New Mexico Sherriff Will Not Enforce Governors Firearms Ban

[The Hammer]

What if this was a law you didn’t like, like rounding up people for their ethnicity or sexual orientation? Or how about just banning drag shows?

If a Sheriff refused to enforce a law like that they would be a hero in my opinion.

That's true.

And in the military we had a "you can disobey orders if they are illegal".

But typically these are clear cut cases, not laws up for interpretation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your opinion still doesn't change the fact that it is up to the COURTS, not the cops, to decide whether a law is unconstitutional. The rule of law is important.

I will disagree with you on this one. There are times that police have been punished for following orders. As the Germans learned: "I was just following orders" is not always a viable defense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's true.

And in the military we had a "you can disobey orders if they are illegal".

But typically these are clear cut cases, not laws up for interpretation.

There are some laws that are clear cut to some and not to others. I can see how some see this as a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

Please note, the following two examples are not the only ones:

A police officer decides not to uphold it and it is found to be unconstitutional. That officer could rightfully be treated as a hero.

Another example, an officer decides to uphold it and it is found constitutional. He could easily be fired for upholding such an illegal law.

I can't blame the police if they follow their conscious too much no matter what they do. It is not an easy problem to solve immediately. I am leaning towards the law being found to be unconstitutional. But I will not have a cow if I am wrong.

 

[The Hammer]

There are some laws that are clear cut to some and not to others. I can see how some see this as a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

Please note, the following two examples are not the only ones:

A police officer decides not to uphold it and it is found to be unconstitutional. That officer could rightfully be treated as a hero.

Another example, an officer decides to uphold it and it is found constitutional. He could easily be fired for upholding such an illegal law.

I can't blame the police if they follow their conscious too much no matter what they do. It is not an easy problem to solve immediately. I am leaning towards the law being found to be unconstitutional. But I will not have a cow if I am wrong.

Unfortunately, I think peace officers should be given a lot less leeway in law interpretation. It takes lawyer up to 5 years to practice law, but only 6 months for a peace officer to enforce them.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I would love to see a country completely disarmed and see how long it lasts without any firearms.

The citizens of most countries are not armed. What tends to happen everywhere in the developed world, the USA excepted, is that people don't get shot.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Your opinion still doesn't change the fact that it is up to the COURTS, not the cops, to decide whether a law is unconstitutional. The rule of law is important.

It's up to the Constitution not the courts to decide what is what. No court can subvert the Constitution to meet its own definition.

That's what Constitutional conventions are for.

 

[Audie]

As a Bernalillo County resident myself, I do support stricter regulation on guns, but I fail to see how a 30 day gun restriction is going to change anything. Those carrying guns will still carry guns. Those out to rob or kill will still rob or kill. Outlaws, by definition, ignore the law. What does the governor expect will be be changed in 30 days?

What it does seem to have accomplished is a huge pretext for a GOP claim of government tyranny, and the anti-gun, anti-constitution, Fascist agenda of the Democratic party.
This will not end well.

Pretext? Skip the fascist part.
Both of your parties call the other fascist.

But suspending the constitution is a serious
matter, and the perp needs to be thrown out.

 

[Audie]

The citizens of most countries are not armed. What tends to happen everywhere in the developed world, the USA excepted, is that people don't get shot.

Have you examined the percentages- suicides,
self defense and other justified homicides, the
places and people involved in the murders?

 

[PureX]

I'm English by birth and have lived in the USA for 30 years or so.

I no longer have any hope that the gun problem will be solved, because it seems to me that to do so we would have to get rid of all guns in private hands (with some exceptions). To do that, we need to remove or dramatically reinterpret the 2nd Amendment. In my experience, even people here that are totally shocked by mass shootings mostly still support the 2nd Amendment, why I can never understand, but they do.

The problem isn't the number of guns. The problem is that we are doing nothing to control who can have them, when, how, or why. Our problem is that any drunk, drugged up, intellectual moron with serious emotional issues can buy all the guns he can afford and carry them around on his person and in his vehicle and there are no regulations in place, or being enforced, to stop him.

As a result we have these kinds of people shooting other drivers, their fellow drinkers, their exes, their neighbors, and whatever demonized groups the media has been feeding them for fun and profit. And their kids are getting hold of their guns and shooting themselves, each other, their teachers, and the neighbor's dog.

The problem is that we can't overcome the bribery of the gun industry long enough to get our politicians to enact effective regulation of firearm ownership and use. We don't need to ban firearms. We just need to keep them away from the people that clearly should never be allowed to have them. It's not rocket science. And it won't be perfect. But it would stop most of the idiotic shootings we now see happening all the time.

