- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New Mexico governor to sheriffs: Enforce gun law or resign
Posted on 2/26/20 at 2:25 am to SD Tider
Posted on 2/26/20 at 2:25 am to SD Tider
^^This is the Dog Face Pony Soldier who has ordered the disarming of New Mexican citizens.^^
While murders and beheadings rage along her state's border with Mexico.
This post was edited on 2/26/20 at 2:36 am
0
Posted on 2/26/20 at 2:28 am to SD Tider
Sheriffs to Governor: Eat shite!
Posted on 2/26/20 at 2:51 am to udtiger
I think you have to be consistent.
Either we say, okay sherrifs, you MUST enforce the gun law...but then they also must enforce the immigration laws.
Or do the opposite. Sheriffs, you have discretion, wanna look the other way on that gun stuff, go ahead. Think the immigration laws shouldnt be enforced, and think sanctuary cities are okay, well, alrighty then feel free not to enforce the immigration laws.
Either we say, okay sherrifs, you MUST enforce the gun law...but then they also must enforce the immigration laws.
Or do the opposite. Sheriffs, you have discretion, wanna look the other way on that gun stuff, go ahead. Think the immigration laws shouldnt be enforced, and think sanctuary cities are okay, well, alrighty then feel free not to enforce the immigration laws.
Posted on 2/26/20 at 6:25 am to SD Tider
Let's call em gun sanctuary cities.
What can the dems do?
What can the dems do?
Posted on 2/26/20 at 7:19 am to SD Tider
quote:
and she urged sheriffs to resign if they still refuse to enforce it.
Why won't she just fire them?
Oh. She won't because she can't.
Posted on 2/26/20 at 7:32 am to i am dan
quote:
Let's call em gun sanctuary cities.
What can the dems do?
They are the ones who let the 'rule of law' genie out of the bottle.
Posted on 2/26/20 at 7:35 am to Eurocat
quote:
I think you have to be consistent.
Either we say, okay sherrifs, you MUST enforce the gun law...but then they also must enforce the immigration laws.
Or do the opposite. Sheriffs, you have discretion, wanna look the other way on that gun stuff, go ahead. Think the immigration laws shouldnt be enforced, and think sanctuary cities are okay, well, alrighty then feel free not to enforce the immigration laws.
Or, you know, the third option: the sheriffs ignore the blatantly unconstitutional shite and just do their jobs otherwise.
This isn’t “Let’s Make a Deal”.
This post was edited on 2/26/20 at 7:36 am
Posted on 2/26/20 at 7:49 am to Eurocat
quote:
I think you have to be consistent.
Either we say, okay sherrifs, you MUST enforce the gun law...but then they also must enforce the immigration laws.
Or do the opposite. Sheriffs, you have discretion, wanna look the other way on that gun stuff, go ahead. Think the immigration laws shouldnt be enforced, and think sanctuary cities are okay, well, alrighty then feel free not to enforce the immigration laws.
You're drawing an equivalence, where none really exists. Here, let me help you:
2. A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.
I included the 6th and 7th, depending on how the state considers the action. Either way they violate the bolded.
Now you do immigration laws.
Posted on 2/26/20 at 8:00 am to troyt37
one of the under reported big problems with this new law is if a citizen brings a complaint, the sherriff refuses to act and the person who was identified in the complaint actually shoots someone the sherrif is not only professionally liable but personally liable and can be sued. this is a massive shift against the sherriffs.
This post was edited on 2/26/20 at 8:02 am
Posted on 2/26/20 at 8:06 am to Eurocat
quote:The issue is not that sheriffs are selectively choosing which laws they want to enforce based on a personal choice or whim. It’s that they believe the red flag laws are unconstitutional and don’t want to violate their oaths of office. Immigration laws generally aren’t unconstitutional.
I think you have to be consistent.
Either we say, okay sherrifs, you MUST enforce the gun law...but then they also must enforce the immigration laws.
Or do the opposite. Sheriffs, you have discretion, wanna look the other way on that gun stuff, go ahead. Think the immigration laws shouldnt be enforced, and think sanctuary cities are okay, well, alrighty then feel free not to enforce the immigration laws.
Posted on 2/26/20 at 8:07 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The issue is not that sheriffs are selectively choosing which laws they want to enforce based on a personal choice or whim. It’s that they believe the red flag laws are unconstitutional and don’t want to violate their oaths of office. Immigration laws generally aren’t unconstitutional.
GTFO here with your bullshite "logic" and "rational thinking."
Posted on 2/26/20 at 8:21 am to Zahrim
quote:
one of the under reported big problems with this new law is if a citizen brings a complaint, the sherriff refuses to act and the person who was identified in the complaint actually shoots someone the sherrif is not only professionally liable but personally liable and can be sued. this is a massive shift against the sherriffs.
I don't think there are many sheriffs out there who are just going to blow off a citizens plea for help. I think most sheriffs would call on the person in question, to make their own assessment. Just because they aren't going with the intention of confiscating weapons, doesn't mean they aren't going at all.
Posted on 2/26/20 at 8:32 am to troyt37
quote:
I think if I were one of those sheriffs, I’d urge her to resign if she refuses to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
Not only that but start enforcing immigration laws and ignoring sanctuary cities
Posted on 2/26/20 at 8:37 am to SD Tider
Pandemic...economic collapse...anarchy...take guns from good folk. 
Gal had better wake up and get real. High Ups hide behind the Law...but the Law only has power on those who respect it. Like that Gangsta Character in "Grand Canyon" said to the Danny Glover Character..."no gun, no respect".
A gun means the difference between life and death. Or worse, than mere death. The day is close when any 'Authority' that tries to confiscate guns...will become (perceived) legitimate targets by folk who employ guns to protect family and friends. The'd best drop this crap.
Gal had better wake up and get real. High Ups hide behind the Law...but the Law only has power on those who respect it. Like that Gangsta Character in "Grand Canyon" said to the Danny Glover Character..."no gun, no respect".
A gun means the difference between life and death. Or worse, than mere death. The day is close when any 'Authority' that tries to confiscate guns...will become (perceived) legitimate targets by folk who employ guns to protect family and friends. The'd best drop this crap.
Posted on 2/26/20 at 8:47 am to SD Tider
Police in every jurisdiction in the entire world perform selective enforcement.
Posted on 2/26/20 at 8:59 am to SD Tider
I don't know about NM but here in Louisiana only one person has more power than the Sheriff of each parish and it isn't the governor.
Posted on 2/26/20 at 9:10 am to SD Tider
Me thinking Govenor doesn't know their place.
Good luck with that.
Good luck with that.
Posted on 2/26/20 at 9:11 am to Eurocat
Posted on 2/26/20 at 9:14 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Police in every jurisdiction in the entire world perform selective enforcement.
And they are perfectly justified, as long as it is on a Constitutional basis.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)
This post was edited on 2/26/20 at 9:16 am
Posted on 2/26/20 at 9:30 am to SD Tider
quote:
and supportive law enforcement officials
Lap dogs with a badge.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News