Quote of the day—Jay Stooksberry

… the underlying argument that Colorado sheriffs are making against the red flag law: They have professional discretion when it comes to the enforcement of their state’s laws. Furthermore, if this precedent was applied to a future legal challenge, noncompliant law enforcement would not be held legally liable if they refused to serve a court order even if the targeted person subsequently committed a heinous crime. If death and taxes are two guarantees in life, police immunity is a safe bet for the bronze medal.

Jay Stooksberry
May 23, 2019
Colorado’s Growing Second Amendment Sanctuary Movement
[The Second Amendment sanctuary movement has to be causing the anti-gun people great pause. If law enforcement won’t enforce their new laws and both the intending victims of these laws and law enforcement get away with ignoring them, might they then become inclined to ignore older gun laws as well?

Also,SCOTUS doesn’t operate in a public opinion vacuum. That there is this much pushback on these stupid laws is going to be taken into account. This will make rulings lean toward a broader application of the protections guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.—Joe]

8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Jay Stooksberry

  1. Interesting that they are applying the Obama “prosecutorial discretion” argument, rather than arguing that they are bound by oath to disregard unconstitutional “law”. I suppose the former argument is easier to make.

    • I’m not sure it’s an easier argument as such. It is what I would call a legalistic rather than moral approach. They will resonate differently depending on the audience.

      Alternately, if they start with what they see as their best argument, they have nothing to fall back on if it gets shot down.

      • It’s also language the Leftists have used themselves, with their “Sanctuary City” concepts. To hear it used against them must be particularly disturbing, since they think they own all the moral high ground in every argument about the law and liberty.

  2. The constitutional argument is limiter of power. Nobody likes having their power limited. that’s why we always hear politicians talking about “reasonable” limitations.
    Cognitive dissonance from being brainwashed won’t allow them to admit to limitations. maybe I’m all wet on this one. but its the only way for me to rationalize their lack of fore thought. and complete disregard for consequences.

  3. Mr. Stooksberry is absolutely correct. Plus, no AG is going to go against it, because there’s a bunch of laws they don’t want enforced. We should always remember law enforcement lives with a lot of the downside of liberal politics.

  4. While the commie left would LOVE to have EVERY LEO willfully implement their
    unconstitutional “red flag laws” they are just happy to have them on the books.
    They KNOW that once such a law is passed and in place for a while they are
    virtually IMPOSSIBLE to repeal. They also know that eventually the sheriffs and other officers who won’t enforce these laws WILL be replaced…..and more than likely by someone who will happily kick in doors, shoot dogs and murder citizens in the quest to disarm us. No….the 2A ‘sanctuary’ movement is a band aid on a gaping wound. It won’t do Jack Shiite to preserve our rights.

    • They do seem to take the long view, don’t they? If not this decade, perhaps the next. Make no mistake. They’ve been working in this for a LONG time.

  5. I suspect there’s benefit in close examination of secondary activities, to wit, subverting the stated aim of elected Sheriffs by conversion of deputies.

    Combining some of the above comments, the law is “on the books,” and it’s probably correct that it will be there forever; a sheriff may decide his or her agency will not enforce Law X, but a “converted deputy” could under the same aegis – the law “is on the books” and thusly enforceable.

    That deputy could be disciplined, even fired, by the sheriff for “policy violations” but not without the standard leftist firestorm being waged in the media rather than the courts. The sheriff would be on solid ground advancing to the next defensive position, that of unconstitutionality of the law; that will win – eventually – in the courts but be a solid and continual loser on the media battleground (side note: the citizen(s) so afflicted would also be on solid ground with a lawsuit seeking severe personal and agency reparations for unconstitutional action, but they’d better be prepared for years, if not decades, of work to accomplish it).

    So, a few thoughts: the Left fully understands walls are built brick-by-brick; they are substantially less cognizant of how those walls may subject to disassembly by those whose movement and activity is restricted by the wall(s). Second, while bricks can be grouped together to be used as a barrier, it’s also possible to use them individually, or perhaps in smaller groups, as weapons in any manner of ways, limited only by the ambition and inventiveness of the wielder. Third, a wall that is 4 bricks high is not much of an impediment and comes to be accepted as merely requiring a slightly higher step to pass over; it is psychologically (and to some degree, physically) easier to raise the wall height by 40 or 50 bricks in quite short order because the long labor of building the foundation was accomplished prior to establishing the 4-brick height. It’s also easier to substitute high PSI concrete with lots of rebar for bricks if the foundation is sufficiently sturdy.

    Heed Kim’s comment: this is the long game in play.

Comments are closed.