I want to make sure everyone following the news now is aware of this:

Will Beararms · 02-28-2013, 22:58

You do know there are Heroes among the ranks of our Men and Women in Blue who are making a stand and making it public they will not enforce laws that strip away our gun rights. With all that is going on, it's important to know this and thank them if you have the chance to. They are putting their jobs on the line even more than they already do now. Thanks for taking time to consider this.

AK_Stick · 02-28-2013, 23:34

I applaud their actions, but every single one of them should be fired.

It is not the polices job to decide what law is constitutional or right. Its their job to enforce the law.

Publicly announcing they will not fulfill their oath should be considered a verbal resignation and treated as such.

SGT HATRED · 02-28-2013, 23:36

I'd like to know the actual percentage. I bet it's less than 1%

***.264 magnum*** · 02-28-2013, 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

I applaud their actions, but every single one of them should be fired.

It is not the polices job to decide what law is constitutional or right. Its their job to enforce the law.

Publicly announcing they will not fulfill their oath should be considered a verbal resignation and treated as such.

What a crock.

AK_Stick · 03-01-2013, 00:00

So if you walked up to your boss and said, I object to doing what you pay me to do, what exactly do you think would be his recourse?

Thats exactly what those cops are saying. We're not going to do our jobs, and you can't make us do it.

Complete and utter horse crap.

ScottieG59 · 03-01-2013, 00:03

In my federal oath, I swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

SGT HATRED · 03-01-2013, 00:04

This has been going on with immigration laws for years....

AK_Stick · 03-01-2013, 00:05

So did I, but I don't remember any clause about being able to pick and choose what laws I obeyed.

Last I checked, we have a system to decide what is constitutional, and it isn't "I won't enforce what I don't agree with"

Had they said, "we think X is unconstitutional, and we won't enforce it until the supreme court rules on it" they would have my support. But cops have no place deciding what is, and isn't constitutional.

concretefuzzynuts · 03-01-2013, 00:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

So did I, but I don't remember any clause about being able to pick and choose what laws I obeyed.

Last I checked, we have a system to decide what is constitutional, and it isn't "I won't enforce what I don't agree with"

Had they said, "we think X is unconstitutional, and we won't enforce it until the supreme court rules on it" they would have my support. But cops have no place deciding what is, and isn't constitutional.

So the police are to be robots?

I thank those who use common sense. And this belongs in the Cop Talk forum.

NMG26 · 03-01-2013, 00:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

So did I, but I don't remember any clause about being able to pick and choose what laws I obeyed.

Last I checked, we have a system to decide what is constitutional, and it isn't "I won't enforce what I don't agree with"

Had they said, "we think X is unconstitutional, and we won't enforce it until the supreme court rules on it" they would have my support. But cops have no place deciding what is, and isn't constitutional.

Well stick,

This was my first thought as well.

The police will pretty much enforce the law...........or they will find some that will.

It's their job. Shut up and enforce the law. A lot of guys can't do that. They will be replaced.

.

Will Beararms · 03-01-2013, 00:11

Hard to fire a Sheriff.

AK_Stick · 03-01-2013, 00:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretefuzzynuts

So the police are to be robots?

I thank those who use common sense. And this belongs in the Cop Talk forum.

I don't see telling the whole world that you refuse to do the job you're being paid to do as common sense.

Then again, its not exactly a common virtue these days.

Henry Kane · 03-01-2013, 00:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

So if you walked up to your boss and said, I object to doing what you pay me to do, what exactly do you think would be his recourse?

If my boss asked me to go against my morals, what he would do in response to my refusal really doesn't matter. There would be no choice on my part, so what's going to happen will happen regardless. Accepted. Done. No point in my being upset about it. Fire me, replace me. I'd feel better having acted on virtue, and having removed myself from the situation by default.

AK_Stick · 03-01-2013, 00:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henry Kane

If my boss asked me to go against my morals, what he would do in response to my refusal really doesn't matter. There would be no choice on my part, so what's going to happen will happen regardless. Accepted. Done. No point in my being upset about it. Fire me, replace me. I'd feel better having acted on virtue, and having removed myself from the situation by default.

I agree.

Henry Kane · 03-01-2013, 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

So did I, but I don't remember any clause about being able to pick and choose what laws I obeyed.

Wouldn't the oath to uphold the Constitution be that clause?

GunHo198 · 03-01-2013, 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

I applaud their actions, but every single one of them should be fired.

It is not the polices job to decide what law is constitutional or right. Its their job to enforce the law.

Publicly announcing they will not fulfill their oath should be considered a verbal resignation and treated as such.

Good luck enforcing that law. Again, it's clearly Us vs Them.

Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Will Beararms · 03-01-2013, 00:27

There are still free states in America and we welcome you. As an added benefit, your taxes may be significantly lower.

AK_Stick · 03-01-2013, 00:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henry Kane

Wouldn't the oath to uphold the Constitution be that clause?

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.

Henry Kane · 03-01-2013, 00:43

Quote:

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.

AK_Stick · 03-01-2013, 00:48

State laws, do not supersede federal laws.

If a state passes a AWB after passing one of the "firearms freedom laws" then it would be a state matter, but if a federal AWB passes, it supersedes what the state wants to do.

It would have to go to the SC, and be ruled upon, and they wouldn't have to enforce it till it had been, but thats not what they're doing or saying.

Before anything has happened, these LEO's are saying, we're not going to obey any laws that we don't agree with, and there's nothing you can do or say about it. Before any law is passed.

Henry Kane · 03-01-2013, 01:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

State laws, do not supersede federal laws.

Yep. Aware of the Supremacy Clause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

If a state passes a AWB after passing one of the "firearms freedom laws" then it would be a state matter, but if a federal AWB passes, it supersedes what the state wants to do.

It would have to go to the SC, and be ruled upon, and they wouldn't have to enforce it till it had been, but thats not what they're doing or saying.

Before anything has happened, these LEO's are saying, we're not going to obey any laws that we don't agree with, and there's nothing you can do or say about it. Before any law is passed.

I can't speak for any of them, but my guess is they're looking at this the way I suppose I am. The ban goes against the Constitution now. They can take it to the SCOTUS later, at which point it would become Constitutional, but in the mean time...

I'm not saying that their logic or mine isn't erroneous regarding what the Constitution implies about contrasts between current legal interpretations and the AWB. Just being honest about what I think it means, and guessing what I imagine they think it means as well. You are certainly correct; thinking it doesn't make it so. That said, when I am less medicated, and more focused, I'm going to hone my understanding of this for sure.

I'm sure your position is not in favor of the AWB, and your objection is simply to the idea of rebellious professionals keeping their jobs. No worries. Like I said earlier, consequences in the wake of virtuous intent are merely incidental. Looks like we both pretty much see it as "do what you gotta do, but accept the outcome."

Plasticman84 · 03-01-2013, 01:32

All but one of the LEOs that I work with are very Pro-2A. As far as enforcing an AWB, we have officer descretion. Should an officer be fired if they give a warning for a speeding violation, or not stop every car that commits a traffic violation?

AK_Stick · 03-01-2013, 01:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plasticman84

All but one of the LEOs that I work with are very Pro-2A. As far as enforcing an AWB, we have officer descretion. Should an officer be fired if they give a warning for a speeding violation, or not stop every car that commits a traffic violation?

An officer should be fired if he stands up and tells the world, I'll never right a traffic ticket, and his job is as a traffic cop.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as Pro-2A as anyone else on this board.

But what I'm not, is abusing your power and position, because of your views.

MotoGlock · 03-01-2013, 01:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

I applaud their actions, but every single one of them should be fired.

It is not the polices job to decide what law is constitutional or right. Its their job to enforce the law.

Publicly announcing they will not fulfill their oath should be considered a verbal resignation and treated as such.

How stupid.

What a crock.

Answer this:

If a restaurant owner decides to poison his/her customers ,

Do you excuse the chef? It's his job to follow orders, right?

AK_Stick · 03-01-2013, 01:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by MotoGlock

How stupid.

What a crock.

Answer this:

If a restaurant owner decides to poison his/her customers ,

Do you excuse the chef? It's his job to follow orders, right?

Congratulations on being one step above a Nazi attempt.

But you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

Its more like, you work in a fast food restaurant, you walk in and you tell the boss I'm not cooking fries today.

Cops do not make laws. They enforce them. And last I checked, they're not SC justices.