Did you close last Thursday?Quote:
Originally Posted by SA Friday
Did you close last Thursday?Quote:
Originally Posted by SA Friday
No. I'm early crew. I left about 1730 last Thursday.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeeze
Yes x 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by lowbeyond
Word from another officer on the department is that he is wrangling for Mink's job (JeffCo Sheriff) at some point too. Hopefully, this doesn't happen. Supposedly he has a law degree as well.
Feel free to politely call and write him, though!
bkilpatrick@cityofgolden.net
http://www.cityofgolden.net/governme...isions/police/
Maybe ask how he reconciles his beliefs with these firearms safety classes.
http://www.cityofgolden.net/media/2013YouthAcademy.pdf
Edit: Indeed, I don't have to tell anyone who would be hanging out at this forum why what he said was so incorrect and why if you take 10 seconds to even think about it it is easy to dissect. It really is a shame he has any influence anywhere.
I sent an email to the Arapahoe County Sheriff expressing my thanks.
Also, SA Friday, I stopped by Grand Prix and bought a bike a couple of weeks ago. I went upstairs and checked out what you guys had and your shop has the friendliest and most helpful people I've ever dealt with at a gun shop. I'll definitely be making my next purchase there. I'm eyeing the Springfield XD-S that one of the guys showed me.
I was in at closing time and just wanted to check to see if you were one of the two guys there.Quote:
Originally Posted by SA Friday
Man, I hope they can get this overturned.
SA is easy to spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
He's the pretty one.
http://www.ar-15.co/attachment.php?a...9&d=1369093241
Ah ya. Had to dig up one of my old modeling pics, didn't ya. You're such a stalker.Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
We were required to upload a "business appropriate" photo for an annual company tech conference event. Yep, that's the one I used.Quote:
Originally Posted by SA Friday
Twitter - Senate Democrats align Sheriffs with criminals.
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Sher...inals&src=hash
Who did the democrat voters put in office?[Mad]Quote:
CO Senate Democrats @COSenDem 17 May 2day CO sheriffs stood in opposition of CO's new gun laws, but not w/law-abiding citizens, but with criminals. #coleg #Sheriffs4Criminals
They know they will be paying the price. This is just kicking and screaming in the modern age.Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
I think the vagueness of the laws and showing how they are unenforceable as written is the only way they can go right now. Unfortunately, other states have had magazine bans in place for a while and never been found to be unconstitutional.
Thank you Foxtrot.
I wonder if Hick would do this. It also says that the Gov. of NY can remove a Sheriff if he wants.
Albany
The sheriffs thought they were being summoned to the Capitol to discuss ideas for changes to New York's gun control law, the SAFE Act. Instead, Gov. Andrew Cuomo told them to keep quiet.
Opposition to the new law has simmered in upstate areas since Cuomo signed the law in January. Many county sheriffs oppose it, particularly its expanded definition of banned assault weapons, and have spoken out around the state. In January, the New York State Sheriffs' Association wrote Cuomo with an analysis, and later suggested tweaks.
Cuomo invited its leaders to the Capitol last month, people briefed on the meeting said. The group included Sheriffs' Association Executive Director Peter Kehoe and Chemung County Sheriff Christopher Moss.
"We didn't get a response (to the analysis) from him, but we could tell after the budget was passed that none of those recommendations were taken into consideration," Moss said. "When we got there, we never got to the contents of the letter."
Instead, Cuomo pushed the sheriffs to stop publicly speaking out against the act, Moss said.
"The governor was of the opinion that the sheriffs around the state should not be interjecting their personal opinions in reference to the law," Moss said, adding that Cuomo said sheriffs can't do that and enforce the law.
One person briefed on the meeting said Cuomo threatened to remove sheriffs from office, a little-used power afforded the state's chief executive under the state constitution. Moss would not confirm this. He did say the meeting was heated at times, but overall he described it as "cordial."
Kehoe did not return calls, and Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi declined to comment. An administration official, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss a private meeting, "strongly" denied Cuomo had threatened to remove any sheriff.
Last week, the Sheriffs' Association as well as several elected sheriffs filed an amicus curiae brief supporting a federal challenge to the SAFE Act.
"We're not really protesting the law; we're protesting the methodology in which the law was forced upon the people without input of the people," said Livingston County Sheriff John York, a Republican who chairs the group's executive committee.
Erie County Sheriff Tim Howard has said