Originally Posted by AK_Stick
What you (or I) feel is constitutional, does not make it so.
There are a plethora of laws I don't agree with, GCA 68' 1986 NFA ect.
But like it or not, they were ruled as constitutional.
As I said, we have a system in place to determine what is and what isn't. And if they had said, we won't enforce it untill SC determines it, then I would agree with their stance.
But cops do not get to do the SC's job in the field. We see entirely too many cases of them making the wrong call for me to have any faith in their ability to make field decisions on the constitution.
I absolutely agree that personal interpretation of the law by individual officers is a big no no.
I suppose where I'm kind of missing your point is that the law enforcement personnel saying this are basing their comments on (state, federal, or both) Constitutional laws, as they have
been legally interpreted. If the states of residence and employment of these individuals already have laws in place stating what is Constitutional, and orders to enforce new laws that contradict existing laws come through, this seems more like upholding their oath than it does personal interpretation.