A county sheriff in Greeley was recently featured in a New York Times article focusing on a particularly vexing problem in political
philosophy and law enforcement, namely what can be done when officers of the
law choose not to enforce a law they don't like. It's a version of the old
The Times article reports that "Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County explains in speeches why he is not enforcing the state's new gun laws" by holding up "two 30-round magazines". He tells audiences "maybe" he purchased one after the new law banning bigger than 15-round clips went into effect but who knows which one?
He argues that the law is unenforceable, but that's not really why he's on a personal crusade. The fact is, he doesn't like the law, and he's got lots of company in serried ranks. Last May, all but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado joined a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.
A lot of Colorado voters, especially outside of Denver, are opposed to tighter gun controls, too.
People have a right to their opinions. Sheriffs are people. The question is whether sheriffs have a right to act on their opinions by not enforcing laws they don't like.
Correct answer: No.
Colorado is not alone. Sheriffs in New York, Florida, Arizona, and California have also challenged tighter gun laws. There's no reason to believe many sheriffs, especially in the red states of the Midwest, Far West, and Deep South, are not in sympathy.
In Arizona, a state legislator named Brenda Barton has joined former county sheriff Richard Mack in urging "Constitutional Sheriffs" to defy the federal government. They believe county sheriffs are the highest law of the land with the power to nullify federal law "and even arrest federal authorities".
Since the Newtown massacre a year ago, some 1,500 state gun bills have been introduced across the country, 178 passed at least one chamber of a state legislature, and 109 have become law, according to a new database. Nearly two-thirds of the new laws (70) actually ease restrictions and expand the rights of gun owners. With few exceptions, these laws were passed in states where the Republican party controls the legislature and governorship. Most of the 39 bills that tighten regulations were passed in states where Democrats are firmly in control.
But that's not a slam-dunk either, as two members of the Colorado Senate who voted for stricter gun control found out when they lost in recall elections last September. (A third senator facing recall resigned her seat in November to avoid a similar fate.) This, despite the fact that the Governor is a Democrat and both chambers of the Colorado General Assembly have Democratic majorities.
Message: vote against guns in Colorado and put a target on your back.
The latest Colorado school shooting, the one that occurred last week at Arapahoe High School, could have been much worse. But it was bad enough. The perpetrator, a student who had earlier been disciplined by the school librarian (apparently was his primary target), took his own life. Unfortunately, not before shooting 17-year-old Claire Davis in the head at pointblank range with a pump-action shotgun.
That shooting occurred not far from Aurora, the scene of the July 2012 school massacre that left 12 dead and 58 injured. Aurora is not far from Littleton, the home of Columbine High School, where 12 students and a teacher were gunned down in 1999. Claire Davis was rushed to a hospital in Littleton, where her family said she was in a coma.
The proximity of these horrific shootings at suburban -- not
inner-city -- schools is stunning and pernicious. What's even more stunningly pernicious is
that elected country sheriffs in Colorado of all places would refuse to enforce
laws aimed at protecting the innocent from senseless gun violence.
1 | 2