Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control

Started by Syt, February 04, 2014, 08:11:18 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Syt

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-laws-on-gun-control.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

QuoteSheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control

GREELEY, Colo. — When Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County explains in speeches why he is not enforcing the state's new gun laws, he holds up two 30-round magazines. One, he says, he had before July 1, when the law banning the possession, sale or transfer of the large-capacity magazines went into effect. The other, he "maybe" obtained afterward.

He shuffles the magazines, which look identical, and then challenges the audience to tell the difference.

"How is a deputy or an officer supposed to know which is which?" he asks.

Colorado's package of gun laws, enacted this year after mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., has been hailed as a victory by advocates of gun control. But if Sheriff Cooke and a majority of the other county sheriffs in Colorado offer any indication, the new laws — which mandate background checks for private gun transfers and outlaw magazines over 15 rounds — may prove nearly irrelevant across much of the state's rural regions.

Some sheriffs, like Sheriff Cooke, are refusing to enforce the laws, saying that they are too vague and violate Second Amendment rights. Many more say that enforcement will be "a very low priority," as several sheriffs put it. All but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.

The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado is playing out in other states, raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown will have a muted effect in parts of the American heartland, where gun ownership is common and grass-roots opposition to tighter restrictions is high.

In New York State, where Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed one of the toughest gun law packages in the nation last January, two sheriffs have said publicly they would not enforce the laws — inaction that Mr. Cuomo said would set "a dangerous and frightening precedent." The sheriffs' refusal is unlikely to have much effect in the state: According to the state's Division of Criminal Justice Services, since 2010 sheriffs have filed less than 2 percent of the two most common felony gun charges. The vast majority of charges are filed by the state or local police.

In Liberty County, Fla., a jury in October acquitted a sheriff who had been suspended and charged with misconduct after he released a man arrested by a deputy on charges of carrying a concealed firearm. The sheriff, who was immediately reinstated by the governor, said he was protecting the man's Second Amendment rights.

And in California, a delegation of sheriffs met with Gov. Jerry Brown this fall to try to persuade him to veto gun bills passed by the Legislature, including measures banning semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and lead ammunition for hunting (Mr. Brown signed the ammunition bill but vetoed the bill outlawing the rifles).

"Our way of life means nothing to these politicians, and our interests are not being promoted in the legislative halls of Sacramento or Washington, D.C.," said Jon E. Lopey, the sheriff of Siskiyou County, Calif., one of those who met with Governor Brown. He said enforcing gun laws was not a priority for him, and he added that residents of his rural region near the Oregon border are equally frustrated by regulations imposed by the federal Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency.

This year, the new gun laws in Colorado have become political flash points. Two state senators who supported the legislation were recalled in elections in September; a third resigned last month rather than face a recall. Efforts to repeal the statutes are already in the works.

Countering the elected sheriffs are some police chiefs, especially in urban areas, and state officials who say that the laws are not only enforceable but that they are already having an effect. Most gun stores have stopped selling the high-capacity magazines for personal use, although one sheriff acknowledged that some stores continued to sell them illegally. Some people who are selling or otherwise transferring guns privately are seeking background checks.

Eric Brown, a spokesman for Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado, said, "Particularly on background checks, the numbers show the law is working." The Colorado Bureau of Investigation has run 3,445 checks on private sales since the law went into effect, he said, and has denied gun sales to 70 people.

A Federal District Court judge last month ruled against a claim in the sheriffs' lawsuit that one part of the magazine law was unconstitutionally vague. The judge also ruled that while the sheriffs could sue as individuals, they had no standing to sue in their official capacity. Still, the state's top law enforcement officials acknowledged that sheriffs had wide discretion in enforcing state laws.

"We're not in the position of telling sheriffs and chiefs what to do or not to do," said Lance Clem, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Safety. "We have people calling us all the time, thinking they've got an issue with their sheriff, and we tell them we don't have the authority to intervene."

Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws around the country are in the minority, though no statistics exist. In Colorado, though, sheriffs like Joe Pelle of Boulder County, who support the laws and have more liberal constituencies that back them, are outnumbered.

"A lot of sheriffs are claiming the Constitution, saying that they're not going to enforce this because they personally believe it violates the Second Amendment," Sheriff Pelle said. "But that stance in and of itself violates the Constitution."

Even Sheriff W. Pete Palmer of Chaffee County, one of the seven sheriffs who declined to join the federal lawsuit because he felt duty-bound to carry out the laws, said he was unlikely to aggressively enforce them. He said enforcement poses "huge practical difficulties," and besides, he has neither the resources nor the pressure from his constituents to make active enforcement a high priority. Violations of the laws are misdemeanors.

"All law enforcement agencies consider the community standards — what is it that our community wishes us to focus on — and I can tell you our community is not worried one whit about background checks or high-capacity magazines," he said.

At their extreme, the views of sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws echo the stand of Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff and the author of "The County Sheriff: America's Last Hope." Mr. Mack has argued that county sheriffs are the ultimate arbiters of what is constitutional and what is not. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, founded by Mr. Mack, is an organization of sheriffs and other officers who support his views.

"The Supreme Court does not run my office," Mr. Mack said in an interview. "Just because they allow something doesn't mean that a good constitutional sheriff is going to do it." He said that 250 sheriffs from around the country attended the association's recent convention.

Matthew J. Parlow, a law professor at Marquette University, said that some states, including New York, had laws that allowed the governor in some circumstances to investigate and remove public officials who engaged in egregious misconduct — laws that in theory might allow the removal of sheriffs who failed to enforce state statutes.

But, he said, many governors could be reluctant to use such powers. And in most cases, any penalty for a sheriff who chose not to enforce state law would have to come from voters.

Sheriff Cooke, for his part, said that he was entitled to use discretion in enforcement, especially when he believed the laws were wrong or unenforceable.

"In my oath it says I'll uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado," he said, as he posed for campaign photos in his office — he is running for the State Senate in 2014. "It doesn't say I have to uphold every law passed by the Legislature."
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
—Stephen Jay Gould

Proud owner of 42 Zoupa Points.

Scipio

The Sheriff is the law. If he refuses to enforce a law, in many states, he is entirely within the scope of his office. His political removal is something he always risks in these situations.
What I speak out of my mouth is the truth.  It burns like fire.
-Jose Canseco

There you go, giving a fuck when it ain't your turn to give a fuck.
-Every cop, The Wire

"It is always good to be known for one's Krapp."
-John Hurt

CountDeMoney

Obviously not enough sheriffs have been getting murdered by criminals with overwhelming firepower lately.

QuoteIn Liberty County, Fla., a jury in October acquitted a sheriff who had been suspended and charged with misconduct after he released a man arrested by a deputy on charges of carrying a concealed firearm. The sheriff, who was immediately reinstated by the governor, said he was protecting the man's Second Amendment rights.

Nice to see a sheriff have the safety of his deputies in mind.  Now that's the kind of leadership you're looking for in a career in law enforcement.

The Larch

Side note, what's in your esteemed North American opinion the advantage of having sheriffs being publicly elected positions? Many of these guys seem to be angling for a political career rather than a law enforcement one.

Ed Anger

Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2014, 06:20:20 PM
Side note, what's in your esteemed North American opinion the advantage of having sheriffs being publicly elected positions? Many of these guys seem to be angling for a political career rather than a law enforcement one.

I don't mind the elected sheriff. The one in the county north of me is a total fucking badass.
Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive

Valmy

Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2014, 06:20:20 PM
Side note, what's in your esteemed North American opinion the advantage of having sheriffs being publicly elected positions? Many of these guys seem to be angling for a political career rather than a law enforcement one.

It definitely leads to political hackism.  In Texas this leads to all sorts of grandstanding idiots who are more interested in publicity making them appear like good sheriffs but ultimately I don't think it is that big of a deal.  We do not have anything too ridiculous like that fool in Arizona with his own personal tank battalion.

This dates from frontier days and back then it was really bad since the Sheriff was such an important and high profile office.  More than a few times notorious gun fighters and criminals would use their fame to win and abuse the office.  Good times.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Admiral Yi

Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2014, 06:20:20 PM
Side note, what's in your esteemed North American opinion the advantage of having sheriffs being publicly elected positions? Many of these guys seem to be angling for a political career rather than a law enforcement one.

Just stay away from Porky's and you should be OK.

CountDeMoney

Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2014, 06:20:20 PM
Side note, what's in your esteemed North American opinion the advantage of having sheriffs being publicly elected positions? Many of these guys seem to be angling for a political career rather than a law enforcement one.

I, for one, think it's stupid to elect law enforcement officials.  It's bad enough we elect judges.
Unfortunately, for most of the south, midwest and west, the Sheriff's Office is usually the law enforcement agency for the county;  luckily, here in Maryland and many other states in the east, they're simply in charge of courthouse security, jails, Circuit Court functions like enforcement of civil actions like evictions and subpoena service, and other low-end stuff they can't possibly fuck up with their high school educations.

dps

While it's true that in a lot of places, the Sheriff's Office is the county police force, in lots of them, any serious crime that takes place outside a city is going to be investigated by the State Police.   Also, in a lot of states, the Sheriff's Office is the main agency responsible for collecting property taxes.

CountDeMoney

Quote from: dps on February 04, 2014, 07:23:39 PM
any serious crime that takes place outside a city is going to be investigated by the State Police.

That depends.

dps

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2014, 07:25:41 PM
Quote from: dps on February 04, 2014, 07:23:39 PM
any serious crime that takes place outside a city is going to be investigated by the State Police.

That depends.

Well, yeah.  Notice that I put a bunch of qualifiers on the statement.

Course, there's an implication there that the State Police are more competant than the Sheriff's Department, which in itself might not always be true.  Beyond that in some states, the State Police are spread very thin.  I know that was true in WV, not sure about here in NC.

Razgovory

Quote from: Scipio on February 04, 2014, 08:22:31 AM
The Sheriff is the law. If he refuses to enforce a law, in many states, he is entirely within the scope of his office. His political removal is something he always risks in these situations.

So a Sheriff can refuse to enforce the law against bribing the sheriff and that's legal?
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

MadImmortalMan

Sure. He's got the additional check of not getting re-elected.
"Stability is destabilizing." --Hyman Minsky

"Complacency can be a self-denying prophecy."
"We have nothing to fear but lack of fear itself." --Larry Summers

DontSayBanana

Quote from: Razgovory on February 04, 2014, 07:33:15 PM
So a Sheriff can refuse to enforce the law against bribing the sheriff and that's legal?

Sure, since he wouldn't be in charge of enforcing that law anyway- that'd be state police or more likely the state attorney general's office, since it involves an elected official.
Experience bij!

CountDeMoney

Quote from: dps on February 04, 2014, 07:32:16 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2014, 07:25:41 PM
Quote from: dps on February 04, 2014, 07:23:39 PM
any serious crime that takes place outside a city is going to be investigated by the State Police.

That depends.

Well, yeah.  Notice that I put a bunch of qualifiers on the statement.

Course, there's an implication there that the State Police are more competant than the Sheriff's Department, which in itself might not always be true.  Beyond that in some states, the State Police are spread very thin.  I know that was true in WV, not sure about here in NC.

Yeah, and some other states split the enforcement duties between the Highway Patrol and the Bureau of Investigations, for instance.  Where the turnpike ends, the investigation begins.

I was always impressed with the WV and NC staties.   Pretty sure North Carolina grows all theirs at a secret farming operation near Ft. Bragg.
New York?  Meh.  New Jersey?  Lulz.  Maryland? OH TEH MYSTIQUE :rolleyes: