------------------
As the Chronicle has reported, five Montana county sheriffs have vowed not to enforce any gun laws passed by Congress or implemented by the president of the United States. (Not exactly. Sheriffs have had various responses to the government's unconstitutional actions regarding the right to keep and bear arms. Mr. AuCoin might wish to ascertain the facts before making false assertions. For the actual statements made, see here.)
In their zeal to ingratiate themselves to gun owners like me, (What purpose would it serve for law enforcement to ingratiate themselves to gun owners? Law enforcement carries with them the full force and approval of the government. They have nothing to gain from repudiating that position.)
they seem to think we see no danger in people with tin stars treating the law as a “menu” from which they are free to pick and choose. (Another misleading characterization. These officers are rejection unconstitutional actions, thereby defending the law and upholding the constitution.)
What other laws would these sheriffs would selectively enforce? Speed limits? Civil rights? The right to remain silent? (I have some recommendations. I suggest law enforcement ignore any laws about slaves being property, women not being allowed to vote, and Japanese being rounded up and sent to camps. All of these were legal at one point in our history. In other words, just because it's legal doesn't make it constitutional, or moral.)
Look, when an officer of the law refuses to enforce the laws of the state and country with which he disagrees, he has stopped being a “lawman” and become a rogue cop. Period. He is engaged in law “breaking” not law enforcement. Period. What an example for children, who we want to be “law-abiding citizens!” (No, a sheriff is oath-bound to defend the constitution. When the government violates the constitution, the sheriff who refuses to obey is upholding the law.)
At this stage of our democratic experience, it should not be necessary to explain to a sheriff that s/he exists only to enforce the law, not make to it. (Actually, we should explain to elected representatives that they need to make constitutional laws.)
To any gun zealots out there who think this latest stunt against sensible gun regulation is cute, let me point out a lesson from history: Officials who break the law to defend your rights can also break the law to take them away. (Now this is a strange statement. Mr. AuCoin just ceded his entire prior argument. He admits that certain sheriffs are defending peoples' rights by not obeying unjust laws. He further admits that certain other sheriffs are violating peoples' rights by breaking the law. This means that law enforcement is arbitrary, with a real potential for the abuse of peoples' rights.
Therefore, should we be more comfortable with a sheriff who vows to defend the constitution by not obeying unconstitutional laws, or with a sheriff who obeys any and every law no matter how unjust? After all, "I was just following orders" is the lame excuse of the mass murderer.)
(The sheriffs I’m discussing are: Tom Rummel, Sanders County; Jay Doyle, Powell County; Scott Howard, Powell County; Chris Hoffman, Ravalli County, and Shane Harrington, Wilbaux County.)
Les AuCoin
Bozeman
As the Chronicle has reported, five Montana county sheriffs have vowed not to enforce any gun laws passed by Congress or implemented by the president of the United States. (Not exactly. Sheriffs have had various responses to the government's unconstitutional actions regarding the right to keep and bear arms. Mr. AuCoin might wish to ascertain the facts before making false assertions. For the actual statements made, see here.)
In their zeal to ingratiate themselves to gun owners like me, (What purpose would it serve for law enforcement to ingratiate themselves to gun owners? Law enforcement carries with them the full force and approval of the government. They have nothing to gain from repudiating that position.)
they seem to think we see no danger in people with tin stars treating the law as a “menu” from which they are free to pick and choose. (Another misleading characterization. These officers are rejection unconstitutional actions, thereby defending the law and upholding the constitution.)
What other laws would these sheriffs would selectively enforce? Speed limits? Civil rights? The right to remain silent? (I have some recommendations. I suggest law enforcement ignore any laws about slaves being property, women not being allowed to vote, and Japanese being rounded up and sent to camps. All of these were legal at one point in our history. In other words, just because it's legal doesn't make it constitutional, or moral.)
Look, when an officer of the law refuses to enforce the laws of the state and country with which he disagrees, he has stopped being a “lawman” and become a rogue cop. Period. He is engaged in law “breaking” not law enforcement. Period. What an example for children, who we want to be “law-abiding citizens!” (No, a sheriff is oath-bound to defend the constitution. When the government violates the constitution, the sheriff who refuses to obey is upholding the law.)
At this stage of our democratic experience, it should not be necessary to explain to a sheriff that s/he exists only to enforce the law, not make to it. (Actually, we should explain to elected representatives that they need to make constitutional laws.)
To any gun zealots out there who think this latest stunt against sensible gun regulation is cute, let me point out a lesson from history: Officials who break the law to defend your rights can also break the law to take them away. (Now this is a strange statement. Mr. AuCoin just ceded his entire prior argument. He admits that certain sheriffs are defending peoples' rights by not obeying unjust laws. He further admits that certain other sheriffs are violating peoples' rights by breaking the law. This means that law enforcement is arbitrary, with a real potential for the abuse of peoples' rights.
Therefore, should we be more comfortable with a sheriff who vows to defend the constitution by not obeying unconstitutional laws, or with a sheriff who obeys any and every law no matter how unjust? After all, "I was just following orders" is the lame excuse of the mass murderer.)
(The sheriffs I’m discussing are: Tom Rummel, Sanders County; Jay Doyle, Powell County; Scott Howard, Powell County; Chris Hoffman, Ravalli County, and Shane Harrington, Wilbaux County.)
Les AuCoin
Bozeman
No comments:
Post a Comment