For Cops: At what point do you stand by constutional law over lesser, but contradictory law?

Question

Specifically speaking, there is a new bill being proposed called the Veteran Disarmament Bill, HR 2640. It makes for a lifetime gun ban on any veteran who has been deemed to have suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, regardless of whether or not the person overcomes or only has slight impairment from the condition.

So, say you see a veteran, honorably discharged, who refuses to give up his deer rifle, and who takes it hunting. Are you going to uphold HR 2640 (if it gets enacted into law), arrest this fellow on felony charges, and haul him off to jail?

Or are you going to stand by the Constitution (2nd Amendment, 10th Amendment, and other applicable federal law) and allow the guy to exercise his freedoms?

You are "sworn to protect and to serve". But whose legal words do you enforce? Those of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson?

Or those of Carolyn McCarthy (Dem - NY) and Charles Schumer (Dem - NY)?

Here is another thing to consider. At some point, laws can become so intrusive and restrictive that you have civil disobedience.

I would not advocate folks facing down law enforcement in direct confrontations, but I could see draconian laws leading to a new kind of prohibition, not unlike that seen with alcohol during the 1920's.

Just so you know, this is NOT my personal situation. I can freely do anything and have zero criminal record.

However, more and more I see this growing "minefield" of laws that will smack you permanently if you ever trip up. And I do not like this.

Answer 1

I think your point is, all the bad actors will have the weapons, while honest law abiding citizens will hae restrictions to carry and defend theirselves?

Answer 2

First, the law you mention would be a federal law and as an Alaska State Trooper I would not have jurisdiction to enforce. Secondly, unless I arrested or otherwise made contact with someone I would have no way of knowing their veteran status (assuming the law doesn't call for a "no guns" tattoo on his/her forehead).

But where I to arrest someone it is my duty and responsibility to properly identify the person and make sure there are no warrants and to report criminal actions outside of my jurisdiction. I don't really get to choose which laws to enforce or ignore.

There are several classifications of people who are denied certain rights and privlidges such as driving, voting and posessing weapons. It's not my job to to determine those classifications.

Answer 3

You can bow hunt and trap, but until the law is changed, I will enforce the law my Friend. I am sorry for your situation, but I know you as a man of honor this is what must be. Do not hate the law enforcement officer, try to change the law, that is what America is all about. God speed and God Bless.

Answer 4

The Constitution was intentionally made with exceptions built in and also has a way of adding exceptions or further defining it's terms. These are done by way of Supreme Court case law decisions and federal laws.

We would have to go with the law that defines the constitution further.

Answer 5

if that thing makes it out of committee and .... we'll be told if, when, and how to enforce it.

Your allegation of 'unConstitutional' means zot as far as a working cop is concerned. If he's been told by his superiors to treat it as law, he treats it as law.

Figuring out when to not do so is what courts do. After they throw a law out, the working guys will get the word from the Chief's office.


How they figure it all out is beyond me.