HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Some sheriffs vow not to ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:03 AM

Some sheriffs vow not to enforce Obama's gun plan..who the fuck do they think they are?

Denny Peyman didn't watch President Barack Obama's gun-control announcement Wednesday. But the Jackson County, Ky., sheriff said he already knows how the proposals will affect the way he does his job: not one whit.

Peyman is one of several sheriffs across the country who are vowing not to enforce new firearms restrictions that could be imposed by Congress or by executive order.

"Kentucky is a sovereign state," Peyman told NBC News. "The federal government is coming in and saying, 'This is what you're going to do.' We're not going to do it."

The White House's wish list includes an assault-weapons ban. Peyman said if it comes to pass, he won't be part of any crackdown.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16547387-some-sheriffs-vow-not-to-enforce-obamas-gun-plan-anti-violence-groups-praise-measures?lite

28 replies, 1878 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply Some sheriffs vow not to enforce Obama's gun plan..who the fuck do they think they are? (Original post)
spanone Jan 2013 OP
PDJane Jan 2013 #1
spanone Jan 2013 #2
bluestateguy Jan 2013 #3
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #6
galileoreloaded Jan 2013 #21
lapfog_1 Jan 2013 #4
geomon666 Jan 2013 #5
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #13
johnfunk Jan 2013 #20
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #23
malaise Jan 2013 #16
Permanut Jan 2013 #7
johnfunk Jan 2013 #22
riverwalker Jan 2013 #8
kelly1mm Jan 2013 #9
Pretzel_Warrior Jan 2013 #10
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #11
defacto7 Jan 2013 #12
Erose999 Jan 2013 #15
chloes1 Jan 2013 #14
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #17
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #18
WI_DEM Jan 2013 #19
arthritisR_US Jan 2013 #24
warrior1 Jan 2013 #25
Flashmann Jan 2013 #27
Coyotl Jan 2013 #26
frylock Jan 2013 #28

Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:05 AM

1. White men, I suspect.

The ones with the power, the privilege, and the ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PDJane (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:06 AM

2. arrogant ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:11 AM

3. Printz v. U.S.

They don't have to enforce a federal law as local officers, but they may not interfere with federal agents enforcing federal laws in their communities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:16 AM

6. This. There is no legal requirement for him to enforce federal crimes. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:43 AM

21. yep.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:11 AM

4. no more federal dollars to support them

and the "wrongful death" lawsuits when it is proved that they didn't enforce the law and could have.... will both personally bankrupt them and professionally ruin them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:12 AM

5. A sovereign state huh?

Ok. Immediately cut all federal funding to that state. Problem solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geomon666 (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 05:41 AM

13. How about states that defy laws passed by congress, signed by a president and upheldby the USSC?

Like Colorado and Washington when they legalized marijuana.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:41 AM

20. Not a good analogy. Doobies don't kill first graders.

That is all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnfunk (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:37 AM

23. It's not about lethality, it's about not enforcing duly enacted law.

People cannot claim in one breath that states are obliged to enforce federal law and then in the next breath cheer when another law directly contradicts federal law and then again get angry when states like Arizona pass laws such as SB1070.

I would also add that Obama passed no law yesterday, only policies regarding federal agencies, which sheriffs are not beholden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geomon666 (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:27 AM

16. That simple n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:26 AM

7. Linn County, Oregon..

Add Sheriff Tim Mueller to the list. This clown is an embarrassment to our blue state.

http://www.registerguard.com/web/news/cityregion/29310102-57/laws-mueller-gun-sheriff-county.html.csp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Permanut (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:44 AM

22. Wouldn't it be amusing if gun-owning gun control supporters...

... started talking about these sheriffs' "tyranny" in refusing to protect the public -- and suggested that perhaps "second amendment remedies" might be in order?

Ironic on many levels -- but I'd love to see it happen just for the sheer cognitive dissonance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:53 AM

8. another one

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S2899041.shtml?cat=12196

Minn. Sheriff Vows to Ignore New Gun Restrictions

A Minnesota sheriff says he would refuse to enforce any new state or federal regulation that restricts guns.

Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole sent an open letter to residents this week, saying he doesn't believe the federal government has a right to order states to follow mandates that violate the U.S. Constitution.

Cole wrote that he would view any such mandate illegal and refuse to carry it out. He says he believes it is a "moral sin" to erode freedom through administrative rules.

Cole told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he is categorically opposed to any proposal that would infringe on one's constitutional rights. He says he wrote the letter because citizens have been afraid of what the future holds.

He says the issue doesn't apply to just guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:18 AM

9. Just like local LEO that don't enforce federal drug laws, or federal immigration laws. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:19 AM

10. Ignorant hayseeds, that's who

 

Racist pricks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:35 AM

11. The US has always had a system of divided government, and sheriffs are typically county officials --

so I regard folk who make statements like Peyman as babbling yahoos: since they're not federal agency employees, a presidential executive order is unlikely to apply directly to them; and since they're not federal law enforcement officials, they will often have no obvious immediate duty to enforce federal laws (though Congress, of course, does have significant authority to impose conditions on various forms of federal funding; and some cooperation between various law enforcement officials under different authorities is frequently desirable)

So what is Peyman's jabber really about? Under the current Kentucky constitution, county sheriffs are elected every four years: the natural conclusion is that Peyman is just a yammering political airhead, throwing red meat to his potential constituents

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:52 AM

12. Most Sheriffs in the US are asocial, sadistic, narcissists

The most dangerous, self serving, lawbreakers and club boys of all government positions. I would no more trust a Sheriffs or officials in the sheriffs office than I would the mafia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:25 AM

15. I'm gonna take, and take, and take, till they ain't got nothin left to give but BLOOD!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 05:47 AM

14. There are 3 or 4 sheriffs here in OR

that have written statements to the effect that they will not enforce Federal laws in regards to gun control. I thought then and still believe that, since sheriffs are elected, the little bastards are trying to get popular votes.

big babies with the little penii all of them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:35 AM

17. Glad to see some people comprehend civil rights. nt

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:37 AM

18. What are "Inbred Racist Assholes"

I'll take "Members of the Republican Base" for $500, Alex...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:39 AM

19. maybe the president could call in the National guard to take over his department.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:12 AM

24. I'm betting they are white, just by their disrespect

for the office of the President

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:14 AM

25. cut off all federal funding

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrior1 (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:29 AM

27. cut off all federal funding

It worked with seatbelt laws.....The Fed threatened to cut hi-way funding to states which refused to enact seatbelt laws.....They did the same thing,earlier,with regard to the National 55MPH speed limit......

That said,I suspect there would be legalities,as well as logistical concerns,in cutting all Fed funds to states not in compliance.......Unlike the seatbelt-highway funding,dynamic,I'm not sure there would be a specific area in which to target threatened funding cuts......

I'd love to think that could be a workable approach,though......

*Mis-spelled word...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:18 AM

26. These are just the ones who did NOT graduate juris doctor in constitutional law at Harvard

We shall see who has the last word on these matters after their trollling is long forgotten.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:20 PM

28. i'd withhold DHS funding to any department unwilling to comply..

sorry, but no more tanks or drones for you mister sheriff sir.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread