Colorado Sheriff will not support gun ban

[rglbegl]

http://www.gazette.com/opinion/state-94668-gun-ban.html

Cliffs notes:
New law bans guns on college campus'.
But
Sheriff will not book or jail anyone caught carrying a concealed weapon as long as they have a permit.


Is he right?

OR

Should he do his job and uphold the law?

[Old Grump]

I think he is upholding the law, no need to get into the constitutionality of the gun ban law that he doesn't want to uphold. Let the voters decide.

[JohnBrainard]

I think it's great that he's willing to stand up for the student's rights to protect themselves on campus like that. The police department is supposed to enforce laws, not the rules of every organization in their jurisdiction.

[GoodOl'12gauge]

Damn right, if a student or teacher had been armed at columbine oe virginia tech im sure they would have ended very quickly. Oh and to hell with Michael Moore and his movie on columbine, He is one of those people thats to be taken out of the gene pool. I think the sheriff is completly just. Just my 2 cents

[bamashooter]

i agree, i think he is doing his job. more people should exercise thier rights, or they arent gonna be around.

[Alpo]

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It says you can carry. College rules say you can't. Whether that is a college rule, or a state law, it is unConstitutional. The sheriff is obeying the law.

[copenhagen]

Amen Alpo.

[rglbegl]

Just to play the devils advocate;

Under Colorado law, campuses do have the authority to implement weapons control policies


So some people do have an argument saying the sheriff should uphold the law. And the law allows the school to to set their policies. Plus the campus police are a division of the local sheriffs department.
So the school says the campus police must arrest anyone violating the policy, but the sheriff wont allow them to book the offender in to jail.

Some people say that schools should be like court houses;
Even a license holder is not allowed to carry their gun in a court house, despite what the constitution says

[Old Grump]

Courthouse shootings are rare but when they happen the 2 main targets seem to be the Judge, many who carry by the way, and the armed bailiff. Free fire zone almost as bad as the average church and school.

That law doesn't make sense either. Just between you me and the neighbors dog I have as much right to defend myself as the Judge does. He is supposed to rule on the law, not be above the law.

Can you guess that I am against that restriction too.

[pinecone70]

A teacher in Littleton, CO. just tackled a shooter that injured two students with a rifle. He was the quick action type, apparently, and probably saved a lot of lives. Granted, there are not usually teachers on school campuses that have that kind of courage, but that's the third school shooting in a week and a half that I've heard of.

[Terry_P]

Originally Posted by rglbegl

Some people say that schools should be like court houses;Even a license holder is not allowed to carry their gun in a court house, despite what the constitution says

I don't know who some people are but a courthouse is a building that has metal detectors and armed guards, at least it my state. A campus is spread out with multiple buildings, and in more rural settings pathways through some wooded areas, living quarters, dining, etc. In city settings a campus could be spread out requiring students to traverse through neighborhoods. In short it is not possible to secure a campus like you can a courthouse without a tremendous investment in security that is just not feasible.

[Bobitis]

A sticky wicket indeed.

Are schools public property or private?
There surely are private schools out there. Public schools?
Yes, the public pays for them, but the government owns them.

Time for a SCOTUS ruling it appears.
This should be interesting.

[Eddie N]

Just something to think about. I know this is just stating the obvious for most of us here, but...think of all the public ( schools, banks, post offices, etc.). Who had the guns? Law abiding citizens? Or the murderer? (Sorry for the strong word, there. Just telling it like it is.) IMO, if the people who make the rules at these places want to ban carrying, then they are just opening a shooting gallery. With live targets. It's just so frustrating to hear about stupid laws/ rules being put in place in the name of "public safety". When are these people going to learn? "When they outlaw guns..." isn't just a saying on a bumper sticker. It is the truth!
Sorry for that little bit of rant, but when I heard about this latest school shooting, I just about screamed.
I could go on, but I think I'll stop now, or I'll end up typing several pages of ranting.

[wpage]

That sheriff is standing his ground. Deserves credit for that.

[Kanonemeister]

Originally Posted by rglbegl

Is he right?

OR

Should he do his job and uphold the law?

My Personal stand: Concider this...if most responcible law-abiding citizens were armed, that would would deterr most crime immediately.

In USA, The sheriff's job is to enforce the law, whether he agrees with it or not. This is the same if you serve as a Juror in a Criminal Trial...Ideally your job is to decide if the defendant has broken the Law. As a Juror, it is NOT your job to interpret the Law.

Howerver, as with any Law Enforcement Official, he is the first Judge, Jury, and Executioner when he witnesses or is called to the scene of any criminal act and/or negligence. If he arrest and books any suspects for criminal acts and/or negligence, he has already determined the suspect is guilty. Additional Domestic Court of Law (not Military Court) proceedings from Indictment to handing down the Punishment are only follow-through with the Defendant or his/her Lawyer having an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and evidence, and introduce defence even to the point of the defendant taking the stand. In USA, Jurors are told to concider the defendant innocent until proven guilty. In the event that the defendant is convicted (found Guilty as Charged) then the Court agrees with the arresting Officer of the Law.

All of this being said, a Law Enforcement Official also has the obligation to determine the future ramifications and expense of time, effort and/or money in the event he does or does not arrest someone for criminal acts and/or negligence. It boils down to this...if he went around arresting everyone who carried a weapon, would they be held responcible by the higher court, or would he be wasting his time (legal processess take a lot of time) and taxpayers (voters) dollars (it does cost to house and feed jailmates you know). This is still a country governed by the people for the people, or at least it is at election time every two or four years. If other officials allow him to continue and his constituents do not like what he is doing, they can elect someone else.

Many other countries handle thier Law enforcement differrently, even in Democratic Nations. I'm glad I am in USA.

[dbrodin]

poll results:

Should Colorado State students ignore the new weapons ban, as their sheriff suggests?
Yes, they should ignore the ban
97%
No, they should obey the campus rules
3%
I don't know
0%
I don't care
0%
Total Votes: 12354

[Trouble 45-70]

There is a lot to be said for abiding by the law. However, when you have a Congress or Legislature or College Board that doesn't support the Constitution then it is time to disobey those laws and devil take the hindmost.

A government at the very least should not put its citizens in jeopardy. That is why the sheriff won't support disarming the public. Hats off to him. Apparently the people who answered the poll feel the same.

[Old Grump]

A lot to be said for defying bad laws. Without the resistance to them there would be no reason for a power mad legislative body to think twice before passing more restrictions on our rights and exempting themselves from the consequences. Or we could still be paying homage to the crown. Sheriff Alderden is my hero of the week.

[jim brady]

Hat's off to the Sheriff!!!! He is 100% right in my book. I did read on another post "The Sheriff's duty is to enforce the law as it is written and NOT how he thinks it should be...." Those are NOT my thoughts - I just read those elsewhere. In my early years studying Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice we were instructed on the "Letter of the Law - and the SPIRIT of the Law"

If people supported the the right thing - and not current laws imposed by a powerful minority - there would never have been 6 million people toasted in ovens. Those on the College Board seem to want 'sheep' instead of independant young minds to mould.

That young lady Police Chief in Boulder just wants her 'ticket punched' on her way up the ladder, so there is no way she will buck the intrenched Liberal Establishment. Looks like she doesn't have the trust in the people that the Sheriff has..........

[Alpo]

Apparently kanonemeister has never heard of "jury nullification".

[TheGunClinger]

I say he is right and I hope that the Supreme court says so too.

Hey! #600. I am catching up to Glocknut