While you propose evidence that in fact at least one did. There are clearly others who do not. This is a very grey area (even where a black and white line is drawn). And was the reason for my post.But police will enforce them. They will arrest people and confiscate firearms and hi-cap magazines and whatever someone tells them to do.
But police will enforce them. They will arrest people and confiscate firearms and hi-cap magazines since thats what they are paid to do.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the President ordering American citizens into military concentration camps was constitutional (1944). They ruled that forcible human sterilization of the "unfit" was constitutional (1927). The court ruled that blacks had no standing to sue in court because they were property (1857). They ruled that private property could be seized via eminent domain and handed off to private developers with more political clout (2005). The court ruled that people speaking out against the WW1 draft had no freedom of speech and could be put in prison camps (1919).
ALL "CONSTITUTIONAL". And that's just a few off the top of my head.
Tyranny cannot be restrained if we posture one single branch of government as the final arbiter and decider of what is constitutional. "The Supreme Court said it was OK" is not good enough. Its a cop out. ALL branches must use their brains and obey their oaths. I'm not asking anyone to make up their own laws, I am asking people to stand down. Refuse to enforce tyrannical laws and orders. Use your conscience. Some day we all are going to have to answer for our individual actions, and SCOTUS & the legislature won't be there to point fingers at.
Fixed it for you.
You just reinforced my point.
You just reinforced my point.
The problem is not changing the law in order to change the behaviour of LEOs. The problem is changing the behaviour of LEOs to coincide with how we've already changed the law. Changing the law doesn't mean anything when the LEOs feel free to violate it with impunity.I've watched this site for a while now. It never ceases to amaze me the cop bashing that goes on by people that have no concept of our job. If you have a issue with a law, lobby for change. If you have a issue with police policy apply, rise through the ranks and become admin and try to change policy. Let me know how that works out for you with the Mayor.
Changing the law doesn't mean anything when [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] a very small minority of LEOs feel free to violate it with impunity.
The problem is not changing the law in order to change the behaviour of LEOs. The problem is changing the behaviour of LEOs to coincide with how we've already changed the law. Changing the law doesn't mean anything when the LEOs feel free to violate it with impunity.
And what would it take to get LEOs to enforce laws as they actually are and not as the LEOs were trained years ago and as they want them to still be? Clearly changing the laws matters not at all if no one enforcing them is even going to bother to notice.Instead of complaining about LEO's enforcing laws we don't like, we need to spend more time figuring out how to either prevent or change these laws.
And what would it take to get LEOs to enforce laws as they actually are and not as the LEOs were trained years ago and as they want them to still be? Clearly changing the laws matters not at all if no one enforcing them is even going to bother to notice.
I've watched this site for a while now. It never ceases to amaze me the cop bashing that goes on by people that have no concept of our job. If you have a issue with a law, lobby for change. If you have a issue with police policy apply, rise through the ranks and become admin and try to change policy. Let me know how that works out for you with the Mayor.
And what would it take to get LEOs to enforce laws as they actually are and not as the LEOs were trained years ago and as they want them to still be? Clearly changing the laws matters not at all if no one enforcing them is even going to bother to notice.
Seems some of you folks think that LEOs are some monolithic entity, we all agree where the line is drawn and some choose to cross it and some choose not to.
What you fail to recognize is what's Constitutional and what's not isn't exactly a bright line in many instances. Every citizen disagrees with every other citizen on some issue about where the line is drawn. Lawyers disagree. Judges disagree. Supreme Court Justices disagree. Yet somehow, you think every cop recognizes exactly where that line is with every law? And then just decides if he wants to be constitutional or not?
What an amazing oversimplification of an incredibly complex system.