Oh my, it looks like I brought you and @Bonesinium together on something (even if you wouldn't mention him by name...). I think I deserve the Nobel Peace Prize
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS February Giveaway ***Canik TP9SF Elite***
Oh my, it looks like I brought you and @Bonesinium together on something (even if you wouldn't mention him by name...). I think I deserve the Nobel Peace Prize
Not enforcing bad laws is the moral thing to do. But who needs those?
any law/order that violates the constitution should be ignored, and must be ignored, by anyone who swears an oath to follow the constitution.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
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.
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.
They do that almost exclusively.
Indeed. Why you think that’s a good thing is baffling. Unless...
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.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.
They already do that!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.
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.
If cops aren’t able to accurately interpret what the constitution says and means how exactly are the able to interpret what a statute says and means?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Giving low level government drones (err, sorry, heroes) the power to enforce only laws they agree with is bad news.
Then I have bad news for you. Thats precisely what happens already.
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
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...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
There isn'tIf that were true, there'd be no need for any such thing as ERPOs. No?