State Attorney General vs Sheriffs

#1

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-04-08/new-mexico-attorney-general-tells-unwilling-sheriffs-to-enforce-new-gun-laws

Food for thought from this article:

“make it harder for law-abiding gun owners to buy guns, while criminals will simply ignore it.”

“law enforcement officers already have discretion in how they enforce the law” - IMO this one is a bit scary…

What are your thoughts?

#2

It seems very 1984ish. The politician is using the police as his little army by twisting their arm. Hopefully the sherriffs departments don’t listen to him, and more people get out and vote in the upcoming elections.

4 Likes
#3

This is why local elections are important. Here in Illinois we have several counties that declared ourselves as “gun sanctuaries.” As long as the county Sheriffs stand with us, and stand buy their oath to the Constitution, it could get interesting here in Illinois.

2 Likes
#4

Just read this article about the sanctuary counties: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-sanctuary/defiant-us-sheriffs-push-gun-sanctuaries-imitating-liberals-on-immigration-idUSKCN1QL0ZC

I agree with the Sheriffs that these laws violate the Second Amendment.

But I have to admit, I’m personally struggling with this one. I’m not sure I agree with the idea of Sheriffs picking and choosing which laws to enforce. Are we opening the door to set precedence that the Sheriff not having to enforce any laws?

Thoughts?

3 Likes
#5

I don’t think that it will become an all encompassing effect but more of a specific attack on laws that law enforcement feels is a overreach of national or state government imposing laws that they feel violates the second amendment. There are precedents already in effect by cities declaring themselves sanctuary cities regarding immigration enforcement that is federally mandated. This is the same thing only on a county level. I don’t believe that this is necessarily a bad thing, it is the will of the people being acted upon. The sheriffs are objecting to their perception of overreach.

2 Likes
#6

From my view on this, they swear to uphold the constitution of the United States, and if they are told to follow an unconstitutional order or an unlawful order, they would have a duty to not follow it.

1 Like
#7

I think the Oath Keepers group is one of the active commit-to-disobey-unconstitutional-laws groups that is LEO and military membership based. @Dawn they are not a pick-and-choose group, rather a very focused effort to declare in advanced where the line is drawn.

1 Like
#8

I believe, they swore an oath to uphold the law. If any law is contrary to the Constitution, then they are bound by that oath to disregard any unConstitutional law. Any law that is contrary to the 2nd Amendment is a direct violation of our God given, Constitutionally protected rights, and thus, null and void.

1 Like
#9

That’s the group. I’m not LEO or military so I cant join as a full member, but they have an auxiliary membership for other folks.