‘WE’RE NOT GOING TO TOLERATE IT’: COLO. SHERIFFS UNITE TO BLOCK ‘UNENFORCEABLE’ GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION
In the wake of the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado passed some of the strictest gun control measures in the country.
But in recent months, an overwhelming 55 of the state’s 62 county sheriffs have joined a lawsuit aiming to block the measures.
“These bills do absolutely nothing to make Colorado a safer place to live, to work, to play or to raise a family,” Weld County Sheriff John Cooke explained at a recent press conference. “Instead these misguided, unconstitutional bills will have the opposite effect because they greatly restrict the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families and their homes.”
Sheriff Terry Maketa of El Paso County is one of the opposing sheriffs, and he explained on TheBlaze TV Wednesday how the public was “duped” into supporting overly vague legislation banning high-capacity magazines and requiring background checks.
Maketa says they believe the laws are unenforceable, but also violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
After explaining the tactics used to pass the bills that essentially “eliminated all public input,” Maketa reiterated that it’s clearly an “overreaching step” for politicians to claim law enforcement supports stricter gun control.
When asked by Pat Gray whether he and other sheriffs are “getting flak” for standing against the stricter measures, Maketa replied that it’s the “exact opposite.”
“I would say the communications I’ve received are 99% in favor,” he added.
“I think Colorado is the epicenter of this battle, and 55 Colorado sheriffs have drawn a line in the sand and said ‘We’re not going to tolerate it,’ he concluded. “[The laws] are unenforceable…and we certainly are not going to compromise citizens’ rights [to claim] that we are.”
Good to see somebody standing up for the people’s rights. If you don’t defend them, you lose them.
I’ve been struggling with an inner debate I’ve been having with myself about gun control. I realize it’s a hot topic right now, and usually I like to wait for both sides cool down before I decide what to think.
Since living in Europe this semester, my perspective has changed a bit. Yes, some might say I’ve opened my mind up to new ideas, but that does not necessarily mean I’ve lost who I am, my moral code, or political ideology. It simply means I’ve grown.
Last semester if you had asked me about gun control, I would have said something like “there shouldn’t be much of it. The federal government does not need to be involved nor should it. Every American has the right to own a gun.”
And although I still stand by the idea of liberty, somethings have changed. Newtown, Boston bombings, and most recently, my University lost one of its students due to an armed robbery. These events hit very close to home (literally and figuratively). They make you stop and think. They make you question things and society and what the hell people are thinking.
With all this being said, I think the second amendment is important, but with restrictions. Hunting is important, and we should not be taking away people’s hunting rights and rifles. However, why in God’s name do you need an assault rifle? Or to carry around a pistol? What purpose does this serve?
Normally I’m all for state’s rights and more individual liberty. Just as our Founding Fathers stated, if the federal government does not need to get involved, it shouldn’t. However, we should be having that debate right now. Considering that gun owners are able to cross state boarders freely, there needs to be some over-arching restrictions to gun ownership. For what is legal in one state, might not be legal in another. This is the precise problem that occurred with the Newtown, Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.
I’m not suggesting banning all guns. I am suggesting, however, that we take a long, hard look at our society and determine whether federal background checks would help decrease gun-crime, and if assault rifles are necessary.
This will not solve the problem of murder, suicide, and the ilk, for those root in mental health. It may, however, lessen crimes, mistakes, and death.
Also, I highly suggest this website for information differentiating guns and gun legislation: http://www.assaultweapon.info/
What are your thoughts?
“However, why in God’s name do you need an assault rifle? Or to carry around a pistol? What purpose does this serve?”
The term “assault rifle” is thrown around entirely too much. It is often used to describe a rifle that simply looks scary. The AR-15 is essentially the same as an ordinary hunting rifle (though the AR is typically not as powerful as a hunting rifle). The only difference between an AR-15 and any other semi-auto rifle is it’s attachments. These attachments are simply there to make the gun easier to handle and accommodate different sized shooters. Most people use them for home defense. It is superbly suited for this role… it’s not overly powerful, it’s easy to maneuver, it doesn’t recoil too much and it can accommodate various attachments that aid in home defense (flashlight, laser, optics etc.).
The handgun, on the other hand, is best suited for personal defense while out in public. Most people can’t afford personal security like many celebrities and politicians enjoy, so they have to provide security for themselves. That’s where the handgun comes in. It is typically semi-automatic and magazine fed. It’s size and concealability lend itself perfectly to the personal defense role.
“I am suggesting, however, that we take a long, hard look at our society and determine whether federal background checks would help decrease gun-crime, and if assault rifles are necessary.”
Federal background checks ARE performed. We use the Brady Insta-check system and it works pretty well. Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora and most other mass shootings involved firearms that were obtained illegally. In most cases the person committing the crime never went through a background check because they stole the guns used.
Many on the left like to cite the “gunshow loophole” as a need to implement more intrusive background checks (that 40% of guns are bought without a background check). What they don’t tell you is that the info they use to base their figures off of is completely outdated and incomplete. They use a poll of 2,568 households in 1994… before background checks were even implemented. The true number is closer to around 3% and most of those are family transfers.
Bottom line: More gun control will not decrease crime. It’s been shown time and again. Even in Europe, which has some of the toughest gun control in the world, crime increased after guns were banned.
The vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding people that simply want their freedoms and the right to protect themselves and their family. Banning a certain type of weapon because it’s scary looking, limiting magazines or any other arbitrary restriction will only give the upper hand to criminals. Criminals that still manage to get their hands on guns and other restricted items.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics released a special report on gun violence in America from 1993-2011 by Michael Planty, Ph.D., and Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D..
We made this infographic showing some of the more interesting findings.
- Said no criminal ever.
Is this in NY or Texas? Either way, I agree. lol
Some critics have pointed to New York State’s new gun control law as chilling in its scope and intent. But new allegations coming from sheriffs may add to the outcry, as some authorities maintain that Gov. Andrew Cuomo pushed local sheriffs to stop publicly speaking out against the SAFE Act, the gun-control law he signed in January. One source, in fact, told a local outlet that the governor threatened sheriffs’ jobs if they don’t comply.
Law enforcement officials were reportedly summonsed to Albany last month, where they met with the governor about the contentious issue. It’s no secret that sheriffs have come out to publicly oppose the law, sharing their concerns with the public at large. But during the meeting at the capitol, Cuomo allegedly asked them to stop being so vocal.
“The governor was of the opinion that the sheriffs around the state should not be interjecting their personal opinions in reference to the law,” Chemung County Sheriff Christopher Moss told the Times Union.
Cuomo’s comments to authorities, though, about not publicly speaking out against the bill may have crossed beyond simply recommending silence — at least according to one anonymous source. The Times Union has more:
One person briefed on the meeting said Cuomo threatened to remove sheriffs from office, a little-used power afforded the state’s chief executive under the state constitution. Moss would not confirm this. He did say the meeting was heated at times, but overall he described it as “cordial.”
[Sheriffs’ Association Executive Director Peter] Kehoe did not return calls, and Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi declined to comment. An administration official, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss a private meeting, “strongly” denied Cuomo had threatened to remove any sheriff.
Regardless of what was said at the meeting, the Sheriffs’ Association has joined other politicians in filing an amicus curiae brief that would support a federal challenge to the gun control law. Rather than protesting the measure, itself, Sheriff John York of Livingston County said that the main issue is that the state’s resident’s did not have input on its contents and how it was enacted. So it is more the method through which it was passed that is in question.
Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the SAFE Act was passed and signed by Cuomo. As National Review notes, “Parts of the bill have needed modification because they were unclear or impossible to comply with. The new law put strict limits on the size of magazines in addition to broadening the definition of an assault weapon, a class which is banned.”
Some sheriffs have said that they will not enforce the law. With Cuomo welcoming any legal challenges, it appears the battle over gun control in New York State is just beginning.
Ivangorod, Ukraine, 1942
German soldiers firing at a group of Jews.
