Utah Sheriffs warn Obama

[Grinning Dragon]

City/state police DO NOT have to enforce federal law, nor EO. That is why there are federal officers.

Which I find bloody stupid. You're a part of a federal government, you obey their laws, don't like well gtfo.

Yes part of, not entirely ruled by a federal govt. Don't like it, write your congress critters to have it changed. Until then, states/city police will remain to have the right to or not to enforce federal law.
Also, wouldn't enforcing federal law, be on the same lines as, doing someone elses job? I don't know about you, but I am not about to do someone elses job when I have my own job to tend to.

[Distruzio]

Is it treason to change states?

No, but what the Utah Sheriff's Association is threatening is treasonous.

In what way?

[Dyakovo]

No, but what the Utah Sheriff's Association is threatening is treasonous.

In what way?

In the way that declaring war on your rightful government is, by definition, treason.

[Dilange]

Which I find bloody stupid. You're a part of a federal government, you obey their laws, don't like well gtfo.

Yes part of, not entirely ruled by a federal govt. Don't like it, write your congress critters to have it changed. Until then, states/city police will remain to have the right to or not to enforce federal law.
Also, wouldn't enforcing federal law, be on the same lines as, doing someone elses job? I don't know about you, but I am not about to do someone elses job when I have my own job to tend to.

Yea but I find it silly that federal law doesnt carry over into smaller jurisdictions.

[Distruzio]

In what way?

In the way that declaring war on your rightful government is, by definition, treason.

Did they declare war or did they make their position of anti-gun regulation clear?

[Dyakovo]

In the way that declaring war on your rightful government is, by definition, treason.

Did they declare war or did they make their position of anti-gun regulation clear?

Yes.

[Distruzio]

Did they declare war or did they make their position of anti-gun regulation clear?

Yes.

Then they are not necessarily traitors.

[Dyakovo]

Yes.

Then they are not necessarily traitors.

Wrong. The Utah Sheriffs Association is not, despite what they appear to believe, the final arbiters of what is, or is not constitutional; that role falls to the Supreme Court.

[Herador]

Then they are not necessarily traitors.

Wrong. The Utah Sheriffs Association is not, despite what they appear to believe, the final arbiters of what is, or is not constitutional; that role falls to the Supreme Court.

Perhaps the "war" they are referring to is a legal one? They could be simply stating (in more violent words than needed) that they will fight any attempt to take away what they believe are undeniable rights.

[Dyakovo]

Wrong. The Utah Sheriffs Association is not, despite what they appear to believe, the final arbiters of what is, or is not constitutional; that role falls to the Supreme Court.

Perhaps the "war" they are referring to is a legal one? They could be simply stating (in more violent words than needed) that they will fight any attempt to take away what they believe are undeniable rights.

The Utah Sheriffs Association is not, despite what they appear to believe, the final arbiters of what is, or is not constitutional; that role falls to the Supreme Court.

[Herador]

Perhaps the "war" they are referring to is a legal one? They could be simply stating (in more violent words than needed) that they will fight any attempt to take away what they believe are undeniable rights.

The Utah Sheriffs Association is not, despite what they appear to believe, the final arbiters of what is, or is not constitutional; that role falls to the Supreme Court.

I suppose the idea I presented wasn't as well thought out as I thought, sorry about that.

[Republica Newland]

It is a valid argument in that being that all laws must fall within the guidelines of the Constitution.

It is a good argument for it being right, and there are provisions to change the Constitution by Amendments or by a Constitutional Convention.

It's not a good argument for it being right, no. That something is a law is a good argument for it being obeyed and upheld - that something is a law is not a good argument for it being a good law. Bad laws can be changed, and should be, if the only ''argument'' against it is that 'the constitution says so'.

I can give you quite a big list of useless or all out apeshit stupid laws but the Constitution isn't in it.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Perhaps the "war" they are referring to is a legal one? They could be simply stating (in more violent words than needed) that they will fight any attempt to take away what they believe are undeniable rights.

The Utah Sheriffs Association is not, despite what they appear to believe, the final arbiters of what is, or is not constitutional; that role falls to the Supreme Court.

However refusing to enforce a law they find unjust would be cause of this mess to go to court, and eventually (possibly) make it to the Supreme Court.

[Grinning Dragon]

The Utah Sheriffs Association is not, despite what they appear to believe, the final arbiters of what is, or is not constitutional; that role falls to the Supreme Court.

However refusing to enforce a law they find unjust would be cause of this mess to go to court, and eventually (possibly) make it to the Supreme Court.

The issue has already been ruled upon in Printz/Mack v. United States. Accordingly, the Court reiterated the holding in New York that "the Federal Government cannot compel a state to enact or administer a federal regulatory program," and held that the Brady Act's provisions "plainly (run) afoul of that rule." I don't see how the Supreme Court would want to revisit something that has already been addressed.

Read it here http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Jay1.html

[Inyourfaceistan]

However refusing to enforce a law they find unjust would be cause of this mess to go to court, and eventually (possibly) make it to the Supreme Court.

The issue has already been ruled upon in Printz/Mack v. United States. Accordingly, the Court reiterated the holding in New York that "the Federal Government cannot compel a state to enact or administer a federal regulatory program," and held that the Brady Act's provisions "plainly (run) afoul of that rule." I don't see how the Supreme Court would want to revisit something that has already been addressed.

Read it here http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Jay1.html

Nice!

It also looks like the who "assault weapons" crap has been dropped from the bill they will try and get passed in the Senate. Now it's mainly down to magazine capacity and tighter background checks, the later I doubt very many people are against.

[Republica Newland]

The issue has already been ruled upon in Printz/Mack v. United States. Accordingly, the Court reiterated the holding in New York that "the Federal Government cannot compel a state to enact or administer a federal regulatory program," and held that the Brady Act's provisions "plainly (run) afoul of that rule." I don't see how the Supreme Court would want to revisit something that has already been addressed.

Read it here http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Jay1.html

Nice!

It also looks like the who "assault weapons" crap has been dropped from the bill they will try and get passed in the Senate. Now it's mainly down to magazine capacity and tighter background checks, the later I doubt very many people are against.

Tighter background checks have backfired with idiots misusing them.Take this guy for example Apparently the CCW background check in his state was only supposed to go back 7 years or so but they went back 15 just for him.Not only this,but they also denied his CCW because while he was a juvenile he committed a misdemeanor which would have been considered a felony were he to be an adult back then.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

And that's a valid argument how?

Because that is how it works.

And that's a valid argument for it being 'right', how? - I ask again.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Nice!

It also looks like the who "assault weapons" crap has been dropped from the bill they will try and get passed in the Senate. Now it's mainly down to magazine capacity and tighter background checks, the later I doubt very many people are against.

Tighter background checks have backfired with idiots misusing them.Take this guy for example Apparently the CCW background check in his state was only supposed to go back 7 years or so but they went back 15 just for him.Not only this,but they also denied his CCW because while he was a juvenile he committed a misdemeanor which would have been considered a felony were he to be an adult back then.

Well, you know what they say. "If at first you don't succeed, fuck it."

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

It's not a good argument for it being right, no. That something is a law is a good argument for it being obeyed and upheld - that something is a law is not a good argument for it being a good law. Bad laws can be changed, and should be, if the only ''argument'' against it is that 'the constitution says so'.

Bad laws can be changed, and if it is met with resistance then the only recourse is to challenge it on Constitutional grounds.
Just because a law is good doesn't mean it is Constitutional, this country isn't a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic.

What good what it do, to have a Constitutional framework if it is going to be ignored just to pass a law? If that is the case, maybe Congress can pass a bill and the prez, can sign it into law, that you are now being forced to house soldiers, or you cannot be critical of your president or your elected officials, and doing so is now considered treasonous.

And not one bit of what you just said addressed my point, well done

[Dyakovo]

The Utah Sheriffs Association is not, despite what they appear to believe, the final arbiters of what is, or is not constitutional; that role falls to the Supreme Court.

However refusing to enforce a law they find unjust would be cause of this mess to go to court, and eventually (possibly) make it to the Supreme Court.

And would be a legal course of action, unlike firing upon other law enforcement officers who have chosen to enforce the statute.

[Dyakovo]

Because that is how it works.

And that's a valid argument for it being 'right', how? - I ask again.

Because no matter how hard you wish for it, reality doesn't go away.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

And that's a valid argument for it being 'right', how? - I ask again.

Because no matter how hard you wish for it, reality doesn't go away.

I'm inclined to ask how the obvious notion and unnecessary statement that 'reality doesn't go away', makes it a valid argument for it being right, but I doubt I'll get a more relevant and less nonsensical answer from you - so I wont.

[Grinning Dragon]

Because no matter how hard you wish for it, reality doesn't go away.

I'm inclined to ask how the obvious notion and unnecessary statement that 'reality doesn't go away', makes it a valid argument for it being right, but I doubt I'll get a more relevant and less nonsensical answer from you - so I wont.

I don't know how else we can tell you, it is RIGHT that the federal govt cannot force state and city police to enforce federal law, if it is to be enforced, the federal govt has their own law enforcement agencies to do the job. Why should state and city police be strapped with doing the feds job and their job?
State and city police work for their state not the federal govt.

[Republica Newland]

It is a valid argument in that being that all laws must fall within the guidelines of the Constitution.

It is a good argument for it being right, and there are provisions to change the Constitution by Amendments or by a Constitutional Convention.

It's not a good argument for it being right, no. That something is a law is a good argument for it being obeyed and upheld - that something is a law is not a good argument for it being a good law. Bad laws can be changed, and should be, if the only ''argument'' against it is that 'the constitution says so'.

What? Are you delirious?

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

Nice!

It also looks like the who "assault weapons" crap has been dropped from the bill they will try and get passed in the Senate. Now it's mainly down to magazine capacity and tighter background checks, the later I doubt very many people are against.

Tighter background checks have backfired with idiots misusing them.Take this guy for example Apparently the CCW background check in his state was only supposed to go back 7 years or so but they went back 15 just for him.Not only this,but they also denied his CCW because while he was a juvenile he committed a misdemeanor which would have been considered a felony were he to be an adult back then.

I agree. Because laws can be misused we shouldn't have them at all.