Posted on 04/01/2019 6:45:56 AM PDT by SleeperCatcher
A Colorado sheriff has come out and said publicly that he is willing to go to jail rather than enforce what he believes is an unconstitutional new gun law currently making its way through the state legislature.
The so-called “red flag” law would grant police the authority to go to a judge and get an order to confiscate a person’s guns who was thought to be a threat to themselves or society — without that person being given a chance to speak on his or her behalf in court.
Sheriff Steve Reams says that’s so wrong, constitutionally speaking, that he is willing to put himself in legal jeopardy rather than enforce the new law, which appears set for passage in the Legislature. Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, is expected to sign it, CNN reports.
It’s a matter of doing what’s right,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenationalsentinel.com ...
Good for him! It IS unconstitutional.
Beau Bennett is a target of the law
Instead of pawning off gun grabbing to law enforcement, a special cadre of brown shirts should do the job. I would nominate anti gun zealot David Hogg to head this organization. The life expectancy in thisjob could be rather low.
In the near future, I expect to see Democrats wearing swastikas on their arms, as they roam the streets, beating up old men and women, terrorizing the children and burning Synagogues and Churches
The Sheriff will now undergo a recall effort.
How about he starts arresting those who would deny us our civil rights?
American judges are no longer trustworthy. More than other office holders, they are often pure partisans.
This clearly is unconstitutional, so why doesn’t the court system save us the grief? Or is that ONLY for liberals to use?
The feds had Arkansas Sheriff “Hot Dog” Tommy Robinson arrested but they couldn’t find a sheriff in Arkansas who would accept him in their jail.
He went on to become the #1 congressional hot check writer. When first elected to congress he hired Jerry Jones’ daughter but couldn’t describe what she did.
He should put the judges on notice regarding his positions and that he will ^immediately^ arrest any officer of the court bringing such warrant/action to his office. He was elected by the citizens of his county and he swore an oath to serve them. The courts cannot overturn an election.
That, or just put them in a file and ignore them.
Perhaps you could keep us informed on that effort. You might also let us know if there is a future candidate FReepers would like to know about.
Who is Beau Bennett?
We’re sick and tired of all these crazy unconstitutional “laws” and “regulations!” “...the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...”
However, that determination of "danger" must be made by medical professionals, and denying Constitutionally protected rights must be carefully considered by a judge. As written red flag laws are more than a little vague on anonymous tips, determination of danger, legal guidelines for judges, recourse and restitution etc.
Once a determination is made, a no-knock raid is probably the worst option for implementation. If someone is actually dangerously unstable having a bunch of militaristic guys literally knock down his/her door is just about guaranteed to set him/her off. A quiet visit from the concerned party - who must be close to the person in order to be concerned about his/her safety, right? Maybe accompanied by one LEO in standard uniform (not SWAT gear) would go a long way towards diffusing a potentially bad situation. If that fails, then a SWAT response might be merited. A non-confrontational visit, coupled with a well documented, swift, and inexpensive course of action for restitution would make these kinds of interventions far less hazardous. Of course, having the concerned party actually have to step up and help reduces the allure to anti-gunners because it drastically reduces the potential for abuse of the law.
However, as written it seems the authors actually want confrontations, want bloodshed, want headlines and excuses for further even more draconian and un-Constitutional actions.
I speak from experience here. About 6 years ago now I was personally part of private intervention with a friend. We (he and I) decided the family situation at his home was a little too volatile. At his request I took temporary custody of his firearms while he and his wife worked some things out. Quiet, simple. Something like 8 or 10 months later when things had returned to normal we agreed and he took back his firearms. That's how friends/family concern is supposed to work. Oh, but today, that exact scenario would be illegal. Thanks to "universal" background check laws subsequently passed in this State, he could not legally "transfer" his firearms to me for more than 72 hrs without paying for a background check (on me, snort!) and I believe transfer paperwork too. Then I would not be able to return them to him without another background check (on him) and more paperwork.
As a Coloradoan, I’ve got to send this guy a letter of support.
Soon after the Guv signs it, the recall will begin.
As well as court challenges to the anti-constitutional due-process violations.
(may have to wait for someone to be "harmed" to have standing in court)
Hmmmm... Why wait for the guvs signature to initiate recall of the supporting sheriff?
In the near future, I expect to see Democrats wearing swastikas on their arms, as they roam the streets, raping, beating up old men and women, terrorizing the children and burning Synagogues and Churches, and raping.
Fixed it.
They like rape.
A recall is meaningless without a suitable replacement.
That candidate doesn't want to be seen as "jumping the gun"...so to speak....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.