Colorado’s Weld County Sheriff John Cooke Will Not Enforce Tough Gun Laws

Colorado’s Weld County Sheriff John Cooke appeared on Foxnews, “The Mike Huckabee Show,” this evening stating that he would not enforce Colorado’s tough new gun laws. He stated that the new laws were, a knee-jerk reaction and the legislators knew the laws wouldn’t work but wanted to show the people they were doing something. Other sources report, Cooke says the bills are “feel-good, knee-jerk” reactions to recent tragedies like the Aurora shooting. So he “won’t bother enforcing” them, he added, noting he and other sheriffs are considering a lawsuit. “A nation can only be disgraced by the failure of its citizenry to take action in the face of tyranny.” Donald Raleigh Ayotte, August 2010

11 thoughts on “Colorado’s Weld County Sheriff John Cooke Will Not Enforce Tough Gun Laws”

  1. Again, a very good reason why Delaware was smart to limit their sheriffs to pushing paper….

    We are soooooo much smarter than Coloradoans… Who is knuckleheaded enough to ever want a Barney Fife sheriff in control instead of the State Police?

  2. Well Kavips
    That’s why the Sheriff is suing to restore the original intent of the people who wrote the Delaware Constitution. The Sheriffs have traditionally been the conservators of the peace for over two-hundred years and in the 1900’s the state police and legislators violated the Constitution in an obvious power grab to eliminate the citizens obvious buffer between them and federal or state government tyranny.

    This will go to the SCOTUS

  3. Don,

    The SCOTUS will likely never hear a case to settle a dispute over an interpretation of a state constitution.

  4. TC
    “The SCOTUS will likely never hear a case to settle a dispute over an interpretation of a state constitution.”

    I don’t understand what you guys don’t get about the Sheriff being a “Conservator of the Peace” with law enforcement powers. Am doing research on the relevant case that came before the US Supreme Court.

  5. Mack and Printz v. United States 1997 established the unconstitutionality of the federal government ordering CLEO’s (County Sheriiffs’) to enforce federal laws. The anti-commandeering doctrine announced in Mack and Printz “can work as a safeguard for the rights of the people”;”the federal government might go too far in prosecuting the war on terrorism,” Mack and Printz provides a circuit-breaker that might allow local and state officials to refuse to enforce regulations curbing individual rights.

  6. NDZ’s comment is relevant to Sheriffs in all states in America and therefore is relevant to Delaware’s Sheriffs. If you cannot see that TC, you are worse than blind.

  7. Don,

    The case offered above relates to the application of Federal law. If you think the SCOTUS is going to tell Delaware what its’ constitution means you’re simply mistaken.

    If there were a mention of sheriffs in the U.S. Constitution perhaps you would have an argument on supremacy grounds. However, since that document is silent on the subject, I don’t see how you have a leg to stand on.

  8. TC

    If you’ll look at the earlier comment by NDZ, you’ll see that Sheriffs can work as safeguards for the people and that should include law-enforcement powers and the power of arrest.
    Hell, even a citizen has the right to arrest a person that has committed a crime in his presence, by enacting a “citizen’s arrest. It would stand to reason that a Sheriff empowered by his State Constitution should have arrest powers.

Comments are closed.