340 Sheriffs Refuse To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Control Laws

CNS News -- Including Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County, Colorado, 340 sheriffs have publicly stated they will not enforce gun laws they believe are unconstitutional.

In response to the passage of two new gun control bills in Colorado last week, Sheriff John Cooke told the Greeley Tribune that he "won't bother enforcing the laws."

One bill requires gun buyers to pay for their own background checks, a service that was previously free and now estimated to cost the buyer $10-$12 per purchase. The second bill puts a 15-round limit on magazines.

Cooke says of the new laws: "They're feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable."

Governor John Hickenlooper is expected to sign each bill into law this week.

Cooke is part of a growing list of sheriffs that have vowed to uphold the Constitution against gun control measures.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) has a running tally of all the sheriffs across the nation that have joined together to defend the Constitution.

At the time of this post, there are 15 sheriffs associations, 340 sheriffs, one police chief and one deputy sheriff who have stated they will not enforce any new gun laws.

---

Blog author's comments - Good news, I want to see the list of sheriffs and peace officers across the country who defend the Constitution continue to grow. The criminals will always have their guns and the law-abiding citizens have every right to defend themselves. But, the Obama Administration will continue in their attempt to make a huge dent in our Second Amendment rights.

Assault Weapons Ban Loses Steam

The Gun Is Civilization - By Marko Kloos

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. .

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded . I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act!

---

Blog author's comments - Marko Kloos wrote this piece in March of 2007. I thought it was worth sharing.

The video below is from a link in a column by the Washington Examiner.
A Sandy Hook School Father - His Testimony Against Gun Control

The Tragic Mass Murder At Batman Movie - And Gun Rights

The Ultimate Gun Rights Article
Conservative Daily News -- In the wake of the tragic mass murder in Aurora, Colorado, some on the political left have used the occasion to further their assault on citizens’ Constitutional right to bear arms. The charge is being led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who apparently believes that a disarmed populace is a safe populace.

But safe from whom?

The right to defend oneself and one’s property is inalienable and indisputable. However, the left is taking pot shots at Americans’ gun rights by claiming that gun control or even outright bans are necessary for our own safety.

But an article written by Tracy W. Price and published in the Washington Times puts that myth to bed.

"Anti-gun nonsense" lures the reader in before laying the hammer down. The first myth it dispels is that high-visibility, highly sensationalistic mass murder sprees used to justify gun control laws are less likely to happen in “gun free,” or as the author puts it, “defenseless” zones.

That’s right before he points out the following, which is well beyond statistical naysaying:

In fact, research by economist and author John Lott and Bill Landes shows that states that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns enjoy a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack.[...]

The decrease in murder and robbery in states with shall-issue laws, even after controlling statistically for every other cause of crime reduction, is real and significant. Of the many scholars who were given Lott’s data and did their own analyses, most agree with his conclusions. States that passed these laws experienced sharp drops in murder, rape, robbery, and assault, even after allowing for the effects of poverty, unemployment, police arrest rates, and the like. States that did not pass these laws did not show comparable declines.[...]

Such overwhelmingly clear and positive evidence will not deter big government types like Michael Bloomberg from making the argument that Americans do not have the right to defend themselves (from other citizens or from the state). But the case for eliminating gun control laws is mounting and the counter-arguments are appearing increasingly spurious or trivial.

Not only is the right to bear arms morally just, but it is also statistically proven that citizens who lawfully carry firearms are safer from other citizens and from their own government.

Now who exactly would be against that?

Entire column...

---

Blog author's comments - I would think by now everyone knows this tragedy took place at a midnight premier of the latest 'Batman' movie. I believe that if someone is of the mind to do what James Holmes did, and is intelligent enough to plan well, tragedies like this shooting cannot be stopped. Even if the Second Amendment was removed from our Constitution

The liberal anti-gun crowd will continue to chip away at the Second Amendment rights of the law abiding American citizens. They use these tragedies to attempt to push their mindset on us. This is only one of the many reasons I feel Barack Obama must be defeated in November.

He will no doubt be able to appoint at least one and probably two liberal Justices to the Supreme Court much like his other two appointments, if he wins a second term. If this happens the liberal Supreme Court Justices could rewrite the Constitution beginning with the Second Amendment and take away our right to defend ourselves. The crime rate would rise dramatically.

Concealed carry permits help to protect us. Most criminals are carrying their guns illegally and could not pass the extensive background check to obtain a concealed carry permit. Also, most of the crime is done by people who did not purchase their guns from a gun shop and pass that background check.

In this case the shooter had no police record aside from a traffic ticket. So...there were no warning signs. James Holmes was from what I have read an intelligent person and good student until the last few months before he committed this horrendous crime. What prompted him to do this? We may never know.

Most if not all of the mass killings take place in areas which are 'gun free zones'. The shooters know that the likelihood of encountering armed citizens is remote.

Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment


Graphics by Bob Englehart and Scott Stantis

A Basic Right - The 2nd Amendment

Suzanne Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment



Texas Monthly talks with Ted Nugent

---

Blog author's comments - The last time the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment, at least five Justices knew tyranny is never far away. So they did what was right and true for all of America.

What is a bit scary and pathetic, was that the vote on the Second Amendment was so close, 5-4. Too close for comfort, it should have been 9-0.

The liberals on the Supreme Court apparently do not believe in the Second Amendment or the Constitution. You can be sure that prior to the election of 2012, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will retire, so Obama can appoint yet another hard core liberal, as he has with his last two appointees.

This is the big problem folks, if Obama or another Democrat should win in 2012, they may have the chance to appoint a fifth liberal. If that happens, the Constitution will most certainly be rewritten. The First and Second Amendments will look nothing like they were meant to be.

Gun Rights Extended By Supreme Court

5-4: Supremes Affirm Gun Rights Nationwide

The Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" could survive legal challenges.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.

Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws. Instead, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that the statues eventually would fall.

Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values.". . Read entire column

---

At least five of the members of the Supreme Court know tyranny is never far away, so they did what is true & right for all of America! Thankfully we have the U.S. Constitution.

Both scary and pathetic that it was so close only 5-4. Too close for comfort, it should have been unanimous. The four liberals do not believe in the Second Amendment or the Constitution.

A Side Note:
In July of 2009 two Republicans voted against a Senate Bill which would have allowed anyone with a Concealed Carry Permit to legally carry a concealed weapon in most states.

The vote was 58-39 in favor. The amendment needed 60 votes to pass. The vote split the Democrats, with 20 supporting the measure and 35 opposing it. Two of the Senate's 40 Republicans -- Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of Ohio voted against it.

Ted Nugent - Rock Musician & Gun Rights Advocate

I, of course, would have no idea how many of you have heard of Ted Nugent. He is a long time rock singer and musician. He is also actively involved in the NRA (National Rifle Association) and promoter of gun rights.

I include a few quotes from him and a short video of an interview he gave.

Well, I really should not call it an interview, the host asked two questions and Ted Nugent did the rest of the 'interview' by himself. He feels very strongly concerning gun rights as you will see if you watch the video.

Theodore Anthony "Ted" Nugent (born December 13, 1948) is an American hard rock guitarist and vocalist from Detroit, Michigan. He originally gained fame as the lead guitarist of The Amboy Dukes.

He is also noted for his vocal conservative political views and his ardent defense of hunting, conservation, and unrestricted gun-ownership.

Nugent has released more than 34 albums, and he has sold a career total of over 30 million records. He is still actively touring and playing his music.

Quotes attributed to Ted Nugent:

-"The war is coming to the streets of America and if you are not keeping and bearing and practicing with your arms then you will be helpless and you will be the victim of evil. "

-"There are hundreds of millions of gun owners in this country, and not one of them will have an accident today. The only misuse of guns comes in environments where there are drugs, alcohol, bad parents, and undisciplined children. Period."

If he ran for an office, I would vote for him.

A small portion of this post from Wikipedia