I think I need to move to McKee
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...l-In-My-County
I think I need to move to McKee
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...l-In-My-County
Many people do not realize that often, in situations like this, that the County Sheriff is the ultimate law enforcement authority and as such will make the determination as to whether to enforce a questionable law.
MOLON LABE!
He wont' be alone.
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
I was listening to Fox radio yesterday when Sheriff Snyder came on. Yes, Sheriff Snyder is the Martin Co sheriff (I live in Martin Co) and his office is directly across the street from my clinic. He was just elected (replaced Sheriff Crowder who ran for Congress against Allen West--Crowder lost in the primary but West lost in the General Election). Anyway, Snyder is one of those who says he won't enforce the laws. I'm not sure I agree with this because I do not believe in selective enforcement of the laws. The purpose of the police dept is not to determine what laws to enforce and what not to. Their job is to enforce them all. I disagreed with the Obama administration and Eric Holder when he did this. Congress is who makes the laws and the Supreme Court is the one who determines whether or not they are constitutional.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
There are times when men of good conscience cannot blindly follow orders -- Captain Picard.Originally Posted by Doc
I have no problem with civil disobedience, including by those in positions of enforcement. He has not selectively enforced them on individuals and has been totally forthright in his stance and not corrupt. He can of course be replaced by someone by the voters, but his approach is the proper way to handle civil disobedience. He has simply refused to comply.
I'm good with that even when I may disagree as it is an important brake on government power. If our citizens refuse to blindly follow orders then no army can be raised and turned on the People.
I'm esp. good with it when their stance is they were sworn to uphold the Constitution and refuse to enforce a law b/c it is against that supreme law. I fear, though it sounds extremist, we may be reaching a point in this country where we will need to see a good bit more of these stances taken if we are to save the document.
I didn't like it when Holder decided what laws he would enforce and which ones he would ignore, and I criticized him for doing so. I won't be a hypocrite and be critical when somebody who doesn't hold the same opinion as me ignores the law but agree with it when they do hold my opinion.
Congress makes the laws
SCOTUS interprets the laws
Justice enforces the laws.
Don't like the laws then change them by the methods outlined in the Constitution. Civil disobedience is fine. No problem with that at all as it is a method to bring about change however a LEO is exactly what the title says...law enforcement officer. His (or her) job is to enforce the laws. Not selectively enforce, not enforce the ones you like. Its enforce all of them. If they want to challenge the law then do so. If they want to engage in civil disobedient then do so on their time, not when they are being paid to enforce the laws, all the laws, of the land.
PS-I make it a habit to not follow the advice of a factious TV character who hasn't yet been born.
Last edited by Doc; 01-28-2013 at 03:52 PM.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
I didn't quote Star Wars. that's just fantasy. Star Trek is real.
PS-I make it a habit to not follow the advice of a factious TV character who hasn't yet been born.
Besides, the quote is based in a real premise, which is the basis for war crimes among other things. An expectation that even an elected or appointed official or soldier must sometimes refuse to follow orders. The jobs aren't absolute, there are limits.
There's a difference between Holder and your Sheriff. First and most important Holder isn't elected. He's the equivalent to a deputy. His obligation is to his boss, the Sheriff's obligation is to the citizens.
The appropriate disobedience for them is to resign. The Sheriff can stand for reelection or face recall. Disobedience doesn't mean no consequences. Holder and his ilk want to have their cake and eat it too.
This Sheriff also said up front what he was doing. No lip service then doing nothing, he was completely forthright. Holder and such people aren't,they pick and choose but don't take a stand. Manipulating the law as you desire isn't the same as disobediently refusing to enforce a law which you feel is in violation of your duties.
Also, Holder is federal, and civil disobedience is a local and state level action for the most part. State and local officials are far more accountable for these kinds of actions.
Making a public statement and dealing with the consequences is the difference between selective enforcement and civil disobedience.
Being a man of good conscience means standing up publicly for what you believe and taking the consequences. Your sheriff seems willing to do that, Holder would never do that in a million years.
It's a gray area, but I'm good with those who stand up and say what they're going to do versus the sleazebags who hide it.
One other point worth noting, and think about this one: most Sheriffs have walked in harm's way more than once and know that their word means something. It means it's the truth and they will stand by their word.
Do any of you believe that about Eric Holder? For a second?
There are men, and then there are mice. I know which one the Sheriff is. Care to take a guess as to which one Holder is?
MOLON LABE!
Do I have to limit it to just mice? I was thinking more like a locust, a plague on Man.
I think there are two keys to what Peyman is saying. First he is refusing to unnecessarily put his staff in a position in which they could be harmed. Second, he is correctly using civil disobedience by refusing to enforce laws that could be unconstitutional. Based on two recent SCOTUS rulings the semiautomatic weapons ban would be unconstitutional because greater than half the weapons sold to the general public fall into the category. The MacDonald and Heller cases both struck down handgun bans because those arms were customarily used for personal defense.
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
I'm sure Star Wars was the past, not the future.I didn't quote Star Wars. that's just fantasy. Star Trek is real.
hence I wasn't referencing any S.W. character.
IMO its a slippery slope when the people who are charged with enforcing the laws selective and unilaterally decide what laws they want to enforce. If any gun control law is passed, it will be challenged on constitutionality. When it does then the courts will address it. Realistically its a bit premature for any sheriff to say he won't enforce a law
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Holder is an idealogue puppet. Obama says jump and he asks how high.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Holder should be prosecuted for Fast and Furious.
Should be? Absolutely because he violated the law.
