Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

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

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Will Beararms, Mar 1, 2013.

  1. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    Nov 1, 2002
    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.
  2. 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.

  3. .264 magnum

    .264 magnum CLM

    Dec 5, 2002
    Dallas TX
    So you'd've enforced Jim Crow laws back in the day? Cops have and use discretion every single day.
  4. .264 magnum

    .264 magnum CLM

    Dec 5, 2002
    Dallas TX
    A number of the cats speaking out are sheriffs, sheriffs absolutely to have a public policy role as they are normally elected officials.
  5. M&P Shooter

    M&P Shooter Metal Member

    Jul 19, 2009
    Phila, PA
    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?
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2013
  6. Henry Kane

    Henry Kane Reverend

    Aug 10, 2011
    Central TX
    Thanks for offering some clarity on that point. :wavey:
    And thanks to you and other LEO's who have acknowledged what is right!
  7. GumbyDammit

    GumbyDammit Xtra CoCheese

    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).
  8. Neero

    Neero Sleep-deprived

    Jul 29, 2004
    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.
  9. 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
  10. skinny99

    skinny99 Crew Chief

    Oct 30, 2011
    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.
  11. 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
  12. sheriff733

    sheriff733 NRA LIFE MEMBER

    Nov 4, 2007
    Care to elaborate on what you are basing that off of? What is your law enforcement background?
  13. Bruce M

    Bruce M

    Jan 3, 2010
    S FL

    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.

    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.

    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.
  14. skinny99

    skinny99 Crew Chief

    Oct 30, 2011
    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.
  15. Henry Kane

    Henry Kane Reverend

    Aug 10, 2011
    Central TX
    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.

  16. You sir , rock!

    And I do put the blame on the idiot politicians and worst the idiots that vote for these scum.
  17. KevinFACE


    Feb 16, 2010
    An illegal law is no law at all... so why follow it? You happy being a drone?
  18. Bill Lumberg

    Bill Lumberg BTF Inventor

    Jun 14, 2002
    This. It's like a doctor renouncing the hippocratic oath. If they want to become a civilian because of their sentiments, fine, but it's not appropriate for a sworn office.
  19. Cmacc


    Feb 1, 2011
    Eastern Iowa
    The fallacious concept that we have 3 coequal branches of government will eventually ruin this nation. The idea that 9 boneheaded lawyers who hold appointed positions for life can make the final decision about what our laws are or are not is tyrannical. It was not the intention of the majority of the nation's founders.

    The congress created the SCOTUS, funds the SCOTUS and can overrule or limit the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. There is a reason we call their rulings "opinions". The congress is most closely elected by the people and is the supreme ruling body of our land, next is the president or chief executive and finally the SCOTUS.

    Are our contemporary legislatures and presidents too weak or ignorant to govern properly? Yes, but that doesn't change the system as designed. The concept of the "coequal judicial branch" and the supremacy of previous case law came out of Harvard Law School and the warped brain of Christopher Colombus Langdell in the late 1800s. The degradation of the nation by lawyers has continued ever since.

    Just my opinion.
  20. AK_Stick

    AK_Stick AAAMAD

    Jan 20, 2004
    Alaska, again (for now)
    There is a very large difference between enforcing a legal AWB, that you may not like, or agree with, and killing civilians.

    Yet the fact that so very many of you can't actually combat what I've said without striving to make such a silly comparison highlights it perfectly.

    Your feelings, do not have any bearing upon something being unconstitutional. I can claim all day long that the GCA of 68' and 86' are unconstitutional. But I still have to abide them.