Powered by TypePad

« A Delightful Day For Conservative Whatever-You-Call-It | Main | Before We Excoriate John Kerry... »

December 16, 2013



I'm not in favor of nullification of Democratically passed laws by 'ministerial' functionaries like sheriffs or prosecutors (or lawless POTUSs) --but in this case I am more than happy that a bastard law like the Colo forearms law is nullified by law enforcement.

TomM-- other than safe 'Blue' counties in Colo, why do you think prosecutors will 'add on' transfer and magazine capacity charges to an indictment? First of all, how many crimes will be committed with a 'private' transfer of a firearm by gift or trade, or committed with a high capacity magazine? And given the recall votes, will a red or Purple County prosecutor make a political statment to add on those charges, when the traditional charges to the crime probably carry the heaviest penalty?


I wonder if the conservatives blasting cities for becoming illegal immigrant sanctuaries and Obama for his selective enforcement will likewise criticize these sheriffs?

For the record, I don't like selective enforcement regardless of the law and the political party of the officials not enforcing the law. If we have a bad law, take it off the books, otherwise it gets enforced.

Danube on iPad

"If we have a bad law, take it off the books, otherwise it gets enforced."

Or it gets disobeyed on such a scale that enforcement isn't feasible. See, e.g., prohibition.


Let Obummer FIRST enforce the immigration laws and enforce border security, let Obummer allow CIA, DoD and State Dept officials speak freely about Benghazi, let Obummer order all IRS Tea Party records released and deny any pardons to any IRS abusers....
then we can talk about Colo Sheriffs.


Did Obama think lawlessness was his exclusive domain?


OT-- HotAir links to Gov Walker's approval of the Ryan Budget, as realistic action in light of Dem senate control: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/193186-walker-ryan-acting-more-like-a-governor

Miss Marple

It's like I said about when lying becomes acceptable, then there is more of it and you don't know who to believe.

Well, lawlessness by government officials has been accepted, so now it is becoming a choice by local officials as well as federal.

Pretty soon the whole nation will be like Bosnia or something.

James D.

There's also something of a distinction here that's being overlooked.

Obama is the man who signs the laws into, you know, law. If he doesn't like them, he doesn't have to sign them. And his refusal to enforce laws, or to selectively enforce them, is completely based on his whims.

The sheriffs have no say in the wording of the laws, or their passage. If the laws are written such that understanding which items are now illegal is difficult, both for the citizens and for law enforcement, such that enforcing the new laws fairly and efficiently is impractical or even more-or-less impossible, that's hardly a statement of defiance or a breakdown of the rule of law.

Captain Hate

The Supreme Court declared the line item veto unconstitutional; how is this any different?


Fair points JamesD, and the POTUS is guilty of more lawlessness than Sheriffs for the reasons you cite. But in truth, both are forms of executive nullification of legislatively enacted statutes. Nullification however, is not necessarily unjustified or even unethical. The ACA overreach regarding waivers and crony contracts or violations of conscience (Catholic or Muslim hospitals) are examples of 'laws' which can be civilly disobeyed constitutionally and morally.


There is a very subtle difference between old and new magazines, probably engineered by the government to allow them to determine the legality thereof. You have to place them side by side, though unless you've been taught to know the difference.

I find this somewhat sinister.

There was a very good reason the Second Amendment was #2 on the list and it revolves, I believe, around the repression by government of the citizenry.If you look at the statements and writings of many of them, the tone is clear.

"A Republic if you can keep it" is pretty definitive and Jefferson was emphatic.

And today we find ourselves with a lawless tyrant in the White House.

Selective enforcement is a nightmare. What happens within town limits? In Arizona, the Pima County(Tucson) sheriff refuses to enforce the immigration laws that are on the books, creating a Heathrow for illegals. They can drive or take a plane or a bus anywhere in the country from there.

The divides within the country are reaching a peak and I honestly pray we survive as united states.


The Courts have not invalidated the Colo statutes, the Sheriffs are unilaterally nullifying without judicial authority.

Account Deleted

"Pretty soon the whole nation will be like Bosnia or something."

I'm hoping for an Italian/Greek period first. Decent food mixed with universal contempt for the government and avoidance/evasion as stimulative sport isn't the worst outcome one could envision. We already have the bureaucratic inertia aspect nailed down, we have enough stupid laws blended with incomprehensible regulation to last until well beyond the point where the OPM famine BKs the whole carnival.

Miss Marple


I agree. I didn't want to say "pretty soon we will be like Italy" because then it wouldn't sound so sinister.


Leaving aside the issue of non compliance based on Constitutional questions, a credible defense obtains when a law is written so vaguely that a citizen doesn't know when he is violating it.

How is a sheriff to enforce a law when it is so poorly written he doesn't know if the citizens are violating it?

That is hardly comparable to Barry, when there is no constitutional question involved, knowingly and intentionally choosing not to enforce a law at all, choosing to enforce some parts but not others or choosing to enforce laws that congress has refused to pass.


A fair point about vague and ambiguous laws -- especially criminal laws-- being unenforceable. 2 things: there is no claimed ambiguity about the background checks, are those being enforced? If the magazine law is vague so that the 'reasonable' gun purchaser can't be expected to understand the law, the local sheriffs can promulgate guidelines as to how it will be enforced within their jurisdictions. That clarity of the law 'as applied' would make it enforceable. It appears, these sheriffs are just not enforcing the statute, at all, notwithstanding clear guidelines they could issue. It sure looks like a political statement.


OT-- there are sane voices in the Deep Blue political cesspool of NYC. here's Kyle Smith in today's NY Post about POTUS 'Selfie'. Smith is spot on: http://nypost.com/2013/12/14/obamas-selfie-presidency-its-all-about-me/

Danube on iPad

I haven't read the Colorado gun laws, but if in fact they are so vague as to not provide fair warning to the citizens, a court can enjoin their enforcement on that ground.

very undude

Uh, Sheriffs face elections. This says nothing about the Patrolman. Cops shoot first, then ask questions later because they view personal safety as the rule of law. Trigger-happy LE gets demonstrated every day in the News.

Sandy   Mon'Daze
Rule of Law ~~ Law of Rule

Howz them 100 watt incandescent lighbulbs doing for you pilgrim?

Howz them 75w, 60w, & 40w bulbs doing?

You law-breaking miscreant.

It is upon your shoulders that Western Civilization will fail and fall.

You used an illegal lightbulb.

very undude

""A Republic if you can keep it" is pretty definitive and Jefferson was emphatic."

I think it was Benjie who said that.


Marlene-- AccuWeather says 5+" of snow up and down Coastal Maine Tuesday night.

Sandy   Mon'Daze

Our work on light bulbs wasn’t an arbitrary mandate,” he said. “We didn’t just pick a standard out of the air, or look for a catchy sounding standard like 25 by 2025 not based in science or feasibility. Instead, we worked with both industry and environmental groups to come up with a standard that made sense and was doable.

Account Deleted

"It sure looks like a political statement."

Does it rise to the level of the political statement made by state legislatures legalizing dope in contravention (or at least subversion) of Federal statutes? Why should elected sheriff's pay any more attention to the buffoons in state legislatures than state legislators pay to the buffoons in DC?

And why, besides avoiding/evading its "laws", should citizens pay any attention to a legal sewer fully capable of exercising "reason" to the point where a fine becomes a tax, depending entirely upon wind direction, time of day and the sophistry of the Dread Pirate Roberts?


Freedom's just another word.


Thanks for reminding me-- I have to fillout my LED bulb rebate form and mail it in.
I am pleasantly surprised about the LED options available-- they are far better than Flouresant bulbs.

Sandy   Mon'Daze

Who would be the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the (dis-)Honorable Representative Fred Upton, Alex?

At least his niece leave something to be desired, even if he is, ah, well, part of the problem, not of the solution.


Vituperate. Ah, Roberts, the man who could have spared the country the desolation of Obamacare.


Well their State constitutions say that the Legislature is the repository of state police powers, not Sheriffs or Road Commissioners or Governors-- the Legislature maketh the laws, those others are supposed to execute and administer them.


Mandates as a tax may come in handy in the next round of ObummerCare litigation-- assuming it is not repealed by acclamation.

Sandy   Mon'Daze

Hey, if they make it a right to murder our future, and prohibit purchase of a particular lightbulb, UNDER PENALTY OF THE LAW,

whatz the big deal over healthcare?

Hasn't the cool-aid already been downed in copious quantities??

Dave (in MA)

Now they plan on taking away your anti-bacterial soap.



Account Deleted

"may come in handy in the next round of ObummerCare litigation"

Wherein the full pomp and ceremony pertaining to THE LAW will be displayed by Nine Ninnies in gowns, led by a sophist whose reasoning will devolve, once again, to CUZ I SAY SO.

At least they haven't entered court jammed in a clown car.



Biden = creepy old perv:http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/vice-president-joe-biden-gropes-white-house-reporter/#!


And speaking of lawless government officials: this one asks for leniency for defrauding TPs by saying he's a warrior against Skydragon: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/16/21911592-climate-change-experts-fraud-was-crime-of-massive-proportion-say-feds?lite

Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself

A wonderful Sultan Knish - http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-redistribution-of-freedom.html

2Jack is Back4!

