Courts, not sheriffs or police, should decide which laws are constitutional and which aren’t

HERE‘s a sheriff who understands how the system is supposed to work:

The Colorado sheriff whose county includes the movie theater where 12 people were shot and killed last year says law-enforcement officers have no right to ignore gun-control laws unless the courts rule them unconstitutional.

Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson [above] issued a statement Wednesday criticizing police and sheriff’s officials who have said they would not enforce gun-control laws they consider unconstitutional.

Weld County (Colo.) Sheriff John Cooke has said he wouldn’t enforce any of Obama’s plan to address gun laws, and sheriffs in at least four Oregon counties said in a letter to Vice President Joe Biden they wouldn’t work with federal officials to enforce potential gun laws they consider unconstitutional.


Robinson said only courts – and not law-enforcement officers – have the authority to determine whether a law is unconstitutional.

For a law enforcement official to claim that authority would be the equivalent of police officers or deputies deciding that people they arrest are guilty and sentencing them to jail, he said.

“Public safety professionals serving in the executive branch do not have the constitutional authority, responsibility, and in most cases, the credentials to determine the constitutionality of any issue,” he said.

Robinson said he supports gun rights under the Second Amendment.



  1. Big Dave

    I wonder if this Sheriff has ever let a speeder go without giving a ticket? If he has then he just lied because he didn’t follow the law and is a hypocrite.

    But the interesting point in all of this is if the President wants to get rid of the 2nd Amendment all he needs to do is call for a “Constitutional Convention” and go for the changes he wants. But I know that presents a problem as then all parts of the Constitution are open for change and Obama can’t have that. But then his changes might not get he required amount of states agreeing with his changes and then that would be a problem. So he must try this his way and hope the Supreme Court goes along with him.

    I believe it 75% of the House and Senate and States must vote for his change and that is a really BIG problem as he will never get that. But what the heck, why let a piece of paper stop you!

  2. Big Dave

    I wasn’t sure so I looked it up and this is what I found.

    There are 2 ways to amend the U.S. Constitution.

    The first way is for both houses of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) to propose a constitutional amendment. This requires a 2/3 vote in each house. Once this happens, the proposed amendment is submitted to the states for ratification. The legislatures of 3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment, within a certain period if specified. At this point, it becomes part of the Constitution.* The president has no official role in amending the Constitution (he doesn’t have to sign the amendment for it to take effect, and can do nothing to defeat a constitutional amendment once it has passed). Of course, unofficially, presidents can use their political clout to influence public opinion one way or another, which can affect the chances of a constitutional amendment passing.

    The second method starts with the states, and was likely included to give states a check on overreaching federal power. The legislatures of the states apply to Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the constitution. If 2/3 of the states make such applications, congress must call the convention. Once such a convention is called, and amendments are proposed, the amendment(s) must be ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. This method has never actually been used to amend the constitution, but Congress has proposed amendments in response to threats by states to call a convention, likely to retain some control over the amendment process.

    Congress can also stipulate that ratification be made by state conventions, rather than legislatures. The only time this has occurred is the 21st Amendment (repealing the 18th Amendment, which was Prohibition). This method was used to circumvent grass roots opposition to the repeal (the primary impetus for Prohibition in the first place). State legislatures retained the ability to restrict alcohol sale within their borders.

    More input

    1. Proposed by two-thirds of both houses and ratified by three-fourths of the states

    2. Ratified by special conventions in three-fourths of the states

    3. Proposed by special convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures and ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures

  3. Big Dave thinks Obama is trying to get rid of the Second Amendment.

    Typical paranoid nutcase.

    Dave’s next step is to threaten an armed rebellion against the government.

    What a laugh these people are!

  4. Big Dave

    Ya, Pat but I’m curious on what your mind is telling you? I listen to what to what they say and if you don’t understand it well I guess you belong with your low knowledge friends on the left.

    Now why would Pat say this: “Dave’s next step is to threaten an armed rebellion against the government.”

    Well I guess Pat thinks we need this but then liberal loons need something so Pat if that’s what you believe so be it. Yes, interesting how a so called journalist would try to put out an unproven claim as to what someone else is thinking. I guess that’s what’s called news these days!

  5. Big Dave: Only a paranoid wingnut would suggest that Obama is trying to get rid of the Second Amendment when there is no evidence whatever supporting that claim.

  6. So Dave uses a hypothetical ( “if”) and Pat sees it as Dave suggesting Obama wants to get rid of the second amendment.

    Tell me again who is paranoid.


    “But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.”

    No doubt his position has evolved.

  7. Big Dave


    Again you keep making a claim I said or want something to happen without any proof or maybe you could show all of us where I said this bout Obama. Talk about being paranoid, I think you need to seriously look into a mirror and you will see the paranoid loon you keep talking about.

    But now let’s talk about Obama’s buddy Bill Ayers. If Mr. Obama was so concerned about about violence and killing how dos he explain Bill Ayers? Maybe its a “do as I say not as I do” kind of thing? But here is some of the Weather Underground violent activities: http://www.globalnewsdaily.com/SDS-Weather-Underground/index.htm

    “University of Wisconsin’s Sterling Hall after the Weather Underground’s bombing that killed a professor and injured three students.” Where is President Obama’s his outrage?

    “Obama claims that the revolutionary bombings & killings perpetrated by Ayers, his wife Dohrn, Katz, & others occurred when Obama was 8 years old. Today these terrorists are Obama’s political compatriots, fund-raisers, & supporters & continue to advocate violent revolution.”

    Funny thou that if any conservative had friends who did anything like this the press would have covered this everyday. Funny but no liberal news source tried to cover this, why?

    But anyone who uses a bomb to kill is OK and Obama might become friends with them as with Ayers but if anyone uses a gun then we must stop law abiding citizens from having them. Next I guess if someone is drunk and causes a fatality while driving, then everyone must give up the right to drive?

    It does fall under the same lame thinking that started the gun debate!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *