60 Minutes - Colorado cops says they wont enforce Red Flags orders

Not enforcing bad laws is the moral thing to do. But who needs those?

The last thing I want is any cop anywhere deciding which laws he wants to enforce and which ones he doesnt want to enforce. The less thinking they do the better off we will be.

Selective enforcement is dangerous (if nothing else, it will absolutely lead to more enforcement along racial lines, like most statutes). ERPO laws are despicable but I prefer they be removed by the people who vote for the lawmakers who made them.
 
Not enforcing laws, even bad ones, sets a dangerous precedent. How do we feel about not enforcing immigration laws? Not enforcing laws against those who assault others for their political views? Yeah, this one works in our favor but its nothing to celebrate
any law/order that violates the constitution should be ignored, and must be ignored, by anyone who swears an oath to follow the constitution.
 
The last thing I want is any cop anywhere deciding which laws he wants to enforce and which ones he doesnt want to enforce. The less thinking they do the better off we will be.

So you’d prefer to be arrested and/or cited for every menial violation of law you’ve ever committed, whether or not it was intentional or knowingly, and whether or not it caused anyone harm? Go a mile an hour over the speed limit, signal only 99 feet before turning, not reporting your $50 scratch ticket winnings on your taxes?

Can’t have cops thinking!

That’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read. It’s no wonder there’s been examples of departments refusing to hire smart people.
 
any law/order that violates the constitution should be ignored, and must be ignored, by anyone who swears an oath to follow the constitution.

So individual LEOs & bureaucrats are supposed to be the arbiters of what is Constitutional and what isn’t? Ever hear some of their interpretations of the constitutionality of 2A? (regulated state militia) Roe? (killing babies is unconstitutional) 1A? (hate speech is not protected). Its all fine and good until their interpretation of what is Constitutional doesn’t agree with yours.
 
Indeed. Why you think that’s a good thing is baffling. Unless...

I dont want dummies making decisions about which laws to enforce. It's not baffling at all.

I agree with your sentiment that there are dumb/unconstitutional on the books. And, no, I dont want to get jammed up on technicalities. But I'd rather fight that in court or through changing laws. Giving low level government drones (err, sorry, heroes) the power to enforce only laws they agree with is bad news.
 
So individual LEOs & bureaucrats are supposed to be the arbiters of what is Constitutional and what isn’t? Ever hear some of their interpretations of the constitutionality of 2A? (regulated state militia) Roe? (killing babies is unconstitutional) 1A? (hate speech is not protected). Its all fine and good until their interpretation of what is Constitutional doesn’t agree with yours.
when something is blatantly unconstitutional such as denying "due process" every cop should reject enforcement. every prosecutor should refuse to prosecute and every judge should slap any cop and/or prosecutor who tries to use these ERPO laws.
 
I dont want dummies making decisions about which laws to enforce. It's not baffling at all.

I agree with your sentiment that there are dumb/unconstitutional on the books. And, no, I dont want to get jammed up on technicalities. But I'd rather fight that in court or through changing laws. Giving low level government drones (err, sorry, heroes) the power to enforce only laws they agree with is bad news.
They already do that!
 
when something is blatantly unconstitutional such as denying "due process" every cop should reject enforcement. every prosecutor should refuse to prosecute and every judge should slap any cop and/or prosecutor who tries to use these ERPO laws.

Ahhh, so when it’s blatantly unconstitutional... because the other side will respect the blatantly standard and their views about what is blatant is always correct 🙄
 
These aren't the first group of sheriffs to say this.
CA and WA have had similar positions taken by some sheriffs. And there are likely others.
It is interesting though, selectively enforcing a law.
I am curious how much in the past the blatant statement saying "we will not enforce this law"has been used by law enforcement regarding other laws. As supposed to a more quiet non-enforcement approach.
 
Has SCOTUS ruled red flag laws are unconstitutional? I must have missed that. You understand that the Left thinks immigration laws are Unconstitutional too. As much as I abhor them, Red flag laws have been passed and until they’re deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, they’re the law where’ve they have been passed. The constitutionality argument doesn’t change the inherent problem with selective enforcement of duly enacted laws.

I see your point and struggle to make a distinction that’s just not based on my worldview, ideology and bias. One distinction I’d make is the liberal/progressive perspective is all about *taking* - taking guns away from people and taking money away from people to give to others. The guns they just want to crush but immigration is about upping taxes on others to pay for what they want - open borders and more immigrants.

The conservative perspective is just about *keeping* - keeping our guns and our tax dollars for Americans.

Wanting to not have our guns and money taken by liberals/progressive makes us bad to them. Well, come and get them, I say...
 
The Left knows immigration laws are constitutional, they just don't care. If we waited for SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of laws, there would never be any cases brought to the Court.

Good on these cops for caring about what's right.


Has SCOTUS ruled red flag laws are unconstitutional? I must have missed that. You understand that the Left thinks immigration laws are Unconstitutional too. As much as I abhor them, Red flag laws have been passed and until they’re deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, they’re the law where’ve they have been passed. The constitutionality argument doesn’t change the inherent problem with selective enforcement of duly enacted laws.
 
The Left knows immigration laws are constitutional, they just don't care. If we waited for SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of laws, there would never be any cases brought to the Court.

Good on these cops for caring about what's right.

I‘m sure there are plenty of illegals and their sympathizers who are happy their local cops/AGs/DAs/Judges care about what’s “right” too.
 
In extreme cases as to the one that they showed on 60minutes where the gun owner was clearly mentally deranged , they should have been able to restrain the person, collect his firearms for storage and have him thoroughly evaluated. He had made threats, there were numerous calls to his residence and he was mentally ill.
 
Pretty annoying so far how they are heavily laying on the sympathy angle by showing cases of crazy guys killing cops, young guy killing himself etc, the author of the model law saying how reasonable and respectful of due process it is, well before they get to the Sherriff's explaining why they are declinging to enforce. The whole peice is designed to set them up to look unreasonable.
 
In extreme cases as to the one that they showed on 60minutes where the gun owner was clearly mentally deranged , they should have been able to restrain the person, collect his firearms for storage and have him thoroughly evaluated. He had made threats, there were numerous calls to his residence and he was mentally ill.

And, they could have staked out his place waited for him to live his domicile, then take him down. Storming his apartment, knowing he had guns, with people living on either side of him, just seemed like poor judgement.
 
In extreme cases as to the one that they showed on 60minutes where the gun owner was clearly mentally deranged , they should have been able to restrain the person, collect his firearms for storage and have him thoroughly evaluated. He had made threats, there were numerous calls to his residence and he was mentally ill.

...well, y’see, there’s this thing called the Bill of Rights...

It’s SUPPOSED to be difficult for the authorities to “collect [a citizen’s] firearms for storage.” That’s the whole point. The BoR exists in order to make it harder for the State to violate peoples’ civil rights.

Including RKBA.

But then, if you don’t know that by now, I’m not going to be able to convince you. So? Molon labe.
 
Not only is this unconstitutional as another poster mentioned but there's been selective enforcement of really dumb laws since the dawn of time.

We need more peace keepers and fewer law enforcement officers

This
 
...well, y’see, there’s this thing called the Bill of Rights...

It’s SUPPOSED to be difficult for the authorities to “collect [a citizen’s] firearms for storage.” That’s the whole point. The BoR exists in order to make it harder for the State to violate peoples’ civil rights.

Including RKBA.

But then, if you don’t know that by now, I’m not going to be able to convince you. So? Molon labe.
Mentally ill, you take them away, especially when they are at the point of threatening violence. That is well within the rights of the authorities
 
Mentally ill, you take them away, especially when they are at the point of threatening violence. That is well within the rights of the authorities

If that were true, there'd be no need for any such thing as ERPOs. No?
 
I would argue that yes, WE ALL need to be the arbiters of what is Constitutional, Moral and Just. If you leave up to 'the other guy' or 'that court' or 'that elected official' that's how you end up running a train to Auschwitz. The guy who wrote the law did it, the guys who passed it did it, the guy who signed it did it, the guys who identified the Jews did it, the guys who rounded up the Jews did it, the guys who put the Jews on the trains did it, the guy who ran the train did it, the guys who marched them into the showers did it. NOT ONE OF THEM SAID NO.

Granted the first guy who said no probably would have been on the train next, and maybe the next guy, but if one led to two and two to four and so on it would have stopped.

If one police force says no to unconstitutional laws, then another will and another. Then when we say no, we can point to them and them to us; and pretty soon it stops.

It doesn't stop because they are afraid of us, or us of them; it stops because a government only works with consent of the governed and if enough people say no - they will end it lest the rest of the people realize that the government isn't in charge - it's us.


******************************************

Public Safety with out Public Rights isn't safe at all. The Indian laws, the roundup of Japanese Americans, the Patriot Act, the TSA all passed/enacted for 'public safety'.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom