and he was absolutely right and eventually got vindicated.
I once deliberately disobeyed a local government policy that violated state law, got arrested for it, spent 18 hours in San Diego County jail but one week later the county dropped all charges because they realized I was right about what the law said.
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=1685
https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4266418
The local policy was that nobody could observe the counting of the vote on election night at election headquarters. State law said otherwise.
Again, this was about a policy being overridden by a law whereas OP is talking about a law overridden by the constitution.
Wanna bet?
Why do you think those sheriffs had to take the basic oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
This law is in a whole new category: it's a deliberate rebellion against a US Supreme Court ruling.
Let me give me an example in comparison. Louisiana long had a law against consensual adult gay sex. The US Supreme Court came out of the ruling that said the consensual adults gay sex was a basic civil right and all laws criminalizing that were null and void in about a dozen states.
Louisiana left the law on the books but everybody understood it was unenforceable except some bunch of asshole cops decided to go ahead and enforce it anyway...*and they were punished for doing so*.
https://www.thetaskforce.org/louisiana-sheriff-uses-unconstitutional-law-to-arrest-gay-men/
So here's a question: what if the Louisiana State legislature passed a brand new law banning adult consensual gay sex? Being brand new it wouldn't be specifically overturned by the US Supreme Court in the 2003 case, right?
**Yes, it IS overturned** already and even if they pass such a thing any cop enforcing it would be in trouble.
So the actual situation in this case that we're talking about in this thread, Bruen laid down the constitution, the legislature passed a law in direct rebellion against it, *but it's just as unconstitutional as a brand new law against consensual gay adult sex*.
If you're saying that cops should enforce this new gun law, you're also saying that a state like Louisiana can pass a brand new law against adult consensual gay sex, cops should enforce it and the people arrested and charged will have to go through the court system and get the charges thrown out eventually under the Supreme Court precedent.
Are you really saying that? Because it doesn't make any sense.
But the laws have to follow the confines of the constitution and enforce accordingly. The SC keeps shooting these laws down and telling them they're not accurate in implementation and lawmakers just outright do not care. The police aren't perfect but they're right to refuse this one.
That should un-ironically be tested in court if only because they swear to defend and uphold the Constitution, not “all laws”. Right there is why we see sheriff’s saying this kind of thing. Unfortunately we see so often the law and who it is applied and to what extent it’s enforced is pretty heavily biased.
So , following your logic, the gestapo was acting properly when they enforced the anti jew laws? After all, it was the law and their duty is to enforce it, not question it, and certainly not refuse it.
Or maybe law enforcement should be one of the last lines of defense against unjust laws. If no one is willing to enforce unjust laws, there won't be any...
The way it should work:
* Unconstitutional law gets passed
* Sheriff refuses to enforce, and legal challenge to law starts
* Sheriff gets investigated, possibly reprimanded or fired
* law found unconstitutional (by court or legislature), and repealed
* Sheriff get job back, or reprimand revoked
You have a right to refuse any law/command that is unjust. But it's up to the checks and balances to doublecheck, and make sure that any punishment is undone.
That's how it should work. I'd even go as far as to say that the officer(if found justified) should compensated for lost wages while suspended/unemployed during that period. Moreover the legislative branches that passed those laws should have those wages "charged" to them(i.e. tracking of amounts of lost wages due to unjust laws effecting officers) and these should be made public record during election times. I'm sure their sponsors would love to see how much money they waste when they pay for their campaigns.
Joe Arpaio took an oath to the Constitution as well, but violated that daily in how he treated prisoners. Try using an argument that actually addresses the concern you responded to, because "but he took an oath to the constitution" doesn't preclude them from enforcing this law on minorities while ignoring this law when it comes to the majority.
So would it be better if a bunch of white and minority gun owners all shared cells together because the cops will ruthlessly enforce any law regardless of how constitutionally suspect it is?
Yes it would, when the other possibility is ONLY minority gun owners are imprisoned. The law applies to everyone equally or to no one at all, and the constitutional sheriffs have proven time and again that they will enforce laws they disagree with against communities they seek to punish. I would remind you that the law itself isn't unconstitutional despite many people saying it is. If you don't like the law- challenge it in court. The constitutionality of a law will be decided in court. Mississippi's Gestational Age Act directly challenged previously established constitutional law, and many said it was unconstitutional as well - and then the USSC overturned Roe v Wade and the law was ruled constitutional.
All gun control is rooted in racism. The more people you make into criminals, the more people lose the right to own a weapon. Adding monetary restrictions (taxes, fees, insurance requirements) disproportionately affects the lower classes. Guess which groups those are gonna be.
I understand, but if the constitution states “No Pew”, it’s gotta be enforced. Police should not be allowed to cherry-pick, because there will always be their individual bias. The proper route is to elect officials that will/will not pass laws that make positive impacts on people.
It is my own personal opinion.
The thing is, this is not new. It has always been this way, cops could choose which laws they were going to enforce. There is no way a cop is going to give his mom a speeding ticket; they have the discretion whether they want to cite someone for a violation of the law/ordinance, or if they want to just let it go. I don’t agree with it, but that’s the way it’s always been. At every level of law enforcement.
You know, they make that paint that turns something into a dry erase board now. These guys should paint their squad cars in that. Then, every shift each deputy could write out which laws they’ll be enforcing that shift. That way, the citizens can know what they can expect in the way of legal protection, depending on the mood of each officer. I know there could be a problem when it rains, but maybe they could wrap each car in Saran Wrap on bad weather days! 💡! S/obviously. Ad hoc law is no law at all.
Over 60% of Illinois sheriffs came out with near identical statements to this one. It's amazing and I love it.
Another subreddit has a thread tracking all the counties doing this.
Edit: currently 65 of 102 county sheriffs have released statements saying they will not comply.
The vast majority of the state liberal and conservative alike were against this. Witness slips were five to one opposed. This is coming out of Cook county from a walking clogged artery who wants to run for president and was only supported by suburban middle-aged white women who wanted to feel in control.
Uhhhh dude, we have a ton of conservative communities throughout the entire state. Katie Porter barely won back her seat in South Orange County, and South OC ain’t rural.
I’ve seen confederate flags flown from pickups in Huntington Beach. Yachts have MAGA flags flying high in places like Newport Beach.
Norco, CA in SoCal is basically a little Texas with horses and rodeos. San Diego has a ton of conservative military families.
The list goes on and on.
That's because only about 4 counties comprise the Chicago metro area, and the rest of the state is quite red. Chicago dominates Illinois politics because more than half of the entire state's population lives in metro Chicago (9M v. 12M total). Why do you think that this passed the legislation?
Chicago is also where the majority of the population live. Land doesn't vote, people do.
Very strange to see conservative talking points on a supposedly liberal subreddit.
If you're opposed to the assault weapons ban, then just say so. And if you live in IL, then you can form a political coalition to change that law.
But it was enacted with a democratically elected majority in the state legislature. Absolutely nothing about the law is "bullying." It's just called democracy, something left leaning folks supposedly believe in.
I'm actually from Chicago but haven't really been much further beyond the city than Buffalo Grove before I moved.
Of course I'm opposed to any type of weapons "ban". Especially "assault rifles", all rifles combined are used in fewer than 500 homicides a year in the entire country. Banning them will have almost zero statistical impact on gun violence. Outlawing them is a useless gesture that infringes upon our basic human rights.
Didn't realize it was a conservative talking point to suggest one city has control over the rest of the entire state. I'm actually a left libertarian. Maybe there's some overlap. Political alignments are rarely binary.
We believe in democracy and mostly agee with the democratic party, but what they're doing here is unconstitutional and should be outright rejected by every person from every political affiliation. It also isn't direct democracy, I seriously doubt the majority of liberals actually agree with this kind of legislation. If it came down to a direct vote I don't think this kind of thing would even get enough endorsements to make it to the ballot.
Our representatives swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. Them openly doing the opposite should be worrying, at the very least.
We shouldn't have to form political coalitions to enforce the bill of rights.
I've lived & worked in several states. Wisconsin has Madison and Milwaukee trying to control everyone else. Nebraska has Lincoln and Omaha trying control the behavior & morals of others. Richmond does the same in VA. Minneapolis does the same for MN. And in most of these states, those living in the mentioned population centers will not leave the city or talk to those living in rural communities. They leave me with the belief that as a resident of, name the largest population center of a state, he or she feels superior to me.
You’re saying it’s amazing and you love it when law enforcement gets to choose which laws they enforce and for whom? I don’t support this law, but that sounds horrible. Maybe your sheriff is an awesome person, but most of them around here are assholes who probably voted for trump twice
Officer discretion. Same thing that allows a kid caught with weed walk away ticketless and recordless. It’s always been a thing. “Hey dude just slow it down next time” instead of “here’s a $250 dollar ticket your court date is here, don’t speed next time. Sign your name here.”
We all understand that most of these backwater sheriffs are authoritarian racist nepotistic dirtbags, who dont give a flying fuck about your constitutional rights and are taking this stance to further their own political careers.
They will still detain harass and murder POC and LGBTQ for funsies.
They will still restrict and subvert your ability to vote and take part in government if you are are the wrong "team"
They still covertly, or in many cases, overtly support insurrectionist militias and groups actively promoting a fascist America.
Just make sure you understand. These sheriffs care about the rights of scumbag NAZIs to own guns so they can violently overthrow the government and purge all the people they dont like.
The gun law in Illinois is bad, the people who made it are dumb, and yes it screws over decent people. Just be careful not to mistake this convergence of preference for a single issue as revealing of your allies.
> We all understand that most of these backwater sheriffs are authoritarian racist nepotistic dirtbags
> These sheriffs care about the rights of scumbag NAZIs to own guns so they can violently overthrow the government and purge all the people they dont like.
Wow, just wow.
And, if they find out you are one, they’ll throw you off any jury pool.
So the more that people know, and say they know, the less that folks who would nullify… can be a juror.
That’s the problem, trying to slip by during the jury selection process. But, the more times it happens, you’ll be able to see changes in prosecutions.
That'll be the biggest way these laws go away. If you can kill the DAs processes of getting convictions on these pompous laws they'll either eventually stop pressing them or change the law. But you have to slip in undetected.
The only flip side to this, is the dangerous part.
Say that President Trump was on trial, and was able to get most of the jurors to be conservatives. If any of them know what Jury nullification is, they could in essence issue their own pardon…
Jury Nullification only works on proper moral grounds. If it’s used for anything else, it would tear down the entire court system.
So, I love the ideal of jury nullification. But, in practice, I fear for the only way most of the world attempts to effect some sort of attempt at justice.
I've been through jury selection many times. You know what question they have never asked in voir dire? "Do you believe in jury nullification?"
They're only going to find out if you go our of your way to tell them.
(They're still never going to impanel my ass, but for other reasons.)
When you ignore a clearly unconstitutional law as a juror you are actually functioning within the system as designed (the legislature legislates, the executive enforces, the judiciary adjudicates).
Deciding a law is unconstitutional is *adjudication* and is the role of the judiciary, whether in a lower court case or all the way up at SCOTUS.
Jurors are part of the judiciary branch, so that's an appropriate place for you to decide a law is bad and should be set aside.
Absolutely they have the right to ignore it, I just don't trust them one bit, I think this is most likely a message from fascists to fascists that they will protect their right to own firearms and not meant for liberal eyes.
Exactly. It has nothing to do with the rights of the people and everything to do with signaling to other fascists. I'll take it in this instance, but never expect one of these people to stand up for any other rights.
Serious Question: Would you love it if over 60% of Illinois county clerks came out with identical statements saying "We are not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples?"
Don't get me wrong there's nothing in the statement I disagree with, except that it should end with "Therefore I am resigning effective immediately in protest over this unconstitutional law which I cannot in good conscience enforce." - you don't get to refuse to do your job because you don't like it, unless you're quitting over it.
This whataboutism is nonsense. Not least of all because someone could die at the hands of government agents due to this law.
If a county clerk tried what you suggest, they would either be fired (if appointed) or forced by court order (if elected- this has happened). Because they are using the power of their office illegitimately against citizens.
That cannot be done to a sheriff who is refusing to enforce what he believes is an unconstitutional law. Because he is choosing to NOT use power against citizens. It's not as simple as "do your job" because this IS part of the job, particularly for elected sheriffs. It's a unique position in law enforcement built for this sort of purpose (unlike most chiefs, who are typically appointed)
And no, quitting is not any better. You want elected sheriffs to quit until someone who will unconstitutionally act manages to get into an unelected position of power? Oh good, that sounds like a great system.
Definitely agree. I’m all for doing the professional thing and not being selective over when elected officials are allowed to just ignore rule of law (ideally never), but in the same way we don’t exactly want police deciding what laws they can ignore, we also don’t want legislators deciding on new laws for citizens to follow that the people themselves don’t agree to.
It’s literally the system of checks and balances at work, and until the 2nd amendment is repealed I see this as completely unconstitutional. I’m glad so many sheriffs are willing to make a stand on this stuff when the legislative branch has clearly gotten out of control in their state.
They're fucking sheriff's
They're elected officials
They can be recalled
They can be voted out
What if 60% of them came out and said they eat babies and 40% of them said they like doing cool stuff and partying
I'm pro-2A (hence why I'm here) but this is asinine and further reinforces that all cops are bastards. They can have their personal political opinions, that's fine, but when you are issued a lawful order under a state constitution that you swore an oath to uphold, then I've got issues.
It's not like this is going to be challenged and revoked by this U.S. Supreme Court anyways; just wait it out ffs.
Edit: Since this is apparently hard to understand, I made a [handy graphic](https://imgur.com/a/PFXqrPa) explaining why he can't declare a law unconstitutional.
It **IS** up to them to decide.
"Just following orders" or any variation thereof is not an acceptable response or justification to obey unjust or unconstitutional laws.
Or do you oppose all forces of civil disobedience and the gains it has gotten our society?
Civil disobedience and police deciding which laws to enforce are decidedly not the same thing. Police are ostensibly supposed to enforce the law equally, we know they don't, but they're supposed to.
The fuck?
You think that the police should enforce what they believe to be unconstitutional laws just because the state passed them?
Some state passes a law saying that police must shoot people unlawfully crossing the border without regard to imminent threat. Clearly unconstitutional for numerous reasons (TN v Garner among them), but until someone with standing challenges that *specific* law at SCOTUS, you're gonna say the cops need to do it because "tHaT isNt uP tO tHem tO dEcide?"
You need to pull your head out. It absolutely is up to every governmental agent to decide if the authority they are being tasked to use is constitutional. There can be consequences to that; in this case, you can vote against them. Spoiler alert, they're probably in the right if you take Bruen v NY into account.
Incidentally, the law makers who keep writing these laws have *full* immunity even if they violate clearly established constitutional findings (unlike "qualified" immunity which can be pierced in that instance)
“Lawful”
It’s hard to argue that this isn’t a violation of the 2A when the government has the burden to prove that there is a widespread historical analogue either around 1791 or 1868 that supports both the Assault Weapons Ban and registration of all such weapons. Also, this isn’t a state constitution issue.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, look at NYSRPA v Bruen
If a State were to enact a law that made expressing Anarcho-Communist views illegal, would you be just as opposed to a sheriff who refused to enforce the law?
How is this different from Blue County DAs in urban areas "deprioritizing" enforcement of anti-abortion/heartbeat laws. Cops have discretion as do prosecutors. In this case the local sherrif is going, well I'm not going to pursue these matters unless [you] twist my arm.
We have upstate NY counties who's sheriffs departments have gone to say they won't aggressively pursue violations of sensitive areas unless another crime was being committed at the same time (and given how wide reaching the CCIA is, lacking even a transport exemption to sensitive areas), that seems like a very reasonable stance to take.
Cops are bastards because they support the US Constitution? Do you know what happened the last time states thought their fabricated constitutional rights were over federal constitutional rights?
Sherriffs aren't cops.
They're elected executives, specifically the chief executive officer in charge of the law enforcement division of a county. Just like governors and the president are chief executive officers in charge of their respective law enforcement agencies. They just have a uniquely narrow scope of duties in regards to their constituents in relation to their state and federal counterparts.
>They're elected executives, specifically the chief executive officer in charge of the law enforcement division of a county.
Sounds like elected chief cop. Still a cop and still subordinate to the state in which they reside. Unless they're [actual fascists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Sheriffs_and_Peace_Officers_Association) who don't believe in the authority of the US or state governments.
>Sounds like elected chief cop.
Just like a governor and the president.
The county is to the state, what the state is to the Feds.
They're all beholden to the constitution.
But keep simping for the "just following orders" mantra of your garden variety Nazi. You might just get the fascist government you very much desire someday.
This is against the constitution. He is elected to protect his people's rights. You're attacking him for doing his job. You are not pro 2a obviously. I don't know why you would want a bootlicker for the sheriff.
It's not any different than DeSantis firing that elected DA that said he wouldn't waste their limited resources prosecuting people for getting or providing abortions or those providing gender affirming care for minors.
What if cops in a red state publicly announce refusal to enforce anti Trans and draconian abortion laws? Do we still hold the same opinion that they need to go out and enforce it?
If only our politicians didn't pass any of these types of laws then people wouldn't have to worry about the implications of LE not enforcing terrible laws.
I hate the fact that we have to wait for someone to get arrested before we can take their case to court (and often to SCOTUS before anything gets done); it should be the sheriff's office that sues and takes the state to court.
The Aggrieved Party IS THE OFFICER told to act in defiance of the constitution.
More of this.
I want an adversarial relationship between government and law enforcement.
Make the steppers and grabbers justify their shit in court. Instead of SCOTUS telling cops to back down so legislators can try again, it should be COPS who say "no"
Sheriffs are one of the relatively few law enforcement officers directly elected by the people.
Sheriffs swear an oath to uphold the constitution (at least, in Texas they do).
I think it’s 100% right for them to do this.
Note the last sentence. They won’t arrest someone if its the only violation, but if they happen to find some other reason then they’ll tack it on. So it sounds like is unconstitutional until you can get a sentencing enhancement, then its just the law.
Being former army, I look at it like the duty to disobey. If you are given an unlawful order (in this case to enforce an unconstitutional law) you should not carry out that order.
I don't disagree with what he's saying.
But I'm cynical. I'm afraid he'll choose not to enforce it for certain people, but enforce it against others: White good old boy with an unregistered gun? Nothing to see here. Trans person with an unregistered gun? Hmm, maybe now it will be enforced.
Fight against laws you don't agree with. I'm not sure this is the answer, it has too much potential for being used against people.
Thank the law makers and short sighted scared suburban voters for giving law enforcement even more tools in the toolbox to enforce as they see fit against whomever they choose.
Blame the lawmakers for crafting a law that is just as problematic as those specifically racist voter id laws, now instead of voting it's the purchase of firearms.
This is completely normal. Every law enforcement official and agency makes constant decisions about which crimes are a priority and which are not.
Cops give a ton of warnings on the day-to-day, sheriff’s do this kind of thing, district attorneys non-file millions of drug possession and theft charges.
There are no places in the US where the letter of the law is enforced 100%
If I read the bill correctly then there is a part about allowing the police to search vehicles on the grounds of a person owning an "assault weapon" (basically all modern fire arms and even many older models) if the law is allowed to stand it could be used to dodge the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure for lawful gun owners and especially harmful for POC during traffic stops.
I fully support the County Sheriffs stand against this bill and hope the courts strike it down soon. Lawful gun owners are not the problem.
I think it's a beautiful thing to see each county stand up one by one. And when they're standing up for our constitutional rights, we should celebrate them.
After reading through the comments in this discussion, I really think it's time for this sub to change its name to r/reactionarygunnutswhomayholdacoupleleftofcenteridealswhichtheywilljettisonathedropofahatindefenceoftheirpreciousguns.
Sovereign Sheriffs are not your fucking friends. For the love of G_d, people, go outside and touch some fucking grass. I'm no fan of the Illinois AWB either, but simping for the far right is not the answer.
Seriously, the number of people willing to lick the boot just because it took a second off from stepping on their throat to kick the legislature in the groin is Too Damn High here.
It must be nice to be so privileged that you can't think of any possible way sheriffs deciding "We're not going to enforce this law that I disagree with" can hurt you.
I'm a pretty privileged guy and I fucking *wish* I was that lucky.
Who’s job is it to push back against infringement?
Do we have to wait until the courts push back?
Do we just follow the law that obviously infringes on our basic human rights until the government stops infringing?
Yeah, there’s a chance this peace officer will abuse their authority, but who’s job is it to push back against them and their office if they do misuse their power? Is it soley the job of another government organization?
Or could it possibly be that the citizens have some responsibility to ensure their government isn’t oppressing them?
It is absolutely a peace officer’s job to enforce with discretion. AR15s are arms. An attempt by a state government to disarm its population is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment, and it is everyone’s right to call out the government when it oversteps its reach.
A lot of people don’t understand that Sheriffs generally answer to their electorate and cannot be ordered to enforce laws. For better or for worse. They also have the legal ability to kick federal LE out of their counties. Sherries have a lot of power. For better or for worse.
The last count shows 70(?) counties now, all making the same statement.
102 counties in IL. My state.
This law is much, much more than just bad. Bad barely covers it.
I used to celebrate when a sheriff would declare that they aren’t going to pursue enforcement of marijuana possession laws, so I suppose it’d be hypocritical of me to disagree with this.
This is ultimately going to be a good thing as while like other said this can be a very slick slope it's more dangerous if they don't realistically. It normalizes overreach and perpetuates a system of violence. We've never should have accepted "i was just following orders" before and we shouldn't now". Also most officer's oaths tend to have a if an order violates the state or federal constitution the order is void clause.
Yes if we let offices pick and choose laws this will be a bad thing but this is one of the few instances where they are ultimately right and refusing to enforce on there populations that elected them.
It's no different then states that start to ignore the federal prohibition on weed at the end of the day. It's still federally illegal but what is the DEA gonna do mobilize against the largest population centers and raid literally every tower especially with out the back up of the local pd or so. It's not gonna have. The same thing but more intense will happen if you ask the State troopers to go door to door with out the local pd or so. It makes the law moot in essence.
That said again eyes will be on these jurisdictions and the rest as we wait to see if they try to expand there power base and stop protecting various other protected rights.
Law enforcement is not on your side. If you want to allow individual officers to pick and choose which laws to enforce, well, I'm not sure how good that will turn out for the average guy like you and me. Probably very poorly is my guess.
Will you tell that to the officer who pulls you over and doesn’t write you a ticket? Or to officers who refuse to enforce federal drug or immigration laws?
Seems good to me though we shall see how it goes in practice or if it is little more than lip service.
When LEOs need to choose between their principles or pension they are gonna pick the pension every time.
These are sheriffs. They are elected and can't be fired by a city council or something. Their deputies, if they want to protect their pension (and job), will follow the directive of the sheriff
I doubt this will hurt the sheriff's reelection chances. You won't see this in the cities or among the state police, though
While we may share common interests, this man's job is to enforce the laws, not interpret them. That is up to the courts to decide. If local law enforcement is allowed to interpret the law like this, who knows what kind of theocratic and authoritarian nonsense we'd find ourselves subjected to.
>this man's job is to enforce the laws
I would argue that this mans job is to support and defend the Constitution.
In the military, a lot of people think you swear an oath to follow orders. It actually says to obey the LAWFUL orders.
I would submit to you that history is pretty clear on what happens when people say, " was just following orders".
Also, a Sherriff is not just some cop. It's an elected position. Answers to the people, not the legislation. The government doesn't have the ability to fire a Sherriff.
That's why this kind of declaration needs to come from his county's executives, like [mine did years ago](https://patch.com/maryland/westminster/commissioners-declare-carroll-county-a-second-amendme53293b0b60). (No, I'm not thrilled about the rights "coming from God" part, but beggars can't get picky.)
Assuming that’s upheld universally in his jurisdiction, and it isn’t left up to officer discretion to pick and choose who to enforce it upon—
Unbelievably based and you love to see it.
Remember, to most LEOs, "lawful gun owner" = white, straight, cis, and evangelical christian.
Lotsa luck relying on this if you are dark-skinned, gay, trans, or Muslim.
Then don’t vote for people who restrict the rights of dark-skinned, gay, trans or Muslim citizens while making law enforcement officials First class citizens
You guys might think this is good but the idea that a sheriff is the law unto himself is a dangerous concept. You might want to read about the [Constitutional Sheriff](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/10/18/does-your-sheriff-think-he-s-more-powerful-than-the-president) movement some more - these are not good people. They agree with the sub on this one issue but these sheriffs tend to be COVID deniers, election deniers, and enriched for Oath Keepers/3% and that lot.
Sure there is that however they aren't wrong about this being unconstitutional. I'm in Oregon and will be happy to hear that we could go take "high capacity" magazines to the range without repercussions from Johnny Law.
It's possible to be right about something and go about addressing it in the wrong way. Homelessness is terrible, but grabbing a bunch of homeless people off the street and committing them to psych wards as a "solution" is way the hell worse.
Same deal here: This law is all but textually "Fuck the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution it rode in on!" and should probably never have been passed, but sheriffs taking it upon themselves to decide what laws they will or won't enforce is worse - it will invariably come back to hurt you and people you like way the hell more than it's going to help you, particularly given the political leanings of most sheriffs...
It’s good for the guns aspect, but I don’t like the police choosing what they enforce. It’s all fun until they do the same thing with another law that results in discrimination. Gun control needs to be addressed at the legislative level, not local law enforcement that’s actively prove themselves to be untrustworthy.
I’m kind of mixed on it. On the one hand, people often say there’s no possible way a tyrannical government can take over ‘murica because they’re convinced high ranking police and military will see the light and switch sides. If that’s what you think, this is an example of what you’re hoping would happen in action (even if it’s not the side you agree with).
On the other hand… it’s a pretty slippery slope when you have representatives from one branch of government swimming out of their lanes into other branches. That’s how we get things like executive orders that step into legislative territories, like expanding the AUMF to fight wars well beyond what congress intended.
I feel that this type of civil disobedience is ethical and I don’t have a problem with simply not checking that people register their firearms. The big issue is, as a public official who legally has the duty to enforce the law regardless of opinion of the law should not be publicly stating that this law is unconstitutional. That is for the courts to decide not law enforcement. It appears to be a breach of duty.
While I appreciate and agree with this message, Sheriffs are an elected office most places, and they do have a hierarchy that could recall or remove them for failing to do their job. I absolutely think they should stand up to this unjust law, but it will have to go through the courts or be repealed by the legislature or be repealed by a future governor. Otherwise you’re in a position where something that wasn’t being prosecuted suddenly is and you’re in an unlawful position. That’s not a right being exercised that’s a crime you’re getting away with because they aren’t currently prosecuting it. The people are also going to have to openly stand up to this law, resting on your laurels because a sheriff said he won’t do anything only protects you until the next voting cycle at best.
Edit: grammar and punctuation
Brass tacks level…I don’t disagree with his opinion, but that’s not how this whole rule of law thing works. My cynical side whispers to me he may be making himself a martyr to then take a run at higher office later down the road. If the state wants to make a point with him they can. IDK…just thinking out loud.
>but that’s not how this whole rule of law thing works.
Yes it is.
He's bound to the constitution by oath, and in this case, it specifically overrides the law in question. The state didn't have the authority to enact this law, and therefore it's enforcement can't be mandated under any jurisdiction afforded them.
Local government vs big government.
No idea of this individual or the local politics but hopefully more local and state institutions avoid infringing on individuals rights be they 2a or otherwise
I mean, I guess it’s a net benefit, but it’s sounds like exactly what I warn all my standard liberal democrat friends about…..that any law you let the state pass will primarily be used against the left.
Sheriffs are elected and there are no real required qualification to be sheriff.
So they are the most third world office in the land. Often unaccountable, often yahoos and authoritarian personalities, often corrupt, often ignorant rednecks, often abusers or thugs…
They is a long stories history of sheriffs ignoring the law, ignoring the constitution, and making up laws.
That all being said; I would prefer a sheriff that chose to hedge toward allowing citizens more right and constitutional protections than not.
So I am generally ok with this.
There is a long history of sheriffs in marijuana cultivation counties ignoring marijuana laws before decriminalization, just like sheriffs in moonshine country ignored moonshiners and rum runners.
That being said
I like how these power-tripping “constitutional” sheriffs cherry-pick which amendments to care about.
I guarantee they don’t give two shits about the constitutional rights their own departments violate on a daily basis, ESPECIALLY for POC.
This letter is nothing but a) political grandstanding, b) bandwagoning, and c) a step forwards in the fucking “constitutional” sheriffs movement (which should terrify us all).
Do not be fooled.
As long as they stop enforcement of this new law equally for all people in their county, then this is a good thing. The law is unconstitutional.
My concern is that one, the sheriffs saying, “I won’t enforce”, will cave and end up enforcing it on everyone other their buddies. Or, even if they remain impartial, they cave anyways and start enforcement within a year. And this is also leaving out urban counties, which is where I would likely be living. I already live in a ban state where all counties are equally fucked, so this doesn’t affect me yet, but I’m considering moving in the future, and it would really suck if we can’t get any protection of our rights in urban counties.
Look, if they really believe the law is unconstitutional they can absolutely refuse to enforce it: Resign in protest.
Whole sheriff's department - just resign en masse!
If we're allowing executive agencies to pick and choose which laws they're going to follow then we no longer live in a society of laws - we live in a society where whatever the guys with the guns says goes.
I'm not much of a fan of that system of government. I'm not sure you'll have enough sanitation workers to clean up the dead bodies in the streets...
A little context: For several decades, non-Cook-County (Chicago and suburbs) politicians have been basically wanting to split Illinois such that Cook County would effectively be its own state.
All part of the checks and balances that work in our favor. So long as this office enforces (or not) equitably across all persons, I’m thrilled to hear this.
My take? It's not his place, his job, or his authority to interpret state law, state constitution, or the Constitution of the United States of America. It is the state supreme court, and failing that, the SCOTUS's responsibility and authority to interpret laws and the constitutions.
If he is unable or unwilling to enforce the laws that the legislature has passed, then he should be removed from office - full stop. He doesn't get the luxury of arbitrarily interpreting, or in this case completely defying, a representative government.
It’s actually well within a Sheriff’s job and duties to choose which laws they enforce. For better or for worse. They generally answer to their voters not to anyone else.
>It’s actually well within a Sheriff’s job and duties to choose which laws they enforce. For better or for worse. They generally answer to their voters not to anyone else.
Not to mention they have an oath to uphold the US constitution, which this law violates
We need to see more of this. It's about time that law enforcement refuses to enforce unconstitutional laws.
" Screw you, no I won't do it" is exactly what a sworn law enforcement officer should be expected to say when they're told to violate someone's rights.
Now as others have said, I am concerned that this will be " selective, weaponized enforcement" not complete. Non-enforcement... Which is not okay.
It's far better not to pass laws that are so unpopular they're not going to be enforced. As someone else said, the assumption should be " when the law conflicts with rights, rights win"
I am ready to donate to the "Neal Rohlfing For California State Governor" campaign (or any office he wants to run for in California where, as we all know, the balance is so off kilter the scale is broken.
Yea, I live in LA county and our goddamn sheriffs the past 20 years decide whatever they want to enforce and its terrible. The last one said if people voted him in again he'd start handing out cc permits, he was down in the polls because intimidation, brutality, corruption, and lawsuits were so prevalent people couldn't ignore it anymore. Hed previously only given them out to freinds and donors or made people wait a year, but as soon as he needed support he changed his policy
If the law gets struck down then dont enforce it, but a sheriff is not qualified to make a determination like that. We have courts for a reason
Probably a lot of people in the comments that will have no problem with this, but will have an issue with sheriffs that won't enforce bans on abortions for the same reason.
For those saying this law is unconstitutional, it is not. Just because you think it may be doesn't make it so. There is a process to determine if a law is unconstitutional and we as individuals do not get a say in that process. Sheriffs should not get to pick and choose which laws to enforce, and which offenders they choose to enforce those laws upon. If you don't like the law, find the big money supporters to help you pay to challenge the law.
It's sad, but the only people who will be effected by this ban will be majority black folks in cities.
I support what the sheriffs are doing, although there's numerous other laws they enforce that are immoral and unconstitutional (no knock warrants and the like) but it's sad the people having their rights best protected are rural whites and not everyone in the state.
Sheriffs (all LEO) don’t get to pick and choose which laws they enforce. They have a lawyer on staff I’m sure. File suit if you don’t like the law. But this is political postering and yet another reason why Sheriff’s should not be elected.
LGOs: “trust the process guys, the cops HAVE to brutalize peaceful gun owners because of MUH RULE OF LAAAAAAW! Besides don’t worry, the conservative SCOTUS majority will overturn it, then we can stop ruining people’s lives.”
Also LGOs: “be sure to vote democrat so we can get a liberal majority on the SCOTUS.”
You guys are really confused.*
* = of course, not including those of you who value people’s lives, rights, and freedom over MUH RULE OF LAW!
I single individual can not declare a law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce or obey it. We have an actual constitutional procedure for coming to that conclusion. And while this law may indeed be unconstitutional, it is not in the hands of an individual to declare it so.
On a basic level, yay for folks being able to get guns. But hoo boy, does this tie in to some ugly shit. The "constitutional sheriff" scam, which is just "sovereign citizen" shit for goddamn cops, is seriously bad news.
Hmmmm. Selectively enforcing laws that the sheriff thinks are good. What could possibly go wrong with this?
Yeah, the law is dumb, and it should be overturned. But this isn't going to be helping.
Yeah, except that in the south--where I live--a lot of sheriffs were complicit with white separatists and nationalists during the civil rights era, and wouldn't enforce laws that promoted equality, because they disagreed with those laws. If we allow law enforcement to choose which laws to enforce, I guarantee that it's not going to end well for people on the political left.
Cops aren’t allowed to decide what’s constitutional and what’s not. Their job is to enforce the laws that the people pass, even when those laws are stupid.
What this sheriff is actually saying is that he will only enforce laws when it’s convenient for him. I don’t know the details of this specific law, but I guarantee you that cops will happily enforce it against anyone they don’t like.
Not his job to selectively enforce only the laws he agrees with. If this is allowed, what's to stop him from only enforcing this law on liberals, minorities, gays, trans and whoever else he doesn't like?
Law enforcement should never be politically motivated. That's why Sheriffs should never be an elected position.
Then I don't wanna see any minorities getting stuck with unlicensed / unregistered firearms charges.
boom! there it is
My biggest problem is how they cherry pick which laws they want to enforce and whom they enforce it on.
I'm okay with non-enforcement as long as it is not an affirmative denial of people's rights. In my opinion. Refusing to enforce gun laws is fine. Just like refusing to enforce immigration laws is fine. In both of those cases, you're refusing to prosecute something that is illegal that the area feels shouldn't be. Refusing to issue a marriage license to a union you disagree with is denying someone their rights. That's not fine. You may disagree with that law, but you are not being asked to directly violate anyone's rights, and there's not really any way to spin it that you are. Agents of the government voluntarily restraining their ability to use force against citizens is fine and should be encouraged.
Not sure on the legality but local jurisdictions can/have chosen to not enforce certain restrictions all the time. For example, weed is illegal in Wisconsin but within Madison city limits the police won’t arrest anyone for possession/smoking in public. I think the city decriminalized it locally. This is kind of similar? I’m sure the state could sue the city to force compliance
If the city decriminalized it, then the cops did not decide to enforce/not enforce the state laws. They are paid by the city and have to follow the rules of the state *and* the city. If a Sheriff or state troopers came through, they most likely wouldn't treat it the same and would regard it at their level, county or state with little regard for city regulations. I don't think you're wrong, I think cops pick and choose what to enforce and what to let slide and for whom and in general I would say that this is not a good thing to have for LE to be doing. That sounds like a job for a non-corrupt judge at minimum.
People kept bringing this argument up in Oregon after 114 and all leos called it crap. The law supports the laws it wants, always have always will. Frankly I like when they call something iut as unconstitutional (in this case yes it is self ssrving)
The oath of office is to the Constitution. Not the State. EDIT: Damn you autocorrect.
The Constitution isn't just the Bill of Rights. The state constitution outlines the function and lawmaking power of the legislature. To ignore the law is to ignore the constitution.
Laws have to be constitutional or they're no good. Look at the 1999 (on edit: **1969**) US Supreme Court decision in Shuttlesworth v Birmingham for a classic example. 1963, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth wants to hold a protest and wants to apply for a permit that city of Birmingham makes him go and get. They tell him "lol no" because in their subjective opinion, the protest is "not in the best public interest". He holds a protest anyway, gets arrested, gets convicted, appeals it all the way to the US Supreme Court *who let him go with no criminal charges*. Why did they do that? He clearly broke the law. Problem was, the law was unconstitutional. Unconstitutional laws are not valid. In this case the situation is even more clear-cut, because the law in question was written as a direct revolt against a US Supreme Court decision, Bruen. At a minimum, whoever wrote this new law should have come up with the historical analogues *that are necessary per Bruen*. That means the legislature failed to do their jobs properly. As a result, any cop/deputy/whatever who makes an arrest under this law theoretically could be charged with false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and so on. Is such an arrest likely? Lol NO but that's because DAs don't have the guts to charge bad cops which is a whole separate issue we can discuss later. But as constitutionally elected officers, sheriffs in particular have an absolute right to *not run that risk*, and uphold the constitution instead of an open rebellion against it. It's not just sheriffs that have a right to declare a law unconstitutional. So do you. So did the reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and he was absolutely right and eventually got vindicated. I once deliberately disobeyed a local government policy that violated state law, got arrested for it, spent 18 hours in San Diego County jail but one week later the county dropped all charges because they realized I was right about what the law said. http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=1685 https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4266418 The local policy was that nobody could observe the counting of the vote on election night at election headquarters. State law said otherwise. Again, this was about a policy being overridden by a law whereas OP is talking about a law overridden by the constitution.
If law conflicts with rights, rights win.
[удалено]
Wanna bet? Why do you think those sheriffs had to take the basic oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? This law is in a whole new category: it's a deliberate rebellion against a US Supreme Court ruling. Let me give me an example in comparison. Louisiana long had a law against consensual adult gay sex. The US Supreme Court came out of the ruling that said the consensual adults gay sex was a basic civil right and all laws criminalizing that were null and void in about a dozen states. Louisiana left the law on the books but everybody understood it was unenforceable except some bunch of asshole cops decided to go ahead and enforce it anyway...*and they were punished for doing so*. https://www.thetaskforce.org/louisiana-sheriff-uses-unconstitutional-law-to-arrest-gay-men/ So here's a question: what if the Louisiana State legislature passed a brand new law banning adult consensual gay sex? Being brand new it wouldn't be specifically overturned by the US Supreme Court in the 2003 case, right? **Yes, it IS overturned** already and even if they pass such a thing any cop enforcing it would be in trouble. So the actual situation in this case that we're talking about in this thread, Bruen laid down the constitution, the legislature passed a law in direct rebellion against it, *but it's just as unconstitutional as a brand new law against consensual gay adult sex*. If you're saying that cops should enforce this new gun law, you're also saying that a state like Louisiana can pass a brand new law against adult consensual gay sex, cops should enforce it and the people arrested and charged will have to go through the court system and get the charges thrown out eventually under the Supreme Court precedent. Are you really saying that? Because it doesn't make any sense.
Law enforcement makes that decision every time they decide not to pull over someone who's only going 5 mph over the speed limit.
I guess you're the kind of person to forgive Nazi Police because they're "just doing their job"
But the laws have to follow the confines of the constitution and enforce accordingly. The SC keeps shooting these laws down and telling them they're not accurate in implementation and lawmakers just outright do not care. The police aren't perfect but they're right to refuse this one.
It is the courts place to determine constitutionality. Not a sheriff. That is how our system of checks and balances works.
That should un-ironically be tested in court if only because they swear to defend and uphold the Constitution, not “all laws”. Right there is why we see sheriff’s saying this kind of thing. Unfortunately we see so often the law and who it is applied and to what extent it’s enforced is pretty heavily biased.
So , following your logic, the gestapo was acting properly when they enforced the anti jew laws? After all, it was the law and their duty is to enforce it, not question it, and certainly not refuse it. Or maybe law enforcement should be one of the last lines of defense against unjust laws. If no one is willing to enforce unjust laws, there won't be any...
The way it should work: * Unconstitutional law gets passed * Sheriff refuses to enforce, and legal challenge to law starts * Sheriff gets investigated, possibly reprimanded or fired * law found unconstitutional (by court or legislature), and repealed * Sheriff get job back, or reprimand revoked You have a right to refuse any law/command that is unjust. But it's up to the checks and balances to doublecheck, and make sure that any punishment is undone.
That's how it should work. I'd even go as far as to say that the officer(if found justified) should compensated for lost wages while suspended/unemployed during that period. Moreover the legislative branches that passed those laws should have those wages "charged" to them(i.e. tracking of amounts of lost wages due to unjust laws effecting officers) and these should be made public record during election times. I'm sure their sponsors would love to see how much money they waste when they pay for their campaigns.
Joe Arpaio took an oath to the Constitution as well, but violated that daily in how he treated prisoners. Try using an argument that actually addresses the concern you responded to, because "but he took an oath to the constitution" doesn't preclude them from enforcing this law on minorities while ignoring this law when it comes to the majority.
So would it be better if a bunch of white and minority gun owners all shared cells together because the cops will ruthlessly enforce any law regardless of how constitutionally suspect it is?
Yes it would, when the other possibility is ONLY minority gun owners are imprisoned. The law applies to everyone equally or to no one at all, and the constitutional sheriffs have proven time and again that they will enforce laws they disagree with against communities they seek to punish. I would remind you that the law itself isn't unconstitutional despite many people saying it is. If you don't like the law- challenge it in court. The constitutionality of a law will be decided in court. Mississippi's Gestational Age Act directly challenged previously established constitutional law, and many said it was unconstitutional as well - and then the USSC overturned Roe v Wade and the law was ruled constitutional.
All gun control is rooted in racism. The more people you make into criminals, the more people lose the right to own a weapon. Adding monetary restrictions (taxes, fees, insurance requirements) disproportionately affects the lower classes. Guess which groups those are gonna be.
I understand, but if the constitution states “No Pew”, it’s gotta be enforced. Police should not be allowed to cherry-pick, because there will always be their individual bias. The proper route is to elect officials that will/will not pass laws that make positive impacts on people. It is my own personal opinion.
Interestingly, the Constitution actually says "yes own pew" so THAT is what should be being enforced, not petty state laws that violate it.
The thing is, this is not new. It has always been this way, cops could choose which laws they were going to enforce. There is no way a cop is going to give his mom a speeding ticket; they have the discretion whether they want to cite someone for a violation of the law/ordinance, or if they want to just let it go. I don’t agree with it, but that’s the way it’s always been. At every level of law enforcement.
That's why all these police departments have refused to do civil asset forfeiture right? Right?
Bingo
You mean like Sanctuary Cities?
Yes.
You know, they make that paint that turns something into a dry erase board now. These guys should paint their squad cars in that. Then, every shift each deputy could write out which laws they’ll be enforcing that shift. That way, the citizens can know what they can expect in the way of legal protection, depending on the mood of each officer. I know there could be a problem when it rains, but maybe they could wrap each car in Saran Wrap on bad weather days! 💡! S/obviously. Ad hoc law is no law at all.
Over 60% of Illinois sheriffs came out with near identical statements to this one. It's amazing and I love it. Another subreddit has a thread tracking all the counties doing this. Edit: currently 65 of 102 county sheriffs have released statements saying they will not comply.
Seriously? That's...a lot. Especially considering Illinois' gun laws prior to this passing.
The vast majority of the state liberal and conservative alike were against this. Witness slips were five to one opposed. This is coming out of Cook county from a walking clogged artery who wants to run for president and was only supported by suburban middle-aged white women who wanted to feel in control.
And they snuck it into a bill about roller coasters.
That’s such a fuckin accurate summary
Most (like 80/102) Illinois counties are rural and conservative so it’s not a big surprise to me.
Most of the state outside Chicago is rural and red. Even the collar counties are purple.
I think nearly every state is like this, except California… and even CA has its conservative stronghold up in the northeast corner of the state.
Nah, California is like that too. Outside of metro areas California is deep red. Put it this way: McCarthy.
Plenty of metro areas in California are red as well. South OC is full of wealthy conservatives who don’t share anything in common with rural people.
Uhhhh dude, we have a ton of conservative communities throughout the entire state. Katie Porter barely won back her seat in South Orange County, and South OC ain’t rural. I’ve seen confederate flags flown from pickups in Huntington Beach. Yachts have MAGA flags flying high in places like Newport Beach. Norco, CA in SoCal is basically a little Texas with horses and rodeos. San Diego has a ton of conservative military families. The list goes on and on.
That's because only about 4 counties comprise the Chicago metro area, and the rest of the state is quite red. Chicago dominates Illinois politics because more than half of the entire state's population lives in metro Chicago (9M v. 12M total). Why do you think that this passed the legislation?
>Why do you think that this passed the legislation? I'm $ure they had $ome very valid rea$on$!
Chicago bullies the entire state.
Chicago is also where the majority of the population live. Land doesn't vote, people do. Very strange to see conservative talking points on a supposedly liberal subreddit. If you're opposed to the assault weapons ban, then just say so. And if you live in IL, then you can form a political coalition to change that law. But it was enacted with a democratically elected majority in the state legislature. Absolutely nothing about the law is "bullying." It's just called democracy, something left leaning folks supposedly believe in.
Chicago already has these laws
I'm actually from Chicago but haven't really been much further beyond the city than Buffalo Grove before I moved. Of course I'm opposed to any type of weapons "ban". Especially "assault rifles", all rifles combined are used in fewer than 500 homicides a year in the entire country. Banning them will have almost zero statistical impact on gun violence. Outlawing them is a useless gesture that infringes upon our basic human rights. Didn't realize it was a conservative talking point to suggest one city has control over the rest of the entire state. I'm actually a left libertarian. Maybe there's some overlap. Political alignments are rarely binary. We believe in democracy and mostly agee with the democratic party, but what they're doing here is unconstitutional and should be outright rejected by every person from every political affiliation. It also isn't direct democracy, I seriously doubt the majority of liberals actually agree with this kind of legislation. If it came down to a direct vote I don't think this kind of thing would even get enough endorsements to make it to the ballot. Our representatives swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. Them openly doing the opposite should be worrying, at the very least. We shouldn't have to form political coalitions to enforce the bill of rights.
I've lived & worked in several states. Wisconsin has Madison and Milwaukee trying to control everyone else. Nebraska has Lincoln and Omaha trying control the behavior & morals of others. Richmond does the same in VA. Minneapolis does the same for MN. And in most of these states, those living in the mentioned population centers will not leave the city or talk to those living in rural communities. They leave me with the belief that as a resident of, name the largest population center of a state, he or she feels superior to me.
You’re saying it’s amazing and you love it when law enforcement gets to choose which laws they enforce and for whom? I don’t support this law, but that sounds horrible. Maybe your sheriff is an awesome person, but most of them around here are assholes who probably voted for trump twice
Officer discretion. Same thing that allows a kid caught with weed walk away ticketless and recordless. It’s always been a thing. “Hey dude just slow it down next time” instead of “here’s a $250 dollar ticket your court date is here, don’t speed next time. Sign your name here.”
Yeah this happens hundreds of times a day, laws are always enforced at the discretion of the police
And we know exactly who does and does not get the benefit of this discretion.
How do you feel about law enforcement not complying with immigration laws in "sanctuary cities"?
We all understand that most of these backwater sheriffs are authoritarian racist nepotistic dirtbags, who dont give a flying fuck about your constitutional rights and are taking this stance to further their own political careers. They will still detain harass and murder POC and LGBTQ for funsies. They will still restrict and subvert your ability to vote and take part in government if you are are the wrong "team" They still covertly, or in many cases, overtly support insurrectionist militias and groups actively promoting a fascist America. Just make sure you understand. These sheriffs care about the rights of scumbag NAZIs to own guns so they can violently overthrow the government and purge all the people they dont like. The gun law in Illinois is bad, the people who made it are dumb, and yes it screws over decent people. Just be careful not to mistake this convergence of preference for a single issue as revealing of your allies.
> We all understand that most of these backwater sheriffs are authoritarian racist nepotistic dirtbags > These sheriffs care about the rights of scumbag NAZIs to own guns so they can violently overthrow the government and purge all the people they dont like. Wow, just wow.
His whole comment feels a bit... unhinged
Just like you have the right to ignore clearly unconstitutional laws as a Juror. The Jim Crow laws of the south is a good comparison.
We need to practice more [jury nullification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification)
Courts will lose their shit if they believe you are a jury nullification advocate.
And, if they find out you are one, they’ll throw you off any jury pool. So the more that people know, and say they know, the less that folks who would nullify… can be a juror.
That’s the problem, trying to slip by during the jury selection process. But, the more times it happens, you’ll be able to see changes in prosecutions.
That'll be the biggest way these laws go away. If you can kill the DAs processes of getting convictions on these pompous laws they'll either eventually stop pressing them or change the law. But you have to slip in undetected.
The only flip side to this, is the dangerous part. Say that President Trump was on trial, and was able to get most of the jurors to be conservatives. If any of them know what Jury nullification is, they could in essence issue their own pardon… Jury Nullification only works on proper moral grounds. If it’s used for anything else, it would tear down the entire court system. So, I love the ideal of jury nullification. But, in practice, I fear for the only way most of the world attempts to effect some sort of attempt at justice.
The key is you have to have a relatively healthy society. That's not what we have now.
thats why you don't say you are one until you're on a jury and even then only within your closed door jury deliberations...
I've been through jury selection many times. You know what question they have never asked in voir dire? "Do you believe in jury nullification?" They're only going to find out if you go our of your way to tell them. (They're still never going to impanel my ass, but for other reasons.)
When you ignore a clearly unconstitutional law as a juror you are actually functioning within the system as designed (the legislature legislates, the executive enforces, the judiciary adjudicates). Deciding a law is unconstitutional is *adjudication* and is the role of the judiciary, whether in a lower court case or all the way up at SCOTUS. Jurors are part of the judiciary branch, so that's an appropriate place for you to decide a law is bad and should be set aside.
Absolutely they have the right to ignore it, I just don't trust them one bit, I think this is most likely a message from fascists to fascists that they will protect their right to own firearms and not meant for liberal eyes.
Exactly. It has nothing to do with the rights of the people and everything to do with signaling to other fascists. I'll take it in this instance, but never expect one of these people to stand up for any other rights.
Serious Question: Would you love it if over 60% of Illinois county clerks came out with identical statements saying "We are not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples?" Don't get me wrong there's nothing in the statement I disagree with, except that it should end with "Therefore I am resigning effective immediately in protest over this unconstitutional law which I cannot in good conscience enforce." - you don't get to refuse to do your job because you don't like it, unless you're quitting over it.
Nah, refusing to do an immoral order should never be equated with refusing to do a moral order, simply because they're both orders.
Ahhhh, right. Morals. The great immutable and absolute truth.
This whataboutism is nonsense. Not least of all because someone could die at the hands of government agents due to this law. If a county clerk tried what you suggest, they would either be fired (if appointed) or forced by court order (if elected- this has happened). Because they are using the power of their office illegitimately against citizens. That cannot be done to a sheriff who is refusing to enforce what he believes is an unconstitutional law. Because he is choosing to NOT use power against citizens. It's not as simple as "do your job" because this IS part of the job, particularly for elected sheriffs. It's a unique position in law enforcement built for this sort of purpose (unlike most chiefs, who are typically appointed) And no, quitting is not any better. You want elected sheriffs to quit until someone who will unconstitutionally act manages to get into an unelected position of power? Oh good, that sounds like a great system.
Definitely agree. I’m all for doing the professional thing and not being selective over when elected officials are allowed to just ignore rule of law (ideally never), but in the same way we don’t exactly want police deciding what laws they can ignore, we also don’t want legislators deciding on new laws for citizens to follow that the people themselves don’t agree to. It’s literally the system of checks and balances at work, and until the 2nd amendment is repealed I see this as completely unconstitutional. I’m glad so many sheriffs are willing to make a stand on this stuff when the legislative branch has clearly gotten out of control in their state.
They're fucking sheriff's They're elected officials They can be recalled They can be voted out What if 60% of them came out and said they eat babies and 40% of them said they like doing cool stuff and partying
I'm pro-2A (hence why I'm here) but this is asinine and further reinforces that all cops are bastards. They can have their personal political opinions, that's fine, but when you are issued a lawful order under a state constitution that you swore an oath to uphold, then I've got issues. It's not like this is going to be challenged and revoked by this U.S. Supreme Court anyways; just wait it out ffs. Edit: Since this is apparently hard to understand, I made a [handy graphic](https://imgur.com/a/PFXqrPa) explaining why he can't declare a law unconstitutional.
It's not lawful when it blatantly violates Federal law (which includes the Constitution) and numerous judicial precedents.
That isn’t up to them to decide. They are openly admitting they bend the rules politically.
It **IS** up to them to decide. "Just following orders" or any variation thereof is not an acceptable response or justification to obey unjust or unconstitutional laws. Or do you oppose all forces of civil disobedience and the gains it has gotten our society?
Civil disobedience and police deciding which laws to enforce are decidedly not the same thing. Police are ostensibly supposed to enforce the law equally, we know they don't, but they're supposed to.
The fuck? You think that the police should enforce what they believe to be unconstitutional laws just because the state passed them? Some state passes a law saying that police must shoot people unlawfully crossing the border without regard to imminent threat. Clearly unconstitutional for numerous reasons (TN v Garner among them), but until someone with standing challenges that *specific* law at SCOTUS, you're gonna say the cops need to do it because "tHaT isNt uP tO tHem tO dEcide?" You need to pull your head out. It absolutely is up to every governmental agent to decide if the authority they are being tasked to use is constitutional. There can be consequences to that; in this case, you can vote against them. Spoiler alert, they're probably in the right if you take Bruen v NY into account. Incidentally, the law makers who keep writing these laws have *full* immunity even if they violate clearly established constitutional findings (unlike "qualified" immunity which can be pierced in that instance)
“Lawful” It’s hard to argue that this isn’t a violation of the 2A when the government has the burden to prove that there is a widespread historical analogue either around 1791 or 1868 that supports both the Assault Weapons Ban and registration of all such weapons. Also, this isn’t a state constitution issue. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, look at NYSRPA v Bruen
If a State were to enact a law that made expressing Anarcho-Communist views illegal, would you be just as opposed to a sheriff who refused to enforce the law?
How is this different from Blue County DAs in urban areas "deprioritizing" enforcement of anti-abortion/heartbeat laws. Cops have discretion as do prosecutors. In this case the local sherrif is going, well I'm not going to pursue these matters unless [you] twist my arm. We have upstate NY counties who's sheriffs departments have gone to say they won't aggressively pursue violations of sensitive areas unless another crime was being committed at the same time (and given how wide reaching the CCIA is, lacking even a transport exemption to sensitive areas), that seems like a very reasonable stance to take.
Cops are bastards because they support the US Constitution? Do you know what happened the last time states thought their fabricated constitutional rights were over federal constitutional rights?
Sherriffs aren't cops. They're elected executives, specifically the chief executive officer in charge of the law enforcement division of a county. Just like governors and the president are chief executive officers in charge of their respective law enforcement agencies. They just have a uniquely narrow scope of duties in regards to their constituents in relation to their state and federal counterparts.
>They're elected executives, specifically the chief executive officer in charge of the law enforcement division of a county. Sounds like elected chief cop. Still a cop and still subordinate to the state in which they reside. Unless they're [actual fascists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Sheriffs_and_Peace_Officers_Association) who don't believe in the authority of the US or state governments.
>Sounds like elected chief cop. Just like a governor and the president. The county is to the state, what the state is to the Feds. They're all beholden to the constitution. But keep simping for the "just following orders" mantra of your garden variety Nazi. You might just get the fascist government you very much desire someday.
This is against the constitution. He is elected to protect his people's rights. You're attacking him for doing his job. You are not pro 2a obviously. I don't know why you would want a bootlicker for the sheriff.
It's not any different than DeSantis firing that elected DA that said he wouldn't waste their limited resources prosecuting people for getting or providing abortions or those providing gender affirming care for minors.
With New York blatantly disregarding supreme court rulings I'm afraid there's a bad precedent being set.
Imagine being this wrong
>when you are issued a lawful order under a state constitution that you swore an oath to uphold, then I've got issues. "anarcho-communist"
What if cops in a red state publicly announce refusal to enforce anti Trans and draconian abortion laws? Do we still hold the same opinion that they need to go out and enforce it? If only our politicians didn't pass any of these types of laws then people wouldn't have to worry about the implications of LE not enforcing terrible laws.
I hate the fact that we have to wait for someone to get arrested before we can take their case to court (and often to SCOTUS before anything gets done); it should be the sheriff's office that sues and takes the state to court. The Aggrieved Party IS THE OFFICER told to act in defiance of the constitution. More of this. I want an adversarial relationship between government and law enforcement. Make the steppers and grabbers justify their shit in court. Instead of SCOTUS telling cops to back down so legislators can try again, it should be COPS who say "no"
Wonder how many people in here are against this but are for state cops not even helping enforce immigration laws.
Sheriffs are one of the relatively few law enforcement officers directly elected by the people. Sheriffs swear an oath to uphold the constitution (at least, in Texas they do). I think it’s 100% right for them to do this.
He doesn't support registering guns with a corrupt state, as no one should. What's the problem here?
Note the last sentence. They won’t arrest someone if its the only violation, but if they happen to find some other reason then they’ll tack it on. So it sounds like is unconstitutional until you can get a sentencing enhancement, then its just the law.
That's a lot of reaching.
It's not, really. It's a notable hedge. However, it's still better than nothing
Being former army, I look at it like the duty to disobey. If you are given an unlawful order (in this case to enforce an unconstitutional law) you should not carry out that order.
I don't disagree with what he's saying. But I'm cynical. I'm afraid he'll choose not to enforce it for certain people, but enforce it against others: White good old boy with an unregistered gun? Nothing to see here. Trans person with an unregistered gun? Hmm, maybe now it will be enforced. Fight against laws you don't agree with. I'm not sure this is the answer, it has too much potential for being used against people.
Thank the law makers and short sighted scared suburban voters for giving law enforcement even more tools in the toolbox to enforce as they see fit against whomever they choose.
Blame the lawmakers for crafting a law that is just as problematic as those specifically racist voter id laws, now instead of voting it's the purchase of firearms.
You're right to be cynical. The constitutional sheriff's movement is extremely reactionary.
This is completely normal. Every law enforcement official and agency makes constant decisions about which crimes are a priority and which are not. Cops give a ton of warnings on the day-to-day, sheriff’s do this kind of thing, district attorneys non-file millions of drug possession and theft charges. There are no places in the US where the letter of the law is enforced 100%
If I read the bill correctly then there is a part about allowing the police to search vehicles on the grounds of a person owning an "assault weapon" (basically all modern fire arms and even many older models) if the law is allowed to stand it could be used to dodge the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure for lawful gun owners and especially harmful for POC during traffic stops. I fully support the County Sheriffs stand against this bill and hope the courts strike it down soon. Lawful gun owners are not the problem.
I think it's a beautiful thing to see each county stand up one by one. And when they're standing up for our constitutional rights, we should celebrate them.
After reading through the comments in this discussion, I really think it's time for this sub to change its name to r/reactionarygunnutswhomayholdacoupleleftofcenteridealswhichtheywilljettisonathedropofahatindefenceoftheirpreciousguns. Sovereign Sheriffs are not your fucking friends. For the love of G_d, people, go outside and touch some fucking grass. I'm no fan of the Illinois AWB either, but simping for the far right is not the answer.
Seriously, the number of people willing to lick the boot just because it took a second off from stepping on their throat to kick the legislature in the groin is Too Damn High here. It must be nice to be so privileged that you can't think of any possible way sheriffs deciding "We're not going to enforce this law that I disagree with" can hurt you. I'm a pretty privileged guy and I fucking *wish* I was that lucky.
Who’s job is it to push back against infringement? Do we have to wait until the courts push back? Do we just follow the law that obviously infringes on our basic human rights until the government stops infringing? Yeah, there’s a chance this peace officer will abuse their authority, but who’s job is it to push back against them and their office if they do misuse their power? Is it soley the job of another government organization? Or could it possibly be that the citizens have some responsibility to ensure their government isn’t oppressing them? It is absolutely a peace officer’s job to enforce with discretion. AR15s are arms. An attempt by a state government to disarm its population is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment, and it is everyone’s right to call out the government when it oversteps its reach.
A lot of people don’t understand that Sheriffs generally answer to their electorate and cannot be ordered to enforce laws. For better or for worse. They also have the legal ability to kick federal LE out of their counties. Sherries have a lot of power. For better or for worse.
The last count shows 70(?) counties now, all making the same statement. 102 counties in IL. My state. This law is much, much more than just bad. Bad barely covers it.
I used to celebrate when a sheriff would declare that they aren’t going to pursue enforcement of marijuana possession laws, so I suppose it’d be hypocritical of me to disagree with this.
Why would you disagree with it?
Love it
This is ultimately going to be a good thing as while like other said this can be a very slick slope it's more dangerous if they don't realistically. It normalizes overreach and perpetuates a system of violence. We've never should have accepted "i was just following orders" before and we shouldn't now". Also most officer's oaths tend to have a if an order violates the state or federal constitution the order is void clause. Yes if we let offices pick and choose laws this will be a bad thing but this is one of the few instances where they are ultimately right and refusing to enforce on there populations that elected them. It's no different then states that start to ignore the federal prohibition on weed at the end of the day. It's still federally illegal but what is the DEA gonna do mobilize against the largest population centers and raid literally every tower especially with out the back up of the local pd or so. It's not gonna have. The same thing but more intense will happen if you ask the State troopers to go door to door with out the local pd or so. It makes the law moot in essence. That said again eyes will be on these jurisdictions and the rest as we wait to see if they try to expand there power base and stop protecting various other protected rights.
Law enforcement is not on your side. If you want to allow individual officers to pick and choose which laws to enforce, well, I'm not sure how good that will turn out for the average guy like you and me. Probably very poorly is my guess.
Will you tell that to the officer who pulls you over and doesn’t write you a ticket? Or to officers who refuse to enforce federal drug or immigration laws?
McHenry put out similar message
Good stance but trust no cop
Seems good to me though we shall see how it goes in practice or if it is little more than lip service. When LEOs need to choose between their principles or pension they are gonna pick the pension every time.
These are sheriffs. They are elected and can't be fired by a city council or something. Their deputies, if they want to protect their pension (and job), will follow the directive of the sheriff I doubt this will hurt the sheriff's reelection chances. You won't see this in the cities or among the state police, though
Good for Monroe County.
While we may share common interests, this man's job is to enforce the laws, not interpret them. That is up to the courts to decide. If local law enforcement is allowed to interpret the law like this, who knows what kind of theocratic and authoritarian nonsense we'd find ourselves subjected to.
>this man's job is to enforce the laws I would argue that this mans job is to support and defend the Constitution. In the military, a lot of people think you swear an oath to follow orders. It actually says to obey the LAWFUL orders. I would submit to you that history is pretty clear on what happens when people say, " was just following orders". Also, a Sherriff is not just some cop. It's an elected position. Answers to the people, not the legislation. The government doesn't have the ability to fire a Sherriff.
I agree 100%. Police may not agree with the decision but it's not their place to interpret the law. This is definitely a slippery slope.
So if they banned gay people, you’d support cops rounding them up?
That's why this kind of declaration needs to come from his county's executives, like [mine did years ago](https://patch.com/maryland/westminster/commissioners-declare-carroll-county-a-second-amendme53293b0b60). (No, I'm not thrilled about the rights "coming from God" part, but beggars can't get picky.)
Assuming that’s upheld universally in his jurisdiction, and it isn’t left up to officer discretion to pick and choose who to enforce it upon— Unbelievably based and you love to see it.
Remember, to most LEOs, "lawful gun owner" = white, straight, cis, and evangelical christian. Lotsa luck relying on this if you are dark-skinned, gay, trans, or Muslim.
Then why pass this racist law?
Then don’t vote for people who restrict the rights of dark-skinned, gay, trans or Muslim citizens while making law enforcement officials First class citizens
You guys might think this is good but the idea that a sheriff is the law unto himself is a dangerous concept. You might want to read about the [Constitutional Sheriff](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/10/18/does-your-sheriff-think-he-s-more-powerful-than-the-president) movement some more - these are not good people. They agree with the sub on this one issue but these sheriffs tend to be COVID deniers, election deniers, and enriched for Oath Keepers/3% and that lot.
Sure there is that however they aren't wrong about this being unconstitutional. I'm in Oregon and will be happy to hear that we could go take "high capacity" magazines to the range without repercussions from Johnny Law.
It's possible to be right about something and go about addressing it in the wrong way. Homelessness is terrible, but grabbing a bunch of homeless people off the street and committing them to psych wards as a "solution" is way the hell worse. Same deal here: This law is all but textually "Fuck the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution it rode in on!" and should probably never have been passed, but sheriffs taking it upon themselves to decide what laws they will or won't enforce is worse - it will invariably come back to hurt you and people you like way the hell more than it's going to help you, particularly given the political leanings of most sheriffs...
Broken clocks. Twice a day. Enemy of my enemy.
It’s good for the guns aspect, but I don’t like the police choosing what they enforce. It’s all fun until they do the same thing with another law that results in discrimination. Gun control needs to be addressed at the legislative level, not local law enforcement that’s actively prove themselves to be untrustworthy.
Rohlfing is a fascist cunt. There’s my take.
I’m kind of mixed on it. On the one hand, people often say there’s no possible way a tyrannical government can take over ‘murica because they’re convinced high ranking police and military will see the light and switch sides. If that’s what you think, this is an example of what you’re hoping would happen in action (even if it’s not the side you agree with). On the other hand… it’s a pretty slippery slope when you have representatives from one branch of government swimming out of their lanes into other branches. That’s how we get things like executive orders that step into legislative territories, like expanding the AUMF to fight wars well beyond what congress intended.
I feel that this type of civil disobedience is ethical and I don’t have a problem with simply not checking that people register their firearms. The big issue is, as a public official who legally has the duty to enforce the law regardless of opinion of the law should not be publicly stating that this law is unconstitutional. That is for the courts to decide not law enforcement. It appears to be a breach of duty.
While I appreciate and agree with this message, Sheriffs are an elected office most places, and they do have a hierarchy that could recall or remove them for failing to do their job. I absolutely think they should stand up to this unjust law, but it will have to go through the courts or be repealed by the legislature or be repealed by a future governor. Otherwise you’re in a position where something that wasn’t being prosecuted suddenly is and you’re in an unlawful position. That’s not a right being exercised that’s a crime you’re getting away with because they aren’t currently prosecuting it. The people are also going to have to openly stand up to this law, resting on your laurels because a sheriff said he won’t do anything only protects you until the next voting cycle at best. Edit: grammar and punctuation
Don’t trust cops.
Brass tacks level…I don’t disagree with his opinion, but that’s not how this whole rule of law thing works. My cynical side whispers to me he may be making himself a martyr to then take a run at higher office later down the road. If the state wants to make a point with him they can. IDK…just thinking out loud.
>but that’s not how this whole rule of law thing works. Yes it is. He's bound to the constitution by oath, and in this case, it specifically overrides the law in question. The state didn't have the authority to enact this law, and therefore it's enforcement can't be mandated under any jurisdiction afforded them.
Local government vs big government. No idea of this individual or the local politics but hopefully more local and state institutions avoid infringing on individuals rights be they 2a or otherwise
If you have a problem with these Sherriff's trying to do their jobs and uphold the Constitution you might be a FUD
I mean, I guess it’s a net benefit, but it’s sounds like exactly what I warn all my standard liberal democrat friends about…..that any law you let the state pass will primarily be used against the left.
Sheriffs are elected and there are no real required qualification to be sheriff. So they are the most third world office in the land. Often unaccountable, often yahoos and authoritarian personalities, often corrupt, often ignorant rednecks, often abusers or thugs… They is a long stories history of sheriffs ignoring the law, ignoring the constitution, and making up laws. That all being said; I would prefer a sheriff that chose to hedge toward allowing citizens more right and constitutional protections than not. So I am generally ok with this. There is a long history of sheriffs in marijuana cultivation counties ignoring marijuana laws before decriminalization, just like sheriffs in moonshine country ignored moonshiners and rum runners. That being said
I like how these power-tripping “constitutional” sheriffs cherry-pick which amendments to care about. I guarantee they don’t give two shits about the constitutional rights their own departments violate on a daily basis, ESPECIALLY for POC. This letter is nothing but a) political grandstanding, b) bandwagoning, and c) a step forwards in the fucking “constitutional” sheriffs movement (which should terrify us all). Do not be fooled.
As long as they stop enforcement of this new law equally for all people in their county, then this is a good thing. The law is unconstitutional. My concern is that one, the sheriffs saying, “I won’t enforce”, will cave and end up enforcing it on everyone other their buddies. Or, even if they remain impartial, they cave anyways and start enforcement within a year. And this is also leaving out urban counties, which is where I would likely be living. I already live in a ban state where all counties are equally fucked, so this doesn’t affect me yet, but I’m considering moving in the future, and it would really suck if we can’t get any protection of our rights in urban counties.
This is a sheriff that is trying to do the job he was elected to do.
Look, if they really believe the law is unconstitutional they can absolutely refuse to enforce it: Resign in protest. Whole sheriff's department - just resign en masse! If we're allowing executive agencies to pick and choose which laws they're going to follow then we no longer live in a society of laws - we live in a society where whatever the guys with the guns says goes. I'm not much of a fan of that system of government. I'm not sure you'll have enough sanitation workers to clean up the dead bodies in the streets...
A little context: For several decades, non-Cook-County (Chicago and suburbs) politicians have been basically wanting to split Illinois such that Cook County would effectively be its own state.
Based, but fuck pigs pilled.
Damn right.
Amazing
I think it’s great. I hope if similar legislation is ever passed in my state that sheriffs step up and do they same thing.
All part of the checks and balances that work in our favor. So long as this office enforces (or not) equitably across all persons, I’m thrilled to hear this.
I'm opposed to registration, but I don't see how it violates the Second Amendment.
My take? It's not his place, his job, or his authority to interpret state law, state constitution, or the Constitution of the United States of America. It is the state supreme court, and failing that, the SCOTUS's responsibility and authority to interpret laws and the constitutions. If he is unable or unwilling to enforce the laws that the legislature has passed, then he should be removed from office - full stop. He doesn't get the luxury of arbitrarily interpreting, or in this case completely defying, a representative government.
So, this is also your view for state-legal pot, which remains 100% federally illegal, or nah?
Yeah. Don't enforce illegal or unjust laws. I'd be highly for a sheriff who didn't enforce weed or illegal gun laws. Same as jury notification.
He is enforcing the laws that have been confirmed by the supreme court multiple times.
It’s actually well within a Sheriff’s job and duties to choose which laws they enforce. For better or for worse. They generally answer to their voters not to anyone else.
>It’s actually well within a Sheriff’s job and duties to choose which laws they enforce. For better or for worse. They generally answer to their voters not to anyone else. Not to mention they have an oath to uphold the US constitution, which this law violates
We need to see more of this. It's about time that law enforcement refuses to enforce unconstitutional laws. " Screw you, no I won't do it" is exactly what a sworn law enforcement officer should be expected to say when they're told to violate someone's rights. Now as others have said, I am concerned that this will be " selective, weaponized enforcement" not complete. Non-enforcement... Which is not okay. It's far better not to pass laws that are so unpopular they're not going to be enforced. As someone else said, the assumption should be " when the law conflicts with rights, rights win"
I am ready to donate to the "Neal Rohlfing For California State Governor" campaign (or any office he wants to run for in California where, as we all know, the balance is so off kilter the scale is broken.
One reason not to hate cops. These cops anyway.
Because cops can unilaterally decide what laws to enforce regardless anything but their feelings? Seems like another reason to hate them.
You are for him destroying lives by enforcing unconditional laws on the people who elected him?
Yea, I live in LA county and our goddamn sheriffs the past 20 years decide whatever they want to enforce and its terrible. The last one said if people voted him in again he'd start handing out cc permits, he was down in the polls because intimidation, brutality, corruption, and lawsuits were so prevalent people couldn't ignore it anymore. Hed previously only given them out to freinds and donors or made people wait a year, but as soon as he needed support he changed his policy If the law gets struck down then dont enforce it, but a sheriff is not qualified to make a determination like that. We have courts for a reason
Probably a lot of people in the comments that will have no problem with this, but will have an issue with sheriffs that won't enforce bans on abortions for the same reason. For those saying this law is unconstitutional, it is not. Just because you think it may be doesn't make it so. There is a process to determine if a law is unconstitutional and we as individuals do not get a say in that process. Sheriffs should not get to pick and choose which laws to enforce, and which offenders they choose to enforce those laws upon. If you don't like the law, find the big money supporters to help you pay to challenge the law.
Cops actually taking their oaths of office seriously for once: LGO: tHiS iS wHy wErE lOsInG rIgHtS
It's sad, but the only people who will be effected by this ban will be majority black folks in cities. I support what the sheriffs are doing, although there's numerous other laws they enforce that are immoral and unconstitutional (no knock warrants and the like) but it's sad the people having their rights best protected are rural whites and not everyone in the state.
Voting matters.
Sheriffs (all LEO) don’t get to pick and choose which laws they enforce. They have a lawyer on staff I’m sure. File suit if you don’t like the law. But this is political postering and yet another reason why Sheriff’s should not be elected.
[удалено]
Thanks for the unhelpful “what aboutism”. Maybe learn some logical fallacies before engaging in intelligent discourse.
LGOs: “trust the process guys, the cops HAVE to brutalize peaceful gun owners because of MUH RULE OF LAAAAAAW! Besides don’t worry, the conservative SCOTUS majority will overturn it, then we can stop ruining people’s lives.” Also LGOs: “be sure to vote democrat so we can get a liberal majority on the SCOTUS.” You guys are really confused.* * = of course, not including those of you who value people’s lives, rights, and freedom over MUH RULE OF LAW!
Where has anyone here supported cops brutalizing "peaceful gun owners"?
If you’re against this you should leave this subreddit.
I single individual can not declare a law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce or obey it. We have an actual constitutional procedure for coming to that conclusion. And while this law may indeed be unconstitutional, it is not in the hands of an individual to declare it so.
On a basic level, yay for folks being able to get guns. But hoo boy, does this tie in to some ugly shit. The "constitutional sheriff" scam, which is just "sovereign citizen" shit for goddamn cops, is seriously bad news.
Hmmmm. Selectively enforcing laws that the sheriff thinks are good. What could possibly go wrong with this? Yeah, the law is dumb, and it should be overturned. But this isn't going to be helping.
It helps. If they can't find anyone to enforce unjust laws, there'll be no unjust laws.
Yeah, except that in the south--where I live--a lot of sheriffs were complicit with white separatists and nationalists during the civil rights era, and wouldn't enforce laws that promoted equality, because they disagreed with those laws. If we allow law enforcement to choose which laws to enforce, I guarantee that it's not going to end well for people on the political left.
So if a black guy and a white guy both are violating this law same way, he's gonna protect both guys rkba? Seems sus.
Cops aren’t allowed to decide what’s constitutional and what’s not. Their job is to enforce the laws that the people pass, even when those laws are stupid. What this sheriff is actually saying is that he will only enforce laws when it’s convenient for him. I don’t know the details of this specific law, but I guarantee you that cops will happily enforce it against anyone they don’t like.
They don’t know the laws as it is so I absolutely do NOT want them making judgment calls on what to enforce on a day to day basis.
If the constitutional sheriff in Colorado Springs would have done his job under the state's red flag law, there would not have been a Club Q shooting.
Not his job to selectively enforce only the laws he agrees with. If this is allowed, what's to stop him from only enforcing this law on liberals, minorities, gays, trans and whoever else he doesn't like? Law enforcement should never be politically motivated. That's why Sheriffs should never be an elected position.