Reason #1 why I will never disarm.
TheBlaze’s S.E. Cupp battled liberal filmmaker Michael Moore on the gun issue Friday, arguing against gun restrictions and schooling him on basic statistics on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.”
Cupp, contending with boos from the “Real Time” audience, said the problem with a gun registry is that “it treats law-abiding citizens as if they are guilty until proven innocent.”
She went on, “The problem with background checks, five-day waiting periods, they assume that I have criminal intent to use my gun to pursue my Second Amendment rights…I go to get a background check, ‘Prove to me you’re not a criminal.’ I go to get a gun, ‘Prove to me you don’t want to use it in the heat of passion right now, wait five days, you need to cool off.’ That’s not fair — the government is not in the business of intimidating me away from my Second Amendment rights. It’s an abuse of power, and it seeps into the culture — it’s why newspapers think they can publish gun owners’ addresses, as if they are pariahs. It’s not appropriate.”
Moore countered, “You have a dangerous device that can kill 20 schoolchildren, I want to know where that device is. You can have it — ”
“You do not have that right,” Cupp said.
Moore then said he wanted the Second Amendment altered to spell out the Founding Fathers’ intention: that it covers muskets.
Maher pointed out that he is a gun owner himself and would never give his guns up. He said he goes to the shooting range a few times a year, which Moore said wasn’t enough — he wouldn’t be effective against an intruder if he were just coming out of a deep sleep.
“As opposed to what, just getting mowed down?” Maher asked.
The conversation shifted to crime statistics, with Maher raising the question: Why have gun homicides gone down in an age of less gun control?
Moore made the point that all crime has gone down, and Cupp said mass shootings are also down — causing Moore to throw up his hands in laughter.
“Less school shootings since Columbine, let me ponder that for a second,” he said sarcastically.
“There have been fewer mass shootings over the past 30 years, that’s just a fact,” Cupp said. “It’s an inconvenient truth I know, but it’s a fact.”
Moore referenced “the bubble” that gun owners live in.
“There’s no bubble. I am a gun owner, I have lived and breathed this issue personally for a decade,” Cupp shot back. “It’s not a bubble, I just happen to be informed on gun issues, unlike those people who talk about them.”
Get him girl! Facts and rational thought win the day again.
Simon Pegg (Scotty in ‘Star Trek - Into Darkness’)
this 2nd grader wrote this to the president, vice president, and a congressman. biden was the only one to respond
Ok props to Biden for at least responding to the kid…
Actually, I’ve seen some dude make home made slugs out of all sorts of material and the chocolate ones went right through a pork roast soooo…. yea. (BTW, I make wax slugs that are AWESOME!) lol
But at least Biden took the time out of his busy schedule of herpin and derpin to respond to the kid.
The tax will only serve to hurt the poor honest people. Game as usual for the other players in the game.
The second amendment says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
A tax is an infringement. I know people say “But the tenth amendment says states can do what the feds can’t. I thought Conservatives loved state’s rights.”
That’s typically true, but the tenth amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This means if it is not explicitly in the Constitution, it reverts to the states to decide. The only problem is that it explicitly says “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Thus a tax, and any other limitation set forth by the states, is an infringement on a constitutional right.
A teacher at my school posted this on his door, and my friend and I thought this was rather tactless considering the recent school shootings. So I posted a sign next to it that said “this offends me <—-”
Apparently he called us cowards in his next block class. I kind of want to walk into his classroom and ask him why he thinks I’m a coward and present him with my rather articulate argument for gun control, a subject which I researched at length and wrote an article about for the school newspaper. Good idea or bad idea?
I wrote a biography on Thomas Jefferson once when I was in high school.
THAT DID NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, MATTER OR FORM MAKE ME AN EXPERT ON THOMAS JEFFERSON.
The problem with your generation is that you think you have the right to not be offended. Check your Constitution. It’s not in there. You know what is? The right to a firearm.
Articulate your argument for gun control here. I’m sure whatever you come up with can be either proven wrong or discredited. Come on now…
"In Defense of Liberty"