Connecticut LEO's Refusing to Participate?

[Guest semiautots]

Great news from up north.  I hope more of them join this movement.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/conn-police-refuse-to-enforce-new-gun-laws

[leroy]

Interestin... Thanks for posting...

 

leroy

[Steelharp]

While the Examiner is one of the least respected and reputable "news outlets," I hope the story is a true one.

[RobertNashville]

At this point, I'm not  believeing any of hte "news" on what's happening in CT untile it happens and has multiple sources for the story. Otherwies, I'll chalk it up as hogwash.

[bersaguy]

Well, I don't know that much about the Examiner but I was expecting something similar to show up sooner or later. The Police Officers took an oath to protect the Constitution and the Constitution Trumps any local or state laws written in an attempt to over ride the laws laid out in the Constitution. By refusing to enforce the laws written at state level the State police have the protection of the Constitutional oath in which they took when becoming State police officers and also they will earn even more the respect of the people they are paid to protect....................jmho

[RobertNashville]

Well, I don't know that much about the Examiner but I was expecting something similar to show up sooner or later. The Police Officers took an oath to protect the Constitution and the Constitution Trumps any local or state laws written in an attempt to over ride the laws laid out in the Constitution. By refusing to enforce the laws written at state level the State police have the protection of the Constitutional oath in which they took when becoming State police officers and also they will earn even more the respect of the people they are paid to protect....................jmho

Let me ask you a question (and anyone else here who might want to answer), that I've posed to several people on other various sites...

 

We have "unconstitutional" firearm relates laws right here in Tennessee yet they get enforced all the time; not the least of which is that carrying a loaded weapon on one's person without a HCP is a crime.

 

So...why does it make sense for anyone here (on this forum) who don't live in CT to believe that LEOs in CT shouldn't enforce their "unconstitutional" gun laws but we don't demand the exact same of LEOs in TN?  Shouldn't we all refuse to comply...march on Legislative Plaza?

[TMF]

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1122753" timestamp="1394473825"]Let me ask you a question (and anyone else here who might want to answer), that I've posed to several people on other various sites... We have "unconstitutional" firearm relates laws right here in Tennessee yet they get enforced all the time; not the least of which is that carrying a loaded weapon on one's person without a HCP is a crime. So...why does it make sense for anyone here (on this forum) who don't live in CT to believe that LEOs in CT shouldn't enforce their "unconstitutional" gun laws but we don't demand the exact same of LEOs in TN? Shouldn't we all refuse to comply...march on Legislative Plaza?[/quote] Two posts in one day I agree with. The world may spin off its axis today. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[teecro]

Let me ask you a question (and anyone else here who might want to answer), that I've posed to several people on other various sites...

 

We have "unconstitutional" firearm relates laws right here in Tennessee yet they get enforced all the time; not the least of which is that carrying a loaded weapon on one's person without a HCP is a crime.

 

So...why does it make sense for anyone here (on this forum) who don't live in CT to believe that LEOs in CT shouldn't enforce their "unconstitutional" gun laws but we don't demand the exact same of LEOs in TN?  Shouldn't we all refuse to comply...march on Legislative Plaza?

 

Sadly the voting majority do support unconstitutional laws.... Very often it is from our very own rank & file... How many times do I see people comment that they feel for whatever reason Joe Blow or so and so should not be allowed to conceal carry without permit or some special training etc? Or hunters who see no need or use for AR's, AK's and/or high cap shotguns & mags etc.... 

[Just2Honor]

Thank God for people who want to keep the oath they took. Do you think the LEO also know it will get ugly and split their support in a community in two?

[bersaguy]

Let me ask you a question (and anyone else here who might want to answer), that I've posed to several people on other various sites...

 

We have "unconstitutional" firearm relates laws right here in Tennessee yet they get enforced all the time; not the least of which is that carrying a loaded weapon on one's person without a HCP is a crime.

 

So...why does it make sense for anyone here (on this forum) who don't live in CT to believe that LEOs in CT shouldn't enforce their "unconstitutional" gun laws but we don't demand the exact same of LEOs in TN?  Shouldn't we all refuse to comply...march on Legislative Plaza?

The law of carrying a weapon for the reason of going armed in Tennessee is directed at the entire populates of the state and they have provided us the option of getting an HCP so we all can be legal as long as we are not felons. The laws written in CT are directed at one class of citizens, one class of weapons and one class of magazines which makes these people criminal felons. That is why the laws are more than unconstitutional but may ever fall under the law of discrimination against a certain class of people. I know that may be a stretch but since the law makers up there didn't mind stretching I won't either.....................jmho  Now if you look at the fact that the State Police are not willing to enforce the laws written at the state level they have got to understand that the laws are unconstitutional or they would not refuse to enforce them...............jmho

[leroy]

Some random musings to think about that i think are relevant to the "unconstitutional restrictions" on the right to bear arms in Tennessee and Connecticut --- States rights vs Federal Gubmt:

 

RE:   The Tennessee Constitution and "...regulating the wearing of arms..." plus the Supreme Court's later decisions RE: "...limitations on the second amendment....  Are these laws, in fact, constitutional and to they limit the plain reading of the Second amendment...?

 

On a personal basis and because as i'm a radical isolationist libertarian and a believer in the plain reading of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; I don't like the idea that the state can "...regulate the wearing of arms with an eye toward keeping the peace..." as the Tennessee State Constitution says; but that has been the law since post civil war reconstruction.... It was obviously put there by a government made up of politicos who were willing to disregard the plain reading of the Constitution and the Second Amendment for political purposes and basically suspended the second amendment as a civil war punishment....To say otherwise is to ignore history...

 

It's very interesting that this provision of the Tennessee Constitution (...or any other old confederate state i know of....) has not been repealed... It has simply been modified by the adoption of 'Shall Issue" permits to carry weapons; which i count a good thing... The Supremes of late have simply affirmed that you cannot completely eliminate the "right to bear arms" in its rulings and has said that the individual states can "regulate the wearing of arms".... That is, in my view, the present state of the "right to bear arms" and the "wearing of arms" law in the USA to date...

 

Simply said; you have a right to keep and bear arms as a Constitutional right ALA the Second Amendment.... The state (...your state...) has the right to "regulate the wearing of arms"; no matter how silly or oppressive the restrictions may be to some sector of the population ALA the Connecticut thing on AR's and magazines...

 

As to the matter of the police "refusing to enforce onerous gun laws"; i think that is a good thing...  The Connecticut thing is obviously a politically contrived power grab aimed at a certain class of citizens not too different from the post civil war thing; but no one will say that...

The political class of Connecticut obviously views the citizenry of the state that are gun owners as a potential threat and as a rabble to be controlled by the bayonet if necessary...

 

All that bein said; we live in a "weeniefied society" today; and that's a good thing... It's caused an interesting thing to happen.... The ruling class politicos have been taken aback that the citizenry and some sectors of law enforcement have taken a stand and said "no" to this overbearing move by the political class; and they cant figure how to handle it....Thankfully, the political class simply doesn't have the backbone to do the old thuggish thing and enforce the law the old time jackboot way; and i figure they wont  (...which is a good thing for all those involved, i think...)...

 

The second part of this is that it's gratifying to see that even in a deep blue "worker's paradise" like Connecticut that some folks can read, are offended at their government, and have the backbone to stand against what they consider an outrageous breach of government trust ... That citizenry (...both gunowners and law enforcement...) are to be commended for their stand against this idiotic law...

 

As to the question as to whether the these offended citizens ...."will get help from the Federal courts"... ?   I predict the answer is "...no...".    This is a "....regulating the wearing of arms...." thing and will be looked upon by the court as a state issue.... In my mind; at least, the best way for this to be solved is for it to be solved as a state issue by the electoral process... If the people of the state of Connecticut don't like the laws they have; they need to recall the sons of b****es and daughters of satan that passed this legislation ALA the Colorado thing; and i hope that is exactly what happens....

 

Lastly; for all our brother and sister opiners who think the State of Tennessee laws are unconstitutional.... I think they are too; and have been since Post Civil War Reconstruction; and that has been a long time...  I'm ready to change 'em; but we need a state political champion who is willing to take this on... Let's get behind him or her and let's get to work... Otherwise, we'll just have to live with what we've got...That's the same boat i think the citizens of Connecticut are in... Let's hope they decide to get rid of the trash that has brought this on them; but let's not forget how it was done and why the Federal Gubmt needs to stay out of it....

 

leroy

 

[E4 No More]

I think that you will find that most LEOs are sworn to enforce the laws of their respective state/local governments, and a law is a law until a higher power declares it to be unconstitutional.

[bersaguy]

I think that you will find that most LEOs are sworn to enforce the laws of their respective state/local governments, and a law is a law until a higher power declares it to be unconstitutional.

A higher power had those laws trumped before they were written. The Constitution and 2nd Amendment in the Constitution is a much higher authority when it comes to gun laws than any state or local laws and just writing slippery slope laws against it only in my mind makes the writers of the laws the real law breakers when they try to undermined the LAW OF THE LAND written 2 centuries ago by much smarter Americans.................jmho

[RobertNashville]

The law of carrying a weapon for the reason of going armed in Tennessee is directed at the entire populates of the state and they have provided us the option of getting an HCP so we all can be legal as long as we are not felons. The laws written in CT are directed at one class of citizens, one class of weapons and one class of magazines which makes these people criminal felons. That is why the laws are more than unconstitutional but may ever fall under the law of discrimination against a certain class of people. I know that may be a stretch but since the law makers up there didn't mind stretching I won't either.....................jmho  Now if you look at the fact that the State Police are not willing to enforce the laws written at the state level they have got to understand that the laws are unconstitutional or they would not refuse to enforce them...............jmho

Has nothing to do with my point.

ALL GUN CONTROL LAWS are unconstitutional in my opinion, according to the second amendment, regardless of what percentage of the population they apply to including the dun control laws we have here in TN.

 

There is simply no logic IN being upset at what the state of CT is doing while we sit on our asses here in TN and put up with what we have here. We should at least be equally outraged and equally willing to do something about them. But of course, we aren't...THAT was my point.

Edited March 11, 2014 by RobertNashville

[leroy]

There is a jury charge that has fell out of favor that essentially says that each juror has the responsibility to look at the "...justness of the law..."; which is called Nullification in jury instructions... I think there is a link between jurys considering "Nullification" and the citizenry considering unjust laws...

 

Law enforcement has no obligation to enforce "unjust" or "rogue law"; just as no member of the military has an obligation to execute an illegal order...

 

The idea that somehow taking an oath to uphold the laws of the state without this included is very dangerous and is the basis of the defense that the Nazi apparatchiks used at Nurenburg.... They said they "were following the orders of the government"... They were convicted of war crimes anyway.... For LEO and officers of the courts;" following orders" is not an adequate defense against crimes committed while "enforcing unjust laws"....

 

At the end of the day; the electorate (...the citizenry...) determines the laws and the lawmakers... Not the "sworn to uphold" officers of the state... Are there some apparatchiks of state government willing to enforce these "unjust laws" just because they are laws?   Sure there are... Are they immune from punishment and recall if they do these things?  No; they may pay a price for these actions....  Should LE or a citizen follow "unjust laws"?... Academically and ethically speaking, ..."no"... In actual practice; some folks are weak and will comply...  Is LE doing the right and ethical thing by enforcing an "unjust law"...?   Of course not... Are there some LEO that will enforce "unjust laws" just because they are laws..?  Of course; there always have been... Are those LEO's that stand up and say they will refuse to enforce an "unjust law" betraying their oath of office...? No... I dont think so...

 

leroy

Edited March 11, 2014 by leroy

[E4 No More]

A higher power had those laws trumped before they were written. The Constitution and 2nd Amendment in the Constitution is a much higher authority when it comes to gun laws than any state or local laws and just writing slippery slope laws against it only in my mind makes the writers of the laws the real law breakers when they try to undermined the LAW OF THE LAND written 2 centuries ago by much smarter Americans.................jmho

It is not the responsibility of the LEO's to determine constitutionality, nor question their legislators, whether you think they should or not. They are not a bunch of constitutional lawyers running around with badges. And if you hadn't noticed, our constitution has been trampled on for a couple of hundred years now. Don't believe me? Go tell a judge to go F himself in court, or not shut up when the judge tells you to shut up. Also, in many states, (if not all), it's illegal for a LEO to not execute an arrest warrant. Where I was a cop not executing an arrest warrant was a felony if the arrest warrant was a felony arrest warrant, and a misdemeanor if the arrest warrant was a misdemeanor.

[RobertNashville]

If I might elaborate on what SWJewellTN is saying here...I think some are forgetting that these laws, "unconstitutional" in our opinion or not, have been properly passed by a legislature and put into place and law sworn law enforcement officers have both a duty and an obligation to enforce them regardless of their personal opinion.

 

Now, if an officer really has a problem of conscious with a particular law and decides to not enforce AND is willing to face the consequences then he/she could certainly do that but to expect officers to do so wholesale is, I think, rather ridiculous.

 

The place to address "unconstitutional" laws is in a legislature and/or the courts...not on the street with a LEO...LEOs are NOT the problem here...WE ARE THE PROBLEM because WE'VE let legislatures pass these laws in the first place.

[leroy]

There has been enough windbaggery here to fill the whole German Zeppelin fleet and enough BS pontificating on the role of Law Enforcement to adequately fertilize a 10,000 acre tomato patch... This little series of posts is simply the latest crop of pontification....

 

Some here believe that there is this idealistic "picture on the wall" of law enforcement that depicts the individual officer as, in fact, blameless, upright, and pure in thought and action;  always doing the right thing for the right reason.... Thankfully, some, if not a majority are doing just that... There is also a "picture on the wall" that depicts "...the law..." as, in fact pure, blameless, and totally right all the time.... To which i say to both a hearty "...baloney...!!!"... Both these pictures (....law and law enforcement...) are fantasy and casual observation will prove me right... There are "unjust laws" and "unjust upholders and enforcers of law"; although the latter seem to be a distinct minority (...thankfully...)....

 

It appears that the question at hand is what should be the response to "unjust law"...?  The worshipers of the law among us would tell you that you let the legislative process and legal process handle the problem; and to that; even i agree...

 

The real question is what and exactly how do you as a law enforcement officer do in the mean time (...the period between the identification and revision of "unjust law"....)... Some say that the law enforcement officer (...who is first a citizen and secondly a law officer...) should zealously enforce the "unjust law" ; and that they are absolved of wrongdoing for this zealous enforcement of the law... To which i strongly disagree.... Suppose for a minute that there was and armed confrontation in a particular state while enforcing an unpopular and "unjust law"; and people were killed as the result of that action?.... Are those who participated on both sides of this confrontation absolved of wrongdoing while enforcing this "unjust law"?   I think not...

 

Wouldn't it be smarter, more humane, and more sensible to carefully consider the cost of the method of enforcement (...e.g. shooting confrontation vs dialog, vs delay in enforcement...) than to simply say " ....yeah; we'll go get that lawbreakin trash for ya and make an example of them while we are doin it. We might even kill or maim a few of 'em if they don't mind our demands..."... I think that is exactly where the more sober, thoughtful, and fair minded within the law enforcement community in Connecticut are at just now...

 

Finally, to all here i say: ...."Be glad the God of Heaven has delivered ya from havin to make that decision on a personal basis..."... Ya just might have to find out whether ya have a backbone or not and whether you can put what is right above that which law has mandated... Remember the sobering words of the sheriff in that cinematographic masterpiece "Oh Brother, Where are Thou": "....The law is a human institution..." (...that means it aint perfect....)...

 

Here's hopin that the folks up in Connecticut (...or anywhere else in this country for that matter...) don't have make that decision.... I'm a relatively old geezer and ive never seen things so tense between the citizenry and government at all levels... We are living in very interesting times....

 

leroy

Edited March 11, 2014 by leroy

[DaveTN]

I’ve never hidden the fact that I believe in States Rights and believe they trump the 2nd amendment. The Federal government does not have the authority to say whether or not you can wear a gun; that’s up to the state legislature and those responsible for maintaining order. If the state says you can all walk down the street wearing guns; that is the way it will be, if they say you can’t; same thing applies.

We fought a war over States Rights that no one wants to fight again. The Feds won’t be calling the shots on who wears guns.

Good for the cops that refuse to participate and are trying to make a change. Edited March 11, 2014 by DaveTN

[RobertNashville]

I’ve never hidden the fact that I believe in States Rights and believe they trump the 2nd amendment.

