Posted on 02/05/2013 2:04:59 PM PST by marktwain
I know it’s illegal to impersonate a law-enforcement officer.
But what happens when a law-enforcement officer impersonates a judge?
I’m talking about the recent proclamation from the Florida Sheriff’s Association announcing that its members “will not not assist, support, or condone any unconstitutional infringement” of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.
The timing of the proclamation coincided with efforts by President Barack Obama and some members of Congress to advocate for gun regulations that ban the sale of military-style assault weapons, limit rounds of ammunition in clips, and eliminate loopholes in background checks for gun sales.
If those measures, yet to be enacted, turn out to be unconstitutional, that will be the work of judges to decide. If county sheriffs get to pick and choose which law they believe is valid, they would not be called law-enforcement officers, they’d be called law-interpreting officers.
And they’d go to work in black robes instead of green uniforms.
So the Florida Sheriff’s Association is doing little more than impersonating a judge. And on impeachable grounds.
After all, Section 8 of the Florida Constitution supplies them with some pretty good guidance when it comes to interpreting gun laws in the state.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law,” the Florida Constitution says.
In other words, citizens have a right to own weapons, but that ownership can be legally regulated.
(Excerpt) Read more at palmbeachpost.com ...
It is every citizen’s duty to interpret the law according to the Constitution for themselves. Sheriff’s are citizens.
One if the greatest tools ever used by Satan is legalism because it calls into question every legal precept under the sun. Once you ask a question you create doubt which leads to fear and/or confusion which leads to reinterpretation which leads to rationalization which leads to maybe black is white; let’s just leave out the common sense / right or wrong and change it to whatever fits our needs...
this reporter is a fool and perfoming journalistic malpractice.
what about speeding tickets? when police let a speeder off with a warning they are making a decision. I bet this reporter would insist of having the speeding ticket....NOT!
He’s a hypocrite anyway, or did I miss his column on sanctuary cities and non-enforcement of immigration law? And harassment of LEO who have tried to enforce our immigration laws?
Just for argument’s sake, this is a fun concept for debate.
But I think (think) that it is the duty of every law enforcement officer to refuse to enforce any laws that are in direct conflict with what the Constitution says..... at least until it can work its way through the courts.
Would this writer be so smug if Obama passed a law requiring all “writers and journalists” to get a license, pay a tax/fee, and wear a GPS ankle tracking bracelet?
I believe that he would prefer the Sheriff hold off on arresting him until that could be properly heard in court.
Or, if the President signs a law that says all Jews should be rounded up and gassed is he going to blame some cops for not doing it?
this reporter is a fool and perfoming journalistic malpractice.
what about speeding tickets? when police let a speeder off with a warning they are making a decision. I bet this reporter would insist of having the speeding ticket....NOT!
Not true.
The author (purposefully, in my estimation) misinterprets the Florida Constitutional clause:
"except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law"
"manner" means HOW the arms may be borne, not WHETHER they may be borne, or even WHETHER the government has a right to regulate guns themselves or their ownership.
In other words, the clear meaning of their constitution is that everyone can own a gun. Period. The only thing the constitution allows law to do to that right is adjust how people carry them around, "borne" in the language.
So, the government would be within its rights to pass a law requiring that guns not be carried around loaded, or carried around unloaded, or carried around in a holster on your hip, or carried around hidden.
But the "borne" language does not allow for registration, regulation, confiscation, or banning, none of which have anything to do with the manner in which the constitutionally owned firearm is borne.
That's my layman's interpretation. I don't see that Floridians' forebears had anything in mind other than having law affect how people carry, not rights to own in any manner.
Pay no attention to the Obot behind the paper.
If the President signs a law that requires “all idiot journalists with no critical thinking skills to be rounded up and gassed” will this guy drive himself to the station or would he wait for the Sheriff to come get him?
How dare these aparatchik foot soldiers think for themselves!
If they will not give blind loyalty to the state, who will feed the ovens?!
“It is every citizen’s duty to interpret the law according to the Constitution for themselves. Sheriff’s are citizens.”
Exactly so, Tiger. (I’ll hold off any criticism on the apostrophe in Sheriff, though.)
The Framers wrote the Constitution in plain language exactly so that We The People could understand its meaning. WE are the final arbiters of its meaning!
When we are called to jury duty, it is our responsibility to make sure the law is Constitutional. (I once got out of serving on a jury by letting the judge know that I clearly understood what “jury nullification” meant.)
So where is the confusing part of the Second Amendment? How does TSA pull their crap when the Fourth Amendment is very clear and simple?
WE can fix this on our own, given half a chance!
“If those measures, yet to be enacted, turn out to be unconstitutional, that will be the work of judges to decide.”
No. Wrong. It is the duty of all Americans to refuse to follow unconstitutional laws. It would be nice if the judges agreed but they don’t have to and I’d guess they wont.
Thank you. That's a mistake I rarely make.
Legalism is how evil people use “the law” as a weapon against those that are law-abiding. They just simply make a law or laws that in one swoop turn law-abiding people into criminals for doing their everyday actions and exercising their God-given rights.
Sheriffs are not dependent on the federal government to instruct them what to do.
I can’t believe people still read him. Or people still pay him to write. Amazing. I haven’t clicked on a PBPost link in months and I live here. I haven’t had a physical newspaper in my hands in maybe 10 years. Frank Cerabino....Bwuaahhaahhahhaa...
When I was in the academy it was impressed upon us we were to enforce the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. The chief law enforcement officers of the counties (Sheriffs) are making it clear that is what they intend to do.
Guess I will go shoot a dog now. (beat you a##holes to it!)
It’s called Engrish. Learn it and read the 2nd Amendment.
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.