I'm kind of surprised to see the number of people who think law enforcement personnel should get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced.
Today's Poll: Should sheriffs enforce the SAFE Act even if they disagree with it?
Submitted by Howard Owens on September 5, 2013 - 8:43am
Times-Union: Cuomo: Sheriffs don't choose laws to enforce
The SAFE act is a clear violation of the United States constitution which law enforcement official take an oath to uphold. No they should not enforce it.
The dictionary defines the word oath as: (a) a solemn, formal declaration or promise to fulfill a pledge, often calling on God or a sacred object. (b) A declaration or promise.
Andrew Cuomo defines the word oath as: (a) merely a suggestion. (b) If you are a Sheriff and disagree with me; see the dictionary.
Apparently the Governor took a suggestion to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
The Sheriffs took an Oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and apparently they hold that oath dear, despite the Governor’s political aspirations.
I for one applaud the Sheriff’s. As for the Governor......................
"On February 28, 2013, the New York State Supreme Court issued an order saying that the state must show that the law does not violate the constitution. If the state is unable to do so, the court will issue an injunction against its implementation on April 29, 2013."
How did that turn out?
Jerry.... does it matter? The state supreme court can only determine the constitutionality according to the State Constitution. I Believe we are talking of the US Constitution. So until the US Supreme Court makes a decision it's all moot. The Oath the Govenor, and the Sheriff's take is to the Constitution of the United States. Not the New York State Constitution.
Kyle, It should be obvious that since I made the post, I think it matters. What was the decision? What is the next step? I can't find either. Emotional rants serve no productive purpose.
Emotional or not doesn't change the validity of the argument. They swore to uphold the US Constitution. And they like some of us believe these laws violate that same document they swore to protect. I really dislike and call into question your statement that emotional rants serve no purpose. They are actually what created this country and its govt. Unless you believe people fighting and dying for independence from Great Britan did so purely based on cold logic......
Well Bob as a law enforcement officer, like it has been mention, it is hard to enforce a law that violates your Constitution Rights. Actually the only law enforcement officers that, I know who support (or are forced to support due to political persuasion.) are those with political ambitions, the Metropolitan Police Chief’s Association and the New York State Police Commissioner, in which both are associated with political offices.
So, when you have 80+% of law enforcement who are against this law which clearly violates your Constitutional Right (2ND AMENDMENT) and which is hastily and illegal put into a law because, Governor Cuomo has ambitions to become President, how are you surprised?
We need to enforce the laws we do have and make examples of people such as the young woman that, knowingly bought guns for a known felon. We need to make people accountable for their actions rather than find bs excuses.
Emotional Rant! Interesting choice of words. Deliberate and calculating but interesting nonetheless.
The dictionary defines the word rant as: (a) Too speak or write in an angry or violent manner. (b) A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence. (c) To utter or express with violence or extravagance.
Nothing in any of the previous posts meets this definition or criteria.
Using terms like “emotional rants” when they didn’t occur serves no useful purpose other than an attempt to diminish the opinions with those you disagree.
the sheriff is a position held by a deputy that is elected by the people of each county.. the sheriff, in my opinion, is a representative of the people who elected him/her.
845 of us non-sheriffs know what we would like the sheriff do with the safe act.....
I can only imagine the tough position the sheriffs find themselves when it comes to this so called "safe act".......
now the state police do not work for the people, they work at the governor's pleasure and take orders from the governor...I suggest that if the sheriff finds a situation that may fall under the "safe act", they call the state boys and let them handle it....
in the meantime I will continue to respect the sheriffs office and his deputies , more now than ever before....
They are in a bind. The law has not been declared unconstitutional yet. At least two lower courts in NY have refused to step in and stop it.
I am less concerned over the Sheriff than the DA's. That's where the buck should stop. They should refuse to prosecute any arrests under this act..
jerry, it doesn't take much to set kyle off....get him very upset and he'll write ten paragraphs explaining how stupid you are.....been there done that.....best to swallow your pride and leave him alone...
LOL David, just the fact that someone can create 10 paragraphs of how stupid someones comment is says a lot for that person's comment now doesn't it
"The law has not been declared unconstitutional yet. At least two lower courts in NY have refused to step in and stop it."
Until the law is repealed it must be enforced. To not do so would set a dangerous precedent which would eventually undermine the legal system.
I'll believe all the talk of not enforcing this law is more than empty rhetoric when more than one of the people doing the talking has the stones to choose to either step down or be removed from their cushy Government jobs over their perceived ideology.
The precedent has already been set, by Obama for example. He has said a number of federal laws will not be enforced. Once someone like Obama does it, then why not a Sheriff or a DA?
Bob; "I'll believe all the talk of not enforcing this law is more than empty rhetoric when more than one of the people doing the talking has the stones to choose to either step down or be removed from their cushy Government jobs over their perceived ideology."
You and me both.
Normally I'd agree with that Dave, however I stumbled across this.... We know the wheels of Govt grind slowly but if you apply this with the related case law. Several patriot act laws as well as NYS Safe Act could be effected. I do believe that the NYS Sheriffs Assc is working with other groups to change this. After all there was absolutely no justification to enact this law as it was done. With the exception to prevent people from organizing and blocking its passage into law. That in of itself seems unethical at best, illegal at worst.
LAW OF THE LAND . The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislatures bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. the US constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. it is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is is succinctly stated as follows : All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void Marbury vs Madison 5 US (2cranch) 137, 174, 176, 1803, Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436 p. 491. An unconstitutional act is not law ; it confers no rights: it imposes no duties: affords no protection: it creates no office: it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Norton vs Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose: since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it 16 Am jur 2d, sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 . TAKEN FROM "CITIZENS RULE BOOK"
Jerry, some have stated the sheriff's oath regards the US Constitution, and it does. But your question is valid as the state Supreme Court could render the entire SAFE Act invalid.
The answer to your question becomes rather involved. First of all, the supreme court did not issue an injunction staying the implementation. Their answer, based on previous court rulings, was that the supreme court did not have the authority to decide when the legislature has or does not have the right to use the message of necessity (the basis for the main argument).
The same motion was then filed with the appellate division where they gave basically the same answer about 3 weeks ago. The motion has now been forwarded to the highest court, the NYS Court Of Appeals where a decision is expected before the end of the year.
Meanwhile, that was just a single motion filed in an attempt to strike down the entire act using the abuse of message of necessity argument (and a few others). There are other arguments on the merits pending. These arguments cover all the 58 different laws which the court could choose to strike down all, some, or none based on post ex facto and property rights arguments, etc.
However, the plaintiff feels strongly that eventually an injunction will come from the court of appeals, so a motion has been filed and granted for the lower court not to rule on the individual merits arguments until after the court of appeals has made its ruling.
So we're basically waiting on the decision of the high court on whether to strike down the whole act. And if they don't then the 58 laws will be argued and ruled on individually by the court. And while all this is going on there are lawsuits also filed in federal courts, any of whose decisions could make the state decision meaningless.
Good news. In Colorado yesterday, the people voted to recall and remove two Democratic State Senators who had voted to restrict gun rights.