 

[Orbit]

It's up to the Constitution not the courts to decide what is what. No court can subvert the Constitution to meet its own definition.

That's what Constitutional conventions are for.

The Constitution is not a person; it's not "up to the Constitution", it's up to the courts. That is how our legal system works.

 

[Orbit]

I will disagree with you on this one. There are times that police have been punished for following orders. As the Germans learned: "I was just following orders" is not always a viable defense.

I don't think gun control rises to that level of seriousness.

 

[Orbit]

Moral cowardice always has an excuse.

"Just following orders" is a popular fav.

Telling people they can't carry guns during a crisis of gun violence doesn't rise to the level of war crimes as you suggest. We have a legal system for a reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think gun control rises to that level of seriousness.

There are others that will disagree with you and since this is a Constitutional problem it does appear to be rather serious. You know that I am for all sorts of gun reform, but we are stuck with a flawed 2nd Amendment. We are nowhere near getting rid of it so changes must be made with that in mind. It does not mean that reform is impossible. It just means that it will not be easy.

 

[YmirGF]

BS. All courts are under the Jurisdiction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Any officer. civilian or military , can refuse unlawful orders from their superiors.

We had it here in beautiful BC that the police were no longer going to go after small amounts of drugs.

"These substances remain illegal, but adults who have 2.5 grams or less of the certain illicit substances for personal use will no longer be arrested, charged or have their drugs seized. Instead, police will offer information on available health and social supports and will help with referrals when requested."

Yeah, that program has worked so very well...

 

[Orbit]

There are others that will disagree with you and since this is a Constitutional problem it does appear to be rather serious. You know that I am for all sorts of gun reform, but we are stuck with a flawed 2nd Amendment. We are nowhere near getting rid of it so changes must be made with that in mind. It does not mean that reform is impossible. It just means that it will not be easy.

I still maintain that it's a problem for the courts.

 

[YmirGF]

There are others that will disagree with you and since this is a Constitutional problem it does appear to be rather serious. You know that I am for all sorts of gun reform, but we are stuck with a flawed 2nd Amendment. We are nowhere near getting rid of it so changes must be made with that in mind. It does not mean that reform is impossible. It just means that it will not be easy.

Agreed. Given the amount of guns in the USA, I'm a bit surprised there aren't MORE shootings, especially given the toxic political climate.

 

[metis]

Given the amount of guns in the USA, I'm a bit surprised there aren't MORE shootings, especially given the toxic political climate.

Don't speak too loud as that could happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We had it here in beautiful BC that the police were no longer going to go after small amounts of drugs.

"These substances remain illegal, but adults who have 2.5 grams or less of the certain illicit substances for personal use will no longer be arrested, charged or have their drugs seized. Instead, police will offer information on available health and social supports and will help with referrals when requested."

Yeah, that program has worked so very well...

We tried that here too. For a while we were without state drug use laws. As a result individual cities began making their own laws:

Everett City Council passes ordinance that bans open drug use in public

Everett City Council passed an ordinance Wednesday that bans the use of controlled substances in public spaces in the city.

komonews.com

That did not last long. The state could see that it had to get off of its butt and enact some legislation (I cannot remember if our overly liberal state supreme court struck down the old laws). Statewide possession is once again a misdemeanor:

MRSC - New Law on Drug Possession, Use Takes Effect July 1, 2023

mrsc.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed. Given the amount of guns in the USA, I'm a bit surprised there aren't MORE shootings, especially given the toxic political climate.

Things could get ugly after the next election. It seems that many Republicans want to force their views upon others.

 

[Audie]

Telling people they can't carry guns during a crisis of gun violence doesn't rise to the level of war crimes as you suggest. We have a legal system for a reason.

"War crime". No, that's your idea.
True though. It's not war crime.
"Level" though?
Many an act classified as war crime is of
faer less import than having politicians
capriciously and arbitrarily ignoring their
nations constitution.

A bureaucrat cannot make laws. Unconstitutional
dire times or laws need to be slapped down

Yes. There's a reason for a legal,system as you
so pointlessly reiterate.
There's also a reason for a constitution, and, for
those who swore to uphold it- governor or police- to
actually do so.

Whole waiting for the circuit court to sort it out., people of conscience and character will
refuse to carry out diretives that violate the constitution.

That you would do otherwise is hardly something to
be proud of or argue for.

There really is a duty of disobedience tho you seem to find it illegitimate to even address.

If the gov. had said to concentrate on arresting negros
and don't be gentle, this might be more obvious to you.