The resistance in Colorado
began late last winter right after Democrats introduced a package of new gun laws. First to get notice was John Cooke, elected sheriff of heavily agricultural Weld County. In March, he
said he would not enforce two of the proposed laws, one setting a $10 fee to cover the cost of background checks of private gun sales and one limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines to no more than 15 rounds.
Since then, as Erica Goode wrote in Monday's The New York Times, amid recalls of legislators by pro-gun activists and other recriminations, all but seven of Colorado's 64 sheriffs have signed onto the resistance, including joining in a federal lawsuit calling the magazine law unconstitutionally vague. Some of these sheriffs are extremists, keyed into the nullification ethos that permeates right-wing circles in the South and West. But for some the issue is one of practicality:
Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws around the country are in the minority, though no statistics exist. In Colorado, though, sheriffs like Joe Pelle of Boulder County, who support the laws and have more liberal constituencies that back them, are outnumbered.
“A lot of sheriffs are claiming the Constitution, saying that they’re not going to enforce this because they personally believe it violates the Second Amendment,” Sheriff Pelle said. “But that stance in and of itself violates the Constitution.” [...]
Even Sheriff W. Pete Palmer of Chaffee County, one of the seven sheriffs who declined to join the federal lawsuit because he felt duty-bound to carry out the laws, said he was unlikely to aggressively enforce them. He said enforcement poses “huge practical difficulties,” and besides, he has neither the resources nor the pressure from his constituents to make active enforcement a high priority. Violations of the laws are misdemeanors.
“All law enforcement agencies consider the community standards—what is it that our community wishes us to focus on—and I can tell you our community is not worried one whit about background checks or high-capacity magazines,” he said.
State officials have no authority to force the sheriffs to make the new gun laws a priority.
While Colorado has gotten the most attention for this open revolt, they aren't the only lawmen to resist enforcing gun laws. One of them, Goode wrote, is Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff and the author of The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope.
Mack has adopted what might be called a...uh...novel legal theory. He says county sheriffs are the real deciders about what is constitutional or not. He established the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association to spread the word and recruit acolytes for his view. Mack said: “The Supreme Court does not run my office. Just because they allow something doesn’t mean that a good constitutional sheriff is going to do it.”
You can read more on this below the fold.
One has to wonder how he and those who agree with him interpret, say, Miranda, given that the Supreme Court's views on the matters would seem to be irrelevant to a sheriff charged with deciding what is constitutional and not.
Mack's is not the attitude of Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson. That's the county which is home to the Aurora movie theater where 12 people were killed July 2012 and the high school where a student was critically wounded Friday by a student gunman who subsequently killed himself. In January, Robinson said:
“Public safety professionals serving in the executive branch do not have the constitutional authority, responsibility, and in most case, the credentials to determine the constitutionality of any issue. Law enforcement officials should leave it to the courts to decide whether a law is constitutional or not.”
Indeed. The sheriffs are breaking a public trust. They should remember that they are meant to be the servants of the law, not its masters.