Talking about "the Republican war on bulbs", try finding these mini light replacement bulbs for you pre-lit tree:

I found 15 small packs at HomeDepot just after Thanksgiving. We still need some more for another set on the bottom 1/3rd of the tree. I have driven to St. Augustine and Daytona hoping anyone would have them. Nada.

What is it with bulbs that drive people to desperation?

jimmyk on iPad

NK's 1:39 is worth reading in its entirety unless you already have high blood pressure. Shocking that such corruption could occur in Richard Windsor's agency.

2Jack is Back4!

They never give up:

Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's attorney, subject of Ethics complaint to Flroida Bar


JimmyK-- and thanks to that fraud, the dude has a 2500sf NoVa Townhouse, AND a Cape Cod vacation home. Well at least his battle against Skydragon succeeded, it's really cold and snowy.


JiB, I try to avoid GE bulbs for the same reason I avoid GM cars. I don't like the cut of their, if you will pardon the expression and nothing personal, jib.

Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself

Maybe he was a "self certified" CIA agent? Who are we to judge?

2Jack is Back4!


That was just an illustration of the type of bulb. But if you know of any bulbs be they right, left or independent let me know. I am a non-discriminatory, Equal Bulb Employer:)

Beasts of England

Did someone mention Kate Upton?


We just drove back from the cabin. We weren't snowed in,but stayed overnight because hubby had morning appointments with clients in that neck of the woods. I couldn't get a hot spot connection late in the day yesterday so I was having JOM withdrawal. :) Anyway,snow amounts were about a foot. Yes NK,we expect more snow tomorrow. When you watch the weather people point to northern New England and say,the system is exiting into the Maritimes,just remember,the weather system is exiting over us in the form of lots of white stuff!


JiB -- go to amazon and search on 2.5v 17 amp - they have them. You could also google the above.

Rob Crawford

There is a Constitutionally protected right to bear arms; there is no such right for foreigners to come to the US.


Enjoy it while it lasts Marlene, a thaw is coming by the weekend, and the thaw could last until Christmas for you.

Dave (in MA)

Calling in bomb threats to avoid taking a final exam? They just don't make Harvard Men like they used to.


DaveinMa-- you know that Joe Sr must have been furious at Ted. First, Ted violated the Kennedy Rule-- HE GOT CAUGHT. Second, fixing Harvard grades was a simple risk free matter for Joe Kennedy; apparently Ted got that right the second time around at John Harvard's college.


The sheriff's rationale for non-enforcement of the magazine ban is that they all look alike. I'm pretty sure that's not the rationale used in the immigration situation.

Danube on iPad

Federal judge rules NSA phone surveillance unconstitutional.

Cecil Turner on mini pad

As I understand it, the sheriffs have conducted a review and decided that the laws in question are unconstitutional (either for vagueness or as a violation of the second amendment). Their authority to do so (as opposed to a judicial review) is the question.

In the first place, the concept of a review by an official charged with enforcement comports at least as well with both the text of the constitution and the reasoning laid out in the Federalist as does judicial review. It is also at least as consistent with their oaths to uphold the constitution as the apparent view from the Times's commentariat (which seems to boil down to something like "obey authority"). I'm having a hard time seeing this as either "selective enforcement" or a failure of "rule of law." Rather, it's nullification on constitutional grounds of what I tend to agree is bad law.

Very old school, but I think I'm for it.

Beasts of England

And maybe it is, boat! lol

2Jack is Back4!

Isn't this what got Filner fired?


I highly recommend "It's a Wonderful Life -- but It Will Cost You" by Stella Morabito in the Federalist today. LUN

Danube on iPad

Filner is now a convicted felon.


I repeat: Biden = creepy old perv.


Biden should be a cellmate.

2Jack is Back4!

Not the first time either:

Pelosi is so tired of fighting the repugs war on women maybe Joe should give her a good feel:)



Sandy     16   Mon'daze

You can say that again, MaryD:

highly recommend "It's a Wonderful Life -- but It Will Cost You" by Stella Morabito in the Federalist today. LUN

Posted by: MaryD

THANK YOU. excellent.

Merry Christmas.

Falling Up

If POTUS has the authority to refuse to enforce certain laws she doesn't like (and she does), then so do prosecutors and CLEOs. It's a very bad precedent because it makes it easier for legislatures to pass terrible laws, to "make a statement", if they know the laws will not be enforced.

Selective enforcement of law has an ugly history. Is that what we want to evolve to?

The comments to this entry are closed.