Will be? No because of selective enforcement of the law.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Doc it is a slippery slope, or at least a very gray area. When is revolution justified? When is civil disobedience or a soldier refusing orders? There's no hard and fast way to judge it, and no doubt opinions will vary no matter the situation.
To me that doesn't invalidate the act. If a person is acting in good conscience that is the major test. If they are being honest and clear to the public about their actions that is another.
In this case it's up to the voters of that county to decide if this is a rightful situation or not. As long as he's forthright like he's being, they have that opportunity and haven't been denied the rule of law, he's forced a choice about the law.
I won't say it's clear at all, but if we become absolutist about those who should enforce the law doing so then the American revolution never happens. Many officials of the Crown disobeyed their duties and the law.
Is a soldier refusing to advance on the enemy in the right? Probably not. Is a soldier refusing to drop his bombs on Dresden in the right? Tougher question. Is a soldier ordered to gun down innocent civilians who refuses in the right? More likely. It's a judgement call.
I assume this Sheriff can face recall and certainly an election and even criminal prosecution for his acts. The People have recourse if his acts or lack of them are not consistent with their views. He's being a man of good conscience, the voters can decide if he's right.
Doc.......... I will not enforce that law if it were to be enacted. First of all, for such a law to be 100% legal, Congress would have to rescind the 2nd Amendment. I do not see that happening in my lifetime. Second, just as in the military, I am not obligated to enforce what I know to be an illegal law and I will not do so. Third, not only have I sworn an oath as a LEO, but I swore the same oath as a soldier in the U. S. Army, and if I enforced a law that I know is illegal, then I become that which I detest. I won't do it. And most LEO's I know won't do it either. And neither will most U. S. military troops. So while it could be a law, what we would know is that it is not a law worth giving our lives for.
I will not be a slave, nor will I use force to enslave an innocent either. That's not how I was raised and not what I believe. I won't.do it.
We are quickly approaching a pivotal point in our country's history where men of reason are going to say "Enough!", and it would not surprise me if we see armed resistance to what the government wants to do. The list of grievances against the government grows each day, just as it did in the months & years before the movement for American independence. At what point do we reach that threshold that makes reasonable people rebel against unfair & illegal government?
It has happened before and it can happen again. I don't want to see it, but when the government becomes oppressive & intolerant of the people then the people have the right to demand a new government and use whatever means necessary to change that government.
I will not disarm a man that has not committed a crime, nor will I be a government pawn and enslave a man who has done no wrong. So on this point we may disagree, respectfully.
MOLON LABE!
Whatever the point of no return is, we need a good margin prior to that. I think it has become a "not if, but when" situation because of the immigration fiasco. I was encouraged by your thoughts on LEOs and most troops. I'm curious as to how high in military rank you think are strictly loyal to the constitution as opposed to to the CIC.
Last edited by badrose; 01-29-2013 at 11:47 AM.
Cool as a rule, but sometimes bad is bad.
I'm looking at the bigger picture. Regardless of the law, its the justice depts job to enforce the laws. It is congress' job to produce the laws, courts job to interpret the law. Heck, there are lots of laws that I disagree with yet if it was my job to enforce them, I would do so. If the law is unconstitutional, that is the courts job to determine that, not mine. I might have an opinion on whether it is or not however I'm not the one who determines that. As an example-I believe Obama care is unconstitutional and should be struck down. The courts didn't. OK, so we do whatever we can to get the laws changed. That's how its suppose to work. I'll vote for folks who oppose the law, etc... but until that happens I'll have to obey the law.
As far as this particular issue goes, I think any claim that they won't enforce is a bit premature considering the law hasn't been debated, etc.... It flies in the face of the Constitution so let the SCOTUS make that ruling before we its arbitrarily decided whether or not it will be enforced. I have no issue with any citizen regardless of their job, be in LEO or gun dealer or gun owner, having an opinion on the legality of it. I do have an issue with a person who is charged with enforcing the laws deciding on what laws they will enforce. Christ, I've listened to the gun advocates claim for years that we don't need more llaws, we just need to enforce the ones we already have. Well I say "yep", enforce the laws even if you don't like them. Currently the Obama administration has elected to not enforce many of the immigration laws. I say that's a pile of crap. If you don't like the law then CHANGE it, don't ignore it because the guy who comes in after you might not elect to ignore, might enforce it. IMO it would be better to change it now rather than ignore it.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Good question, bad. Not sure I can answer that one with any concrete certainty. I know from recent conversations with some of the guys I work with as to how they perceive the situation. As to how most soldiers would act, honestly do not know but firmly believe the ranks would thin out drastically due to the same things that we LEO's have discussed.
All of that is absolutely conjecture on my part. Just my thoughts.
MOLON LABE!
I can't speak for suncat, but from my view I'm looking at the next broader picture from that, which says when the government, including the courts, no longer protect the liberty of the People but deprive them of it, it is my duty as an American to change that government even if it means resistance against it. By definition such resistance is "illegal" as I am acting now against the government in whole.
It's a perfectly acceptable principle of our nation's founding. it was not only the justification for the revolution itself but most all of the Founders talked about how it may be necessary to have a future rising up of the People to cast off a government and replace it with a new one.
The Constitution was created to protect individual liberty. The final defense of the individual liberty and the principles of the Constitution is the People, even if that means opposing the government and even doing so by force of arms.
Of course Jefferson said it best:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
I'd like to add something to that quote, but nothing I type will begin to say more than Jefferson wrote so well.
Why make the move to say you are not going to enforce any laws before they come in to existence? To send a message.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks