Thats because the gun banners are not interested in public safety. They just want to disarm the population for political purposes.
The law used to say that you were required to turn over any runaway slaves that you came across. If you are a law abiding citizen, then you would turn over runaway slaves. Right? Or can the law be wrong sometimes?
So you see all those "anti's" who want to take guns away as working for the State in an effort to help said State gain a monopoly on force? By some estimates there are more than 100,000,000 who support gun control in the US. That is a lot of people all working to give the State a monopoly on force. Why do you think they want to help the State gain that monopoly on force? Just sayin'
Who was the one that advocated using nuclear weapons against firearm owners who refused to surrender their legally owned property?
Which claim. The one about the one hundred million who support gun control? A simple Google search of surveys on gun control will give you that information.
The police officer is a very sick individual and his rationale is flawed. He doesn't belong in law enforcement if he fails to enforce what the law states; he is free to disagree with the law, but regardless he must comply with enforcement. Hopefully his Chief finds out and terminates his employment.
Law enforcement officers routinely exercise legal discretion in determining which legal restrictions that they will and will not enforce.
My guess is you don't know too much about law enforcement, over the past few decades I have ridden shotgun thousands of hours with law enforcement officers, starting with the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department and later with a Sheriff's office and I can assure LEO's are given a wide latitude as to how they may enforce the various laws of the state. One major part of road patrol is traffic enforcement and I have been involved in literally dozens and dozens of stops, where a permitted search of the stopped vehicle has turned up marijuana in the vehicle, now in Florida possession of 20 grams or less is a misdemeanor which can result in a one thousand dollar fine and a year in jail, however a lot of folks buy their weed in ounces, which is a felony which can get one five years in prison and up to a five thousand dollar fine. In all of those stops we only made two arrests and both of those where possessors of multipule pounds of marijuana, the rest got a ticket for whatever reason they where stopped and their weed was dumped on the ground roadside after which they where given a verbal warning not to be so dumb in the future, leave the weed at home, don't be driving down the road burning one, or even dumber, don't be sitting at a light passing one around while failing to notice that marked patrol car on the left or dumber yet while sitting at a light at Powerline and Atlantic up in Pompano and fail to notice the marked car on the right and I in the unmarked car on the left. The oldest person in that car, the driver, was seventeen, we could have ruined him and his buddies day and maybe more, but in the end, they got a good scare and three ounces where dumped into the roadside dirt and kicked around, we believed that monetary loss was enough of a fine. Why does this lack of enforcement happen on a routine basis? Because a felony record screws a person's life up real good, makes it tough to get a good job and going to jail is no fun either, so discretion is applied, if the driver is not so effed up he cannot operate safely, why tear up his life by arresting him and impounding his vehicle. And guess what, I don't know of any LEO who has ever been disciplined for doing such, sometimes just having a guy and his buddies sitting on the side of the road in cuffs for an hour or so while their car is being tossed is enough of a penalty to pay. Law enforcement requires a lot of common sense and a light touch when needed, yea we could have been ballbusters and hauled them off to Juvi and impounded the vehicle, but why, what would that prove, they knew they broke the law, we knew they broke the law, just dump their bags and be done, that's a six hundred dollar loss and maybe they will think twice and smoke at home going forward. Now go into a store and stick a handgun in the counterman's face and rob the place, then get pulled over, guess what, it's roughed cuffed and off to jail time, discretion is the name of the game.
Your guess is off quite a bit. I've been a sworn peace officer for over 20 years in my state. The difference between what you've witnessed is common sense and a light touch when needed as you stated. However in this case the officer in question point blank will not enforce the law under any circumstances since he doesn't agree with it. That's a big difference between using common sense and a light touch in my book. That's like saying you won't arrest anyone for assault because you don't agree with the laws regarding assault. The fact of the matter is that this officer in question IMO is being derelict in his duties if he steadfastly will not enforce the law solely due to his disagreement with the law as written.
Some will, some won't; I think it depends on a number of factors that'll determine the eventual outcome.
When Eric Holder was the attorney general for the united states, he refused to defend the prohibition on homosexuals serving in the military despite such being his legal obligation. He also allowed individuals states to opt out of federal guidelines relating to the outright prohibition of marijuana. The precedent for law enforcement refusing to do its job does indeed exist, even if it is wrong.
Twenty years is retirement in Florida, I did three and walked away knowing I loved the job, but could make much more money in communications. That stated, discretion is again a major factor, if a law is not worth enforcing and worse yet unconstitutional, why enforce it when there are so many other laws that can to be enforced, especially when the superior laws are the ones that truly effect the community as a whole? One does what one can do and let pass those that matter not.
When the law is blatantly unconstitutional any officer who takes his oath to the Constitution seriously would unhesitatingly refuse to enforce that law.
It's not the officers job to act as a judge when it comes to whether or not you agree with the law; if he/she doesn't agree with the law there is a mechanism in place to address his/her concerns about anything they feel may be unconstitutional. Cannot have it both ways.
