Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control
Michael Ciaglo/The Colorado Springs Gazette, via Associated Press
John Cooke is among the Colorado sheriffs who are resisting enforcement of new state gun laws.
By ERICA GOODE
Published: December 15, 2013 1216 Comments
GREELEY, Colo. — When Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County explains in
speeches why he is not enforcing the state’s new gun laws, he holds up
two 30-round magazines. One, he says, he had before July 1, when the law
banning the possession, sale or transfer of the large-capacity
magazines went into effect. The other, he “maybe” obtained afterward.
Multimedia
Readers’ Comments
Share your thoughts.
He shuffles the magazines, which look identical, and then challenges the audience to tell the difference.
“How is a deputy or an officer supposed to know which is which?” he asks.
Colorado’s package of gun laws, enacted this year after mass shootings
in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., has been hailed as a victory by
advocates of gun control. But if Sheriff Cooke and a majority of the
other county sheriffs in Colorado offer any indication, the new laws —
which mandate background checks for private gun transfers and outlaw
magazines over 15 rounds — may prove nearly irrelevant across much of
the state’s rural regions.
Some sheriffs, like Sheriff Cooke, are refusing to enforce the laws,
saying that they are too vague and violate Second Amendment rights. Many
more say that enforcement will be “a very low priority,” as several
sheriffs put it. All but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado
signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality
of the statutes.
The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado is playing out in other states,
raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown will
have a muted effect in parts of the American heartland, where gun
ownership is common and grass-roots opposition to tighter restrictions
is high.
In New York State, where Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed one of the toughest
gun law packages in the nation last January, two sheriffs have said
publicly they would not enforce the laws — inaction that Mr. Cuomo said
would set “a dangerous and frightening precedent.” The sheriffs’ refusal
is unlikely to have much effect in the state: According to the state’s
Division of Criminal Justice Services, since 2010 sheriffs have filed
less than 2 percent of the two most common felony gun charges. The vast
majority of charges are filed by the state or local police.
In Liberty County, Fla., a jury in October acquitted a sheriff who had been suspended and charged with misconduct after he released a man arrested by a deputy on charges of carrying a concealed firearm. The sheriff, who was immediately reinstated by the governor, said he was protecting the man’s Second Amendment rights.
And in California, a delegation of sheriffs met with Gov. Jerry Brown
this fall to try to persuade him to veto gun bills passed by the
Legislature, including measures banning semiautomatic rifles with
detachable magazines and lead ammunition for hunting (Mr. Brown signed
the ammunition bill but vetoed the bill outlawing the rifles).
“Our way of life means nothing to these politicians, and our interests
are not being promoted in the legislative halls of Sacramento or
Washington, D.C.,” said Jon E. Lopey, the sheriff of Siskiyou County,
Calif., one of those who met with Governor Brown. He said enforcing gun
laws was not a priority for him, and he added that residents of his
rural region near the Oregon border are equally frustrated by
regulations imposed by the federal Forest Service and the Environmental
Protection Agency.
This year, the new gun laws in Colorado have become political flash points. Two state senators who supported the legislation were recalled in elections
in September; a third resigned last month rather than face a recall.
Efforts to repeal the statutes are already in the works.
Countering the elected sheriffs are some police chiefs, especially in
urban areas, and state officials who say that the laws are not only
enforceable but that they are already having an effect. Most gun stores
have stopped selling the high-capacity magazines for personal use,
although one sheriff acknowledged that some stores continued to sell
them illegally. Some people who are selling or otherwise transferring
guns privately are seeking background checks.
Eric Brown, a spokesman for Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado, said,
“Particularly on background checks, the numbers show the law is
working.” The Colorado Bureau of Investigation has run 3,445 checks on
private sales since the law went into effect, he said, and has denied
gun sales to 70 people.
A Federal District Court judge last month ruled against a claim in the
sheriffs’ lawsuit that one part of the magazine law was
unconstitutionally vague. The judge also ruled that while the sheriffs
could sue as individuals, they had no standing to sue in their official
capacity.
Multimedia
Readers’ Comments
Share your thoughts.
Still, the state’s top law enforcement officials acknowledged that sheriffs had wide discretion in enforcing state laws.
“We’re not in the position of telling sheriffs and chiefs what to do or
not to do,” said Lance Clem, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of
Public Safety. “We have people calling us all the time, thinking they’ve
got an issue with their sheriff, and we tell them we don’t have the
authority to intervene.”
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.
At their extreme, the views of sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws
echo the stand of Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff and the author
of “The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope.” Mr. Mack has argued that
county sheriffs are the ultimate arbiters of what is constitutional and
what is not. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association,
founded by Mr. Mack, is an organization of sheriffs and other officers
who support his views.
“The Supreme Court does not run my office,” Mr. Mack said in an
interview. “Just because they allow something doesn’t mean that a good
constitutional sheriff is going to do it.” He said that 250 sheriffs
from around the country attended the association’s recent convention.
Matthew J. Parlow, a law professor at Marquette University, said that
some states, including New York, had laws that allowed the governor in
some circumstances to investigate and remove public officials who
engaged in egregious misconduct — laws that in theory might allow the
removal of sheriffs who failed to enforce state statutes.
But, he said, many governors could be reluctant to use such powers. And
in most cases, any penalty for a sheriff who chose not to enforce state
law would have to come from voters.
Sheriff Cooke, for his part, said that he was entitled to use discretion
in enforcement, especially when he believed the laws were wrong or
unenforceable.
“In my oath it says I’ll uphold the U.S. Constitution and the
Constitution of the State of Colorado,” he said, as he posed for
campaign photos in his office — he is running for the State Senate in
2014. “It doesn’t say I have to uphold every law passed by the
Legislature.
No comments:
Post a Comment