And I've never hidden the fact that in my opinion, your opinion is absolutely wrong on that point.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land - NO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, be it a county, city, State or the federal government should be passing or enforcing ANY laws that violate the constitution. Only the laziness and stupidity of the people have allowed it to be otherwise.

[A.J. Holst]

Robert,

 

I 100% agree with you, but  I am a law-abiding, tax paying, reasonably intelligent gun owner. In no way shape or form should I be restricted from gun ownership - I'm one of the goods guys and like to think I'm one of those guys that the unarmed would want armed and in the "militia" The blanket statement of " NO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, be it a county, city, State or the federal government should be passing or enforcing ANY laws that violate the constitution" would allow anyone and everyone to bear arms regardless of age, mental health, criminal record, etc.

 

DaveTN is also correct, it is the citizens of the state, not the federales and voters of another state that should decide which, if any laws should restrict the 2A.

 

I have a real problem with the encroachment of the central guv'mint upon State's Rights and how insidious their methods are - it's called federal funding and withholding of such to twist the arms of the states. I also have a problem with large voting blocks in more liberal states telling their elected servants how Tennessean's need to limit, restrict and interpret the 2A (among other things)

[RobertNashville]

...The blanket statement of " NO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, be it a county, city, State or the federal government should be passing or enforcing ANY laws that violate the constitution" would allow anyone and everyone to bear arms regardless of age, mental health, criminal record, etc....

 

 

Sorry but I don't agree....only our pansy-ass, bleeding heart society the doesn't want to punish criminals or "offend" certain groups (such as the mentally incompetent) would make that a concern; that needs to change too.

 

If someone has proven himself/herself to be a criminal and commits crimes (with or without a firearm) that is serious enough that they should not be allowed to have arms then they should be in jail...PERIOD.

 

People who are mentally ill; too mentally ill or insane that they should be prohibited from possessing arms then they should not be walking among us but should be institutionalized in a safe, controlled environment.

 

Everyone else SHOULD be allowed to keep and bear arms (as to "age" that should be up to their parent or legal guardian; not the government).

 

Frankly, if we really locked up criminals and controlled the mentally incompetent there would be a hell of a lot less reason for us to even need to carry at all since it's the criminal element and the nutcases that actually cause 99.99% of the problems that make it needful for us to carry.

 

More to the point, I really don't care...I believe we should be following the Constitution.

 

Edited March 12, 2014 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

And I've never hidden the fact that in my opinion, your opinion is absolutely wrong on that point.

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land - NO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, be it a county, city, State or the federal government should be passing or enforcing ANY laws that violate the constitution. Only the laziness and stupidity of the people have allowed it to be otherwise.

Robert, I’m a realist. Maybe someday you will get your wish that everyone in the country can carry a gun, but being a realist I’m pretty sure the only way you or I will see it will be if our government collapses.

They only way you will legally be able to carry a gun is if the state you are stranding in allows it. Call me lazy and stupid if you like but that is the way it is and the way it is going to be.

We have legislation on the table right now to allow all citizens to carry. But according to you it can’t pass. So who being stupid and lazy is causing that?

Time for a nap.

[A.J. Holst]

Prohibiting the criminal element and mentally incompetent from firearm ownership is prudent but it's not in the Constitution. Those laws were written to restrict a certain class of people of their 2A right. Perhaps early attempts to protect the public from gun violence?
Incarcerate and institutionalize for an indefinite amount of time is an awesome solution. That's in the Constitution too?

[RobertNashville]

Prohibiting the criminal element and mentally incompetent from firearm ownership is prudent but it's not in the Constitution. Those laws were written to restrict a certain class of people of their 2A right. Perhaps early attempts to protect the public from gun violence?
Incarcerate and institutionalize for an indefinite amount of time is an awesome solution. That's in the Constitution too?

Punishing criminals predates the Constitution and there is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent the same nor any indication from the founders that they intended not to punish criminals. As to the mentally incompetent/insane I think we have an understanding of such issues than épée did hundreds of years ago.

I'm not suggesting that we return to the exact same methods as I think, as a society, we can address such issues in a more humane fashion. However, I think the basic concepts should be followed.