Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 61

Thread: Federal Takeover of Colorado Sheriffs and Police

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344

    Federal Takeover of Colorado Sheriffs and Police

    So now one single Federal judge somehow has the authority to intervene in state business and simply throw out a lawsuit brought by 64 state Sheriffs against the state of Colorado !!! Outrageous. At least the ruling doesn’t prevent the case from moving forward because there are 21 other plaintiffs.


    Judge: Colorado sheriffs can’t sue over gun control laws

    Greg Campbell
    Daily Caller
    November 30, 2013

    Colorado’s elected sheriffs don’t have the standing to sue the state of Colorado to overturn controversial new gun control laws, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday.

    Most of the state’s 64 sheriffs spearheaded a lawsuit to overturn laws that went into effect July 1 limiting the size of ammunition magazines and requiring universal background checks, saying they violate the Second Amendment and that they are unenforceable.

    But U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger in Denver said the sheriffs couldn’t sue the state as a group because they are elected officials.

    “If individual sheriffs wish to protect individual rights or interests they may do so. However, the sheriffs have confused their individual rights and interests with those of the county sheriff’s office,” Krieger said, according to the Associated Press.

    Full article here:

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/29/ju...-control-laws/

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The judge ruled that the sheriffs, in their professional capacity, do not have standing to sue; they can do so as citizens but not as sheriffs...the suit continues anyways.

    Judge ruled correct on this one....

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    ...Judge ruled correct on this one....
    Based on what little was surmised so far, I have to agree.

    How would we feel if sheriff's sued the state for a preemption law that gave only the state legislature the power to regulate firearms and ammunition possession?

    Because we have that law in many states, and it is a good thing.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Based on what little was surmised so far, I have to agree.

    How would we feel if sheriff's sued the state for a preemption law that gave only the state legislature the power to regulate firearms and ammunition possession?

    Because we have that law in many states, and it is a good thing.
    I tend to agree.

    The executive is an independent power. If they think the legislature overstepped its bounds, let the sheriffs refuse to enforce. Why on earth are they asking the judicial, a third branch, for a ruling? Moreover, why are they asking the fedgov for a ruling? To hell with both. The sheriffs oughta just stand up and say, "No."
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-01-2013 at 12:59 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    ...The executive is an independent power. If they think the legislature overstepped its bounds, let the sheriffs refuse to enforce. Why on earth are they asking the judicial, a third branch, for a ruling?...
    I had written much along those same lines in my draft and then didn't include it in the final post. I don't know why not anymore. But I was thinking the same. Questioning the Legislature is not the job of the enforcers. They can refuse to enforce, up to their legal requirements to do so. They can point out if laws conflict, but I agree that it seems odd to sue to a federal court for this.

    I applaud these sheriffs for recognizing the absurdity of these laws, but I think they need a better talk with their respective attorneys.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  6. #6
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I tend to agree.

    The executive is an independent power. If they think the legislature overstepped its bounds, let the sheriffs refuse to enforce. Why on earth are they asking the judicial, a third branch, for a ruling? Moreover, why are they asking the fedgov for a ruling? To hell with both. The sheriffs oughta just stand up and say, "No."
    I think it's because that would set up a bad precedence. The three branches need to balance each other and check each other. Put it this way, if the Executive decides not to enforce a law ( pretending it isn't there), what happens if they enforce laws that aren't there or interprets them in a way not meant by the Legislature. Either side would call on the Judicial to step in and make a call.

    This may seem a good idea for us because we are gun guys and it would help us. Well what if the Executive was a bunch of antis and made up their own methods of dealing with guns (happens in other states). We would cry foul.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Stafford, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    341
    "Federal Takeover of Colorado Sheriffs and Police"

    I love this forum, but I am really amazed by the inflammatory titles used for some of the threads.

    A judge rules that some of the plaintiffs, which happened to be LEOs, had no standing in their official capacities. How is that a take over of the sheriffs and police?

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I think it's because that would set up a bad precedence. The three branches need to balance each other and check each other. Put it this way, if the Executive decides not to enforce a law ( pretending it isn't there), what happens if they enforce laws that aren't there or interprets them in a way not meant by the Legislature. Either side would call on the Judicial to step in and make a call.

    This may seem a good idea for us because we are gun guys and it would help us. Well what if the Executive was a bunch of antis and made up their own methods of dealing with guns (happens in other states). We would cry foul.
    Readers,

    I just looked it up. Colorado has 64 counties, the same number as the sheriffs who joined the suit. When a number of sheriffs equivalent to every county sheriff in the state objects to a law, something is up.

    So, according to Primus, when the legislature sets up a constitutional crisis, its the sheriff's job to avoid the crisis, ignore the huge overstep, and go along with it. Phooey. How can the legislature force a sheriff to violate his constitutional oath by enforcing an unconstitutional law?

    It occurs to me, the sheriffs could do something along the lines of Marbury v Madison--the case where the new president withheld the commission of a marshall to whom the outgoing president did not get the commission delivered. The Colorado sheriffs could wait until they got fired or recalled for refusal to enforce, and then take the matter of their firing to court. But, why put it in the hands of the courts? Judged by what?, ten or eleven judges across the entire appeals process? When they got 64 sheriffs judging the matter for themselves?

    Also, Primus plays a game with his "what if they enforce laws..." Rubbish. In the present situation we have sheriffs who are calling foul over being required to violate their oaths of office with regard to constitutionality; a far cry from violating it themselves by enforcing non-existent laws or twisting laws to suit their own enforcement tastes.

    It scares me that Primus wears a badge. I wonder if he applies such sloppy thinking to his everyday activities as a cop.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-01-2013 at 01:10 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Put it this way, if the Executive decides not to enforce a law ( pretending it isn't there), what happens if they enforce laws that aren't there...
    You have a remarkably odd view of the law and its place.

    Not enforcing bad laws which do exist avoids the creation of victims, and so people aren't harmed or made upset.

    Enforcing laws which don't exist creates victims, who will be harmed and made upset.

    See how that works? It's the difference between aggressively hurting people, and not doing so.

    Leave it to the law enfarcement officer, having placed the law on an altar above basic morality, to equate the two circumstances.

    Last edited by marshaul; 12-01-2013 at 05:38 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Is a elected county sheriff, in CO, a representative of the state executive branch?

    It seems to me that the county sheriff can go along or not, but I am not knowing the status of a elected county sheriff in CO.

    Does the state have the authority to tell a elected county sheriff what to do if he is not violating state law?

    Not enforcing state law may be a justification for taking over that SO by the state executive branch.

    I would hope that the elected county sheriff is the top lawman in that county.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    You have a remarkably odd view of the law and its place.

    Not enforcing bad laws which do exist avoids the creation of victims, and so people aren't harmed or made upset.

    Enforcing laws which don't exist creates victims, who will be harmed and made upset.

    See how that works? It's the difference between aggressively hurting people, and not doing so.

    Leave it to the law enfarcement officer, having placed the law on an altar above basic morality, to equate the two circumstances.

    I guess I do have an odd look at it. I see that if there's a law on the books it gets followed at least closely and at least enforced closely. Any complete disregard either way is wrong. If its so egregious it makes "victims" itll get turned over by the courts. Its not the executive branch to look at the book and say "i like this law.. this law.... this one is not moral because i dont agree.... ok well enforce this one... " Mull that over in your little head before u make any more cracks. Thanks.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I think it's because that would set up a bad precedence. The three branches need to balance each other and check each other. Put it this way, if the Executive decides not to enforce a law ( pretending it isn't there), what happens if they enforce laws that aren't there or interprets them in a way not meant by the Legislature. Either side would call on the Judicial to step in and make a call.

    This may seem a good idea for us because we are gun guys and it would help us. Well what if the Executive was a bunch of antis and made up their own methods of dealing with guns (happens in other states). We would cry foul.
    If the sheriff did not arrest someone because he did not like the law, a court would never see the case.

    Hardly set bad "precedence"...its the basis for the separation of the 3 branches of Gov't ~ it was specifically designed this way.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If the sheriff did not arrest someone because he did not like the law, a court would never see the case.

    Hardly set bad "precedence"...its the basis for the separation of the 3 branches of Gov't ~ it was specifically designed this way.
    If the person wasn't arrested then who's the victim? No one. If someone is arrested and then deem they are a victim then the court sees the case and may rule the law bogus.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  14. #14
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If the sheriff did not arrest someone because he did not like the law, a court would never see the case.

    Hardly set bad "precedence"...its the basis for the separation of the 3 branches of Gov't ~ it was specifically designed this way.
    And somewhere in there, "officer discretion" is revealed a myth or a contradiction.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    It seems to me that what he is trying to say is there might be a situation where a sheriff might believe a law is bad, and therefore decide to enforce it--once--in the hopes of getting it overturned, even though he doesn't have to.

    I could see such happening, if, say, someone announces a plan to engage in civil disobedience and clearly hopes to be arrested.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    I'll try to put it this way as a better illustration.

    Say a chief in my state decides he doesn't like the restraining order law portion that states we must take firearms from guys who have an RO against them. some guys see that as infringing. So say the chief agrees and none of his guys enforce that portion of the law. Well that's fine. Until one of those guys with an to shoots his wife with said guns that should have been taken. The the chief deciding to not enforce a law on principle has him in a lot of hot water.

    And unlike our scholar who implies that's "officer discretion" that's not. It would be total disregard for law. For better or worse. Again I wouldn't want the PD having that much power.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I guess I do have an odd look at it. I see that if there's a law on the books it gets followed at least closely and at least enforced closely. Any complete disregard either way is wrong. If its so egregious it makes "victims" itll get turned over by the courts. Its not the executive branch to look at the book and say "i like this law.. this law.... this one is not moral because i dont agree.... ok well enforce this one... " Mull that over in your little head before u make any more cracks. Thanks.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    The war on drugs is a perfect example of how incredibly wrong you are here. Smoking marijuana is essentially harmless, at least as harmless as drinking alcohol. Outlawing it was based on business, not public safety. It's an immoral law that has created hundreds of thousands of victims in it's enforcement. The courts continue to uphold it.

    So, you're wrong. And kind of a d*** too.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by bomber View Post
    The war on drugs is a perfect example of how incredibly wrong you are here. Smoking marijuana is essentially harmless, at least as harmless as drinking alcohol. Outlawing it was based on business, not public safety. It's an immoral law that has created hundreds of thousands of victims in it's enforcement. The courts continue to uphold it.

    So, you're wrong. And kind of a d*** too.
    lol, yup.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    lol, yup.
    First.... good refutation. "Marijuana should be legal so your wrong". Go to the marijuana thread its been discussed to death over there and put much better then yourself.

    Second if you think what I said was me being a dick then your in for a surprise if you read the other threads and some actual d**** responses guys post. Good news is if you do you might get so upset (based on your current lack of ability to deal with an opposing view) that you'll be able to claim depression or some other illness and get a medical marijuana card. It'll then be legal for you. Your welcome.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Second if you think what I said was me being a dick then your in for a surprise if you read the other threads and some actual d**** responses guys post. Good news is if you do you might get so upset (based on your current lack of ability to deal with an opposing view) that you'll be able to claim depression or some other illness and get a medical marijuana card. It'll then be legal for you. Your welcome.
    It's not a single post that elicits remarks like that.

    This bit I quoted is actually a good example. Someone calls you out for your callous willingness to ignore those harmed by prohibition when you say things like (about a bad law) "if its so egregious it makes 'victims' itll get turned over by the courts", so you resort to implying that we're drug users. Not only is that an ad hominem attack, it's a dick move.

    To add to it, you enforce immoral and aggressive prohibitions. Worse, you defend these prohibitions (actually, you're an apologist for them), and you do so primarily using "FYTW" logic.
    Last edited by marshaul; 12-03-2013 at 04:15 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by jegoodin View Post
    "Federal Takeover of Colorado Sheriffs and Police"

    I love this forum, but I am really amazed by the inflammatory titles used for some of the threads.

    A judge rules that some of the plaintiffs, which happened to be LEOs, had no standing in their official capacities. How is that a take over of the sheriffs and police?
    Puhleeeze. Are you really that blind? Take off the horse blinders and get out of the stall for a change. It shouldn’t be hard to see the big 30,000’ picture if you try.

    I look at it like a jigsaw puzzle. The more pieces you can assemble the clearer the picture becomes. Each news story is a single puzzle piece. Some of the pieces may not ever fit into place. But many do fit. If you look at just this one article I suppose you might somehow think the title is “inflammatory.”

    But doing so will be at your own peril. Keeping yourself ignorant will not stop the country from disintegrating into total tyranny. No amount of cognitive dissonance, normalcy bias, and general apathy can protect even the most unaware of Americans as to what lies in their immediate future.

    And if we assemble even a small portion of the big picture, what do we see? America is rapidly becoming a tyrannical, federalized police state. One of the goals of the New World Order global elite is to quietly merge the local police departments into one Federal Police force, and then eventually a world police force.

    Below is a couple of videos I recommend everyone watch. They are available to watch for free at youtube.com. Simply go to youtube.com and put the film’s title in the search engine box.

    One such video is Alex Jones’ film, “Martial Law 9-11: The Rise of the Police State.”

    And a few other videos I recommend you watch are,

    “Police State 2000”
    "Police State II: The Takeover”
    "Police State III: Total Enslavement”
    “Police State 4: The Rise Of FEMA”
    “TerrorStorm (Second Edition): A History of Government Sponsored Terrorism”
    “ENDGAME: Blueprint for Global Enslavement”

    A couple of these films have had over 40 million views on you-tube, so understand that they are not some bizarre and unknown conspiracy films. They are as mainstream as many major Hollywood films.

    There are two disturbing trends in law enforcement. First, the U.S. military is being used for domestic law enforcement, contrary to law. Secondly, the federal government is taking over the financing, training, and direction of local police, removing the police from local control. The result is that the federalized police have increasingly turned to violent tactics and assaults on people who have not committed any crimes.

    Here's how it is happening. A little-known Pentagon program has been quietly militarizing American police forces for years. Well over $4.2 billion worth of equipment has been distributed by the Defense Department to municipal law enforcement agencies, with a record $546 million in 2012 alone. The figures for 2013 haven’t been released yet.

    IMPORTANTLY, along with these grants come what is called “COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS” which means the police agencies that are receiving these funds and equipment are signing deals with the Feds to agree to their policies and supervision !!! This sell-out started in 1977 under the “Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977.”

    Traditionally, the U.S. has had civilian control of governments at all levels. The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act made it illegal for the US military to act as a domestic police. But the trend now is towards the militarization of law enforcement. The slaughter at Waco was a prime example.

    Under the 1981 "Military Cooperation with Law-Enforcement Officials Act," the Department of Defense is supplying the local police with paramilitary training and equipment, especially for SWAT teams, for use against civilians. Many SWAT teams are being trained by former military special operations officers. And the Pentagon has armed many big city police departments with an incredible array of weaponry; full-auto machine guns, long-range .50 caliber sniper rifles, body armor, stun grenades, grenade and OC gas launchers, night vision devices, infrared (invisible) lasers, thermal imagers, spike strips, hi-tech vehicle arrestors (i.e., handheld “guns” that can shut down a running vehicle’s electronics bringing it to a stop), armored personal carriers, and even surveillance drones.

    These militarized SWAT teams love to execute their warrants by breaking into homes in the dead of night, breaking down doors to surprise the sleeping residents. The house gets trashed, the dog probably is killed, and if they don't find any drugs, they leave without any apology or restitution. No records are kept on the number of innocent people brutalized and shot by paramilitary police units. And the police are also increasingly practicing asset forfeiture and seizure, where the raiders keep the loot. This is modern day piracy.

    If federalization continues to proceed, it won't be long before the police will be taken completely out of local control. It won’t matter if their arm patches stay the same saying they are from such and such jurisdiction, their funding will come from federal funds and asset seizures, and their allegiance will be to the Feds, not to their town or county. They will not longer be local police, but units of a federal police force allied with the U.S. military.

    We are not yet a national military police state, but America is well down that path, and I seriously doubt it can be stopped.

    AUGustin
    Last edited by Augustin; 12-03-2013 at 07:31 PM. Reason: fix typos

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    Geez, all this text and you still didn't answer the man's question. Just in case you have forgotten it, it is "A judge rules that some of the plaintiffs, which happened to be LEOs, had no standing in their official capacities. How is that a take over of the sheriffs and police?" I'm interested in hearing the answer to that question, too. Maybe it was the fact that those sheriffs voluntarily filed a lawsuit that makes it a "takeover".
    He's too busy gulping the Alex Jones Koolaid to realize he's babbling incessantly about nothing relevant.

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    A citizen beats the rap because the law is bad does not mean that the law is struck down. The citizen must be convicted under the bad law and have a appeals process that opines that the law is bad and the citizen should have never been convicted in the first place. Cops can arrest for anything and every thing, minor inconvience in the eyes of the state.

    Getting convicted can be the hard part in the eyes of the state. I suspect that DAs, except maybe Denver DAs, will not prosecute "perps" cuz the law(s) just may get ruled as unconstitutional. The laws are nothing more than a tool to intimidate the meek of heart. Someone said it, if all the sheriffs know and say it is unconstitutional then the legislature and the executive knew it too.

  24. #24
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,272
    LEA are not obligated to enforce most laws, unless the laws specically state that they must be enforced. Arrest is completely at the discretion of the police. Unless a judge steps in and gives an court order for arrest. Police cannot enforce laws that do not exist.

    Not sure how it is on Primus's military post.

    BTW LEOSA does not give military police any civilian police powers. NONE! NADA! The recent addition of military police into it was not to negate posse comitatus.

    Must be frustrating for those wishing to be a real cop.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 12-04-2013 at 10:08 AM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Larimer County, CO
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Good news is if you do you might get so upset (based on your current lack of ability to deal with an opposing view) that you'll be able to claim depression or some other illness and get a medical marijuana card. It'll then be legal for you. Your welcome.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Although getting a MMC technically forfeits the 2nd amendment since Marijuana is considered a "controlled substance" by federal law.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •