HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » CNN host calls out S.C. s...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:32 PM

CNN host calls out S.C. sheriff on refusal to enforce weapons ban

A South Carolina sheriff who publicly declared he won’t enforce any new gun safety laws he deems unconstitutional accused Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on Friday of introducing a “scary” new proposal designed to undermine the Second Amendment.

“I believe that there is a goal to ultimately take as many firearms as possible,” said Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon, who admitted to CNN’s Carol Costello that he has not seen the list of firearms covered in Feinstein’s new assault-weapons ban. “The differences between the firearms, more often than not, are cosmetic as to what is an assault weapon, that sort of thing.”

Feinstein’s proposal calls for the renewal of the Brady Bill, which expired in 2004. It also seeks to ban gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, as well as the sale and importation of firearms fitted for detachable magazines.

The bill also exempts more than 2,000 firearm models used for hunting or sports purposes, defined by make and model and not appearance. Gun owners who already own high-capacity weapons would not have to give them up if the proposal becomes law.

However, Cannon said, proposals like Feinstein’s were only taking advantage of a general “lack of information and understanding” about firearms, as well as grief over incidents like the Dec. 14 mass school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1yWVF)

17 replies, 1533 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

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:39 PM

1. Any sheriff who refuses to follow Federal law and/or executive orders

should be removed from office, especially when the refusal is based solely on partisanship and racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hayabusa (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:46 PM

3. They don't legally have to enforce Federal law

however, they are not allowed to break it. I suspect the Sheriff is saying he will not enforce the laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:48 PM

4. True, but

we all know exactly why he's not going to enforce it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hayabusa (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:48 PM

8. Because a rifle's shape is a silly thing to pass laws about?

Why do you think he's not going to enforce it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:05 PM

11. Because of who signed it.

Don't imagine that it's anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hayabusa (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:50 AM

16. Signed what, exactly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:57 AM

17. The executive orders and/or a potential assault weapons ban (which is DOA)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:43 PM

2. Pubs only care about the second amendment

 

And don’t give a crap about the daily violations that occur on the others.

They are going to figure out soon that the other amendments they don't care about are going to destroy the America they say they love and defend.

But they will have thier guns so I guess to them it is OK.

Fools.,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:58 PM

5. He's just posturing for the benefit of his constituents

He has to run for election after all and he knows which way the winds is blowing in his county.

But we'll see what happens when his ass is actually on the line and his constituents expect him to stand up to the BATF or whoever if anybody gets sent to Charleston County to enforce the law. I have a feeling he is hoping to be retired before he actually has to take a stand. Because he'll probably fold like a cheap umbrella if it comes to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:46 PM

6. Any sheriff who does not enforce the law is not a law enforcement officer.

The military says you do not have to follow an "unlawful" order. If the order IS the LAW you have to follow it. It is the LAW. Duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lint Head (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:47 PM

7. And the sheriffs in states with medical marijuana who refuse to enforce Federal Law?

We can't have this both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:51 PM

9. Medical pot is "legal" according to their state law.

There is a difference. It's not "both ways" when you have competing federal and state laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lint Head (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:52 PM

10. Assault weapons are legal according to their state law

What's the difference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:42 PM

12. Assault weapons are not legal anywhere. Semi-automatics are legal.

I'll explain the difference once again with more detail. There are no federal laws against semiautomatic weapons. There are bans in some cities. So "not" enforcing a law that does not exist is moot on it's face. Besides being ridicules. There is a difference between an assault weapon and a semiautomatic weapon.

Some states have legalized pot. The Federal law has not legalized pot. The law enforcement officers who are enforcing the "legal" state pot laws are not enforcing the federal pot laws. The law officers who are not recognizing the federal pot laws are "enforcing" the state law because pot is legal in their particular state.

No states have legalized assault weapons. If the federal government bans 30 round clips and the officers do not enforce that law, which will be the only law because there is not a state law, they are not enforcing a law which is "in force".
There "is" a difference and if you do not understand the difference please re-read my explanation. Constantly asking the same question over and over is not a response or debate.

What I take from your reply is that you are trying making a point comparing pot to guns and that the law officers are correct not to enforce a law. Why don't you simply say you are against any gun laws or whatever you believe instead of just using a non sequitor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lint Head (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 08:37 AM

14. I am *well* aware of the difference

No states have legalized assault weapons.

Sure they have. Any state without its own AWB has legalized them.

Why don't you simply say you are against any gun laws or whatever you believe instead of just using a non sequitor?

Mostly because I'm not against all gun laws, and that tired strawman suggests you don't have a good argument.

I'm against stupid gun laws, like the AWB which regulates what a semi-automatic rifle's grip can look like, but I'm not against all gun laws. I also find it hypocritical that we cheer sheriffs who ignore Federal laws we don't like and jeer sheriffs who ignore Federal laws we do like..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lint Head (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 08:56 AM

15. This is an ill informed and factually incorrect post.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:51 PM

13. Hey CNN! How about responding to Amber Lyon's revelation you take Bahrain $$$ to lie to your viewers

 

about what the Bahrain government is doing to its citizens???

(rude gesture)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread