479 Sheriffs refusing to implement new gun control policies

The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado is playing out in other states, raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown will have a muted effect in parts of the American heartland, where gun ownership is common and grass-roots opposition to tighter restrictions is high.

In New York State, where Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed one of the toughest gun law packages in the nation last January, two sheriffs have said publicly they would not enforce the laws — inaction that Mr. Cuomo said would set “a dangerous and frightening precedent.” The sheriffs’ refusal is unlikely to have much effect in the state: According to the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services, since 2010 sheriffs have filed less than 2 percent of the two most common felony gun charges. The vast majority of charges are filed by the state or local police.

In Liberty County, Fla., a jury in October acquitted a sheriff who had been suspended and charged with misconduct after he released a man arrested by a deputy on charges of carrying a concealed firearm. The sheriff, who was immediately reinstated by the governor, said he was protecting the man’s Second Amendment rights.

And in California, a delegation of sheriffs met with Gov. Jerry Brown this fall to try to persuade him to veto gun bills passed by the Legislature, including measures banning semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and lead ammunition for hunting (Mr. Brown signed the ammunition bill but vetoed the bill outlawing the rifles).

“Our way of life means nothing to these politicians, and our interests are not being promoted in the legislative halls of Sacramento or Washington, D.C.,” said Jon E. Lopey, the sheriff of Siskiyou County, Calif., one of those who met with Governor Brown. He said enforcing gun laws was not a priority for him, and he added that residents of his rural region near the Oregon border are equally frustrated by regulations imposed by the federal Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency.

NY Times

  • Bat 1

    A list of the sheriffs, police chiefs, and associations which have declared their unwillingness to support further gun control efforts by Obama and the Left can be found here (http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/).

    • Guest

      Didn’t these guys take an oath? I guess your link is meant to tarnish the name of those who refuse to obey the law, while at the same time collect a government check for swearing to uphold it?

      • Bat 1

        If it was really my intent to focus on those who dishonor their oath to uphold the law by refusing to enforce it, I would have started with Barack H. Obama, followed by his attorney general, Eric Holder, and his former homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano. By selectively ignoring laws they are sworn to enforce the listed sheriffs and police chiefs are merely following the example set for them by the Obama regime. And if you are unwilling to criticize Obama’s lawlessness and apparent contempt for HIS oath of office, you have no credibility criticizing the police chiefs and sheriffs.

        • Guest

          You are a complete mess. I’m not sure what you tried to accomplish by dragging your hatred for the president into this discussion, but if your intent was to prove that you have no credibility for having double standards on those who are sworn to obey the law, then you have done so, with crystal clarity.

          If your intent was to demonstrate your abysmal understanding of a low ranking officer of the law, and the President of the United States, or the Attorney General, then once agin you have succeeded.

          There’s not a lot I can offer to rescue you from your own twisted logic, but that assumes you employed logic in the first place. It’s clear you haven’t. Therefore I leave you to flounder on your own, in your own rotted mind.

          • Bat 1

            As usual, predictable as a full moon, here comes both the personal attack in lieu of a reasoned counter argument, and the now famous accusation that the conservative is doing that which the liberal is flagrantly attempting. Sigh!

            In the first place, I don’t hate Barack Obama – although your use of that particular verb is telling of the liberal mindset. I’ve never met the man. Rather, it is his policies and his conduct in office that I find detestable. Its kinda like the Christian value of hating the sin, not the sinner. But then you probably have a hard time coming to grips with that one too. Liberals usually do, especially when the issue is one of traditional Judeo-Christian values. Like honesty.

            Of course I understand the difference between the highest office in the land (and his supposed chief law enforcement officer!) and that of a sheriff or police chief. But I don’t glorify the former while disparaging the latter as you’ve done. Nor do I dismiss the lawlessness of the former or his contempt for his oath of office (there’s that pesky Constitution again!). On the contrary, given the nature of the office, his fealty to the law – including the Constitution – rather than to partisan politics – should be above reproach.

            As for “rescue”, thanks, but no thanks. I’m quite content with my logic, my intellect, and the principles that guide me. Such as the one that says we are a nation of laws, not the personal partisan expediency of Obama and his supporters. The end does not justify the means.

          • Guest

            You look at the world through Liberal vs Con lenses. That’s half your problem. All you seem interested in doing is creating fights between Liberals and extreme Right Wing folks. Why? What sickness does this feed?

            I’m just curious why you are interested in publishing the names of these officers who take a government, tax payer salary but refuse to obey the laws they took an oath to uphold?

            Well, get to it.

          • Bat 1

            Again, predictable. Tediously, boringly predictable. Can’t win an argument on either fact or principle, and can’t manage more than a trite string of personal insults,.. oh, what to do, what to do? How about an appeal to bi-partisanship? At least that way you get save the liberal big gun, accusations of racism, for the finale.

            Look, if you think about it – come on, try real hard! – you’ll realize that A.) I didn’t “publish” that list. CSPOA.ofg did. B.) If you’d read the entire thing you’d know that those on the list are well aware that their names will be made public. That’s the whole point! C.) The laws these folks have decided not to enforce have not yet been enacted… and hopefully never will be. D.) As I’ve noted above, the list of those “who take a government, [sic] tax payer salary but refuse to obey the laws they took an oath to uphold starts at the top of the federal food chain with Obama, Holder, Napolitano, and fo course, Sebelius, Lois Lerner, and yes, come to think of it, every single congressman and senator who voted for Obamacare, ARRA, Dodd-Frank, or any other piece of legislation without reading it and understanding what they’d read.

          • muttkat

            Its the constitution they took an oath. An unjust law is void.

          • muttkat

            Obama and Eric have no respect for Americans. Illegal aliens get treated better. Both Obama and Eric lied about Fast & Furious and 100′s if not more Mexicans are dying because of their guns which they conveniently ignore.

          • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ Goon’s ND Redneck

            I see you’re still not brave enough to at least find a name other than trolling guest.

        • muttkat

          Thats the way I see it too. I’ve been thinking the same way about Obamacare.

      • muttkat

        They took an oath to uphold the Constitution not some Obama wish.

      • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ Goon’s ND Redneck

        It’s called defending the constitution genius against all enemies foriegn and domestic. Stupid laws are domestic threats.

    • muttkat

      Have you heard of the oathkeepers?

  • Mark Hanson

    Thankfully, these Sheriffs recognize their first obligation is to uphold the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Obama on the other hand, violates his oath and the Constitution at will. Violating the oath of office is a felony under Federal statute and carries a potential 5 year prison term. Obama’s gun running program, Fast and Furious, is a prime example why he should be impeached, and once removed from office, criminally prosecuted. The following are opening statements of ATF agents who blew the whistle on Fast and Furious, and the opening statement of Brian Terry’s cousin. Brian Terry was a Border Patrol Agent murdered by one of the Fast and Furious weapons. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4354479

    This link will get you to more Fast and Furious clips and ideas on using the second amendment to secure schools. http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264

  • Mark Hanson

    Thankfully, these Sheriffs recognize their first obligation is to uphold the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Obama on the other hand, violates his oath and the Constitution at will. Violating the oath of office is a felony under Federal statute and carries a potential 5 year prison term. Obama’s gun running program, Fast and Furious, is a prime example why he should be impeached, and once removed from office, criminally prosecuted. The following are opening statements of ATF agents who blew the whistle on Fast and Furious, and the opening statement of Brian Terry’s cousin. Brian Terry was a Border Patrol Agent murdered by one of the Fast and Furious weapons. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/43544...

    This link will get you to more Fast and Furious clips and ideas on using the second amendment to secure schools. http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p...

    • muttkat

      Who has been conveniently forgotten by the )((%^&*…can’t think of a name to call those scoundrels. lol

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ Goon’s ND Redneck

    Not a big surprise, these gun laws don’t work, they just make people less safe.

Top