[DanaT]

Originally Posted by BigDeeeeeeee

I don't think you need a Harvard law degree to know what a duck looks like.

I dont have a harvard law degree..but let me try? These are ducks, right?

[JustinJohnson86]

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.

That's a load of BS. LEO's are sworn to uphold the constitution (at least sheriff's officers) and anti 2nd amendment crap is unconstitutional. No LEO should be forced to take away guns

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

If IL passes a AWB, or a federal AWB were passed, yes.

Your concept of the Supremacy Clause is flawed.

Right now, it's illegal under federal law for non-aboriginals to possess eagle feathers. I don't enforce that law, never will, and if you chant "Supremacy Clause" at me, I still won't. Tomorrow, if the fedgov passes the AWB, I won't enforce that either.

[CitizenOfDreams]

Originally Posted by Will Beararms

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.

Thank you Mister Man in Blue for not busting my door, shooting my dog, taking my guns and hauling me in jail. You go above and beyond the call of duty. You are a true hero.

[sheriff733]

Originally Posted by DanaT

A man.

But can you clarify "full out ban"? What ban would you enforce?

By "full out ban" I mean the dreaded knocking on doors and confiscating guns by force. That seems to be the situation that many here seem to fear most. I don't personally see it ever happening, but I suppose anything is possible. However, I refuse to be a part of it. I took an oath to protect the constitution.

I will not participate in any kind of forcible ban. That's probably a little more accurate. Other bans usually just apply to the further manufacture or import of banned items, but grandfather existing ownership of them.

[BigDeeeeeeee]

Originally Posted by DanaT

I dont have a harvard law degree..but let me try? These are ducks, right?

The duck says Moooooo!

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by sam spade

tomorrow, if the fedgov passes the awb, i won't enforce that either.

thank you sam!!!

[Longtooths]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

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.

Confused, would the grounds for firing be because he refused to do his job? Or because he said right and not write?

I kid I kid....sorry to much coffee this morning

[DanaT]

For AK Stick...

UCMJ Section 16c(1)(c)

Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.

I also suggest you read

18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

[sheriff733]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

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.

But what if I said I would never write a speeding ticket for any less than 10 over posted speed.

Then what? Should 56 in a 55 get everyone I catch doing it a speeding ticket?

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

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

In the military we were held accountable for any unlawful order we carried out. It was not considered a defense to claim that you were "just following orders". I don't see why a police officer being given an unconstitutional order should have any less burden than the military does in this regard.

We have not seen it in this country in many years, but laws can and do get passed that are unjust, unethical and immoral. Just because it has an official seal on it does not mean you should blindly enforce it.

[racer11]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

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.

I don't know of any law saying that they must enforce a certain law. Wrong or right I hope those certain guys in blue stick to their beliefs,,,at least when it comes to our 2nd rights.

[.264 magnum]

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 you'd've enforced Jim Crow laws back in the day? Cops have and use discretion every single day.

[.264 magnum]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

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.

A number of the cats speaking out are sheriffs, sheriffs absolutely to have a public policy role as they are normally elected officials.

[M&P Shooter]

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.

I 100% disagree! If a law is passed and is a violation of the Constitution a true LE officer would not enforce that in just law. If Obama and his Nazi's decide we have too many children in the U.S. and order public executions of couples 2nd child should LE officer obey and shoot those kids in the head?

[Henry Kane]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

Your concept of the Supremacy Clause is flawed.

Right now, it's illegal under federal law for non-aboriginals to possess eagle feathers. I don't enforce that law, never will, and if you chant "Supremacy Clause" at me, I still won't. Tomorrow, if the fedgov passes the AWB, I won't enforce that either.

Thanks for offering some clarity on that point.
And thanks to you and other LEO's who have acknowledged what is right!

[GumbyDammit]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

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.

My comission was issued by the state, ergo I enforce state laws. I'm not a US Marshall or other Fed agent so I don't have to decide who's laws I will enforce. During the previous AWB I never once looked to see if someones rifle had xyz characteristics or checked their magazine stamp.

Individual officers are also given some discretion in their job. If I write a citation to a guy for speeding, and warn him on his headlight being out, that is my perogative. Now I understand there is a significant difference in discretion relative to a headlight vs felony assault, but a 30 rnd mag in a rifle vs a 10 rnd mag when there are no other mitigating circumstances for a contact would concern me zero (again, barring any other criminal circumstances).

[Neero]

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?


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.

If I object to doing what my boss tells me to do based on moral or ethical grounds I'd just have an HR matter to deal with.

It doesn't even have to violate the law. If my boss orders me to remove a safety mechanism off a machine I can flat out tell him no, and go to our safety officer or HR manager. It may not make me immune from future retaliation, but I sure can't be fired for "disobeying an order" if it runs contrary to safety policy or law. As such, officers disobeying an order that runs contrary to our Constitution can not be fired until a decision on that order in regards to the law in question is made by a judge.

[railfancwb]

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.

Can't know all the oaths of office taken, but the ones with which I am familiar all swear/affirm that the oath taker will uphold the United States Constitution. I know of none which state that the oath taker will uphold the boss' interpretation of the Constitution.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[skinny99]

It doesn't matter what any LEO says today. When the time comes, an overwhelming majority of LEO's will take guns away from "law abiding" citizens. They will feel they are doing the right thing, they will have federal and state laws on their side and the mainstream public and media support for their actions. They will be hero's. They will be enforcing accepted laws against criminals.

The few that do refuse will be replaced. There are plenty of people ready to take their place. Are they well qualified,ideal canidates? No! But quantity will be more important than quality.

[railfancwb]

Originally Posted by .264 magnum

A number of the cats speaking out are sheriffs, sheriffs absolutely to have a public policy role as they are normally elected officials.

Some say that each sheriff is the SUPREME law enforcement official within his/her jurisdiction, because it is an elected position which predates the formation of the United States. In other words the sheriff trumps city police, state police, and all federal law enforcement. .


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[sheriff733]

Originally Posted by skinny99

It doesn't matter what any LEO says today. When the time comes, an overwhelming majority of LEO's will take guns away from "law abiding" citizens. They will feel they are doing the right thing, they will have federal and state laws on their side and the mainstream public and media support for their actions. They will be hero's. They will be enforcing accepted laws against criminals.

The few that do refuse will be replaced. There are plenty of people ready to take their place. Are they well qualified,ideal canidates? No! But quantity will be more important than quality.

Care to elaborate on what you are basing that off of? What is your law enforcement background?

[Bruce M]

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.

...

I agree up to a point, but there are some actions that could be so far outside of what is Constitutional, that there should be no question as to not participate.

Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn

...
The issues in question are so blatantly obvious, that they don't need a SCOTUS ruling. ....

But there is the the problem. A seven round magazine limit is no more "blatanty obvious" than is a ten or fifteen round magazine limit, both of which have been around for some time now and do not appear to have been so blatantly obvious that they are clearly Unconstitutional.
Many gun rights activists may believe they are Unconstitutional, but there certainly is nothing close to a majority of ctizens or a majority of legal experts who find this Unconstitutional.


If we were actually on the edge of starting the nation wide door-to-door gun confiscation program, it would be a different story.

Originally Posted by Neero

.. As such, officers disobeying an order that runs contrary to our Constitution can not be fired until a decision on that order in regards to the law in question is made by a judge.

My guess is that an officer could easily be fired for refusing to obey a direct order well before an issue made an appearance before a judge.


I would suggest that an officer has an obligation to disobey an order when a wide number of people from all ends of the spectrum agree that it is Unconstitutional. If the NRA, ACLU, a liberal big city community activist and a guy who has been a twenty year John Birch Society member all agree the act is Unconstitutional, an officer should and probably must not perform the act. If however, the Constitutionality of an act is only questioned by some on one side, then I agree the officer probably cannot announce he will ignore it without potentially violating his oath of office.

[skinny99]

Originally Posted by sheriff733

Care to elaborate on what you are basing that off of? What is your law enforcement background?

I have no personal basis in law enforcement and but do have great deal of respect for them. It is a job I would not do. There are way to many bad day compared to the good ones. However based on the past and a general knowledge of human nature I know that when public opinion favors a stance that a the majority will follow. All over the world men have committed horrible atrocities far worse than confiscating guns. They were not all evil men. They were kids and family men. Following orders that were largely supported by the public.

A couple scenarios to consider. You are a 40+ year old,17 year LEO. 3 years away from your pension. One kid in high school and another in college and 12 years into a 30 year mortgage. The day you dreaded come to fruition. It is time to knock on someone's door and take away their legally purchased firearm. It has made clear that all personnel in your dept will be participating and that failure to do so will be a firable offense. Your union is on board. It is do the job or get out. All other dept are on board. What would most do?

Your 24. You have wanted to be a LEO for a long time. You went to the academy along with a large number of other people. You graduate with good marks. You have been turning in applications along with the 100's of other people. You are currently waiting tables at Outback waiting for someone to give you a chance and so you can pay your rent and student loan payment. You get called for an interview. Introduce yourself. First question:If hired would you have any problems enforcing the new gun laws? What do you say?

I am not saying this will be the case tomorrow. It will take time to change the laws and public perception. But as a society we have shown that if lead correctly we are willing to change our way of thinking. Gay marriage,religion,abortion,tattos, personal finance and many other issues have had radical shifts in public opinion. Things that were once very taboo and discrete are widely accepted.This is of course all media driven.

[Henry Kane]

Originally Posted by skinny99

It doesn't matter what any LEO says today. When the time comes, an overwhelming majority of LEO's will take guns away from "law abiding" citizens. They will feel they are doing the right thing, they will have federal and state laws on their side and the mainstream public and media support for their actions. They will be hero's. They will be enforcing accepted laws against criminals.

The few that do refuse will be replaced. There are plenty of people ready to take their place. Are they well qualified,ideal canidates? No! But quantity will be more important than quality.

What you're saying here is very, very difficult to imagine. I interact with a lot of law enforcement in my job, statewide, and my personal experience leads me to believe the exact opposite. Of course, I do live in TX, so maybe geopolitics are a factor, but I am grateful to know, without a doubt, that the oaths sworn by law enforcement are taken to heart by the vast majority. I'd hate to live under the impression you have of the issue. What I mean is, aren't there enough issues in the world that we shouldn't create adversarial views without rational cause?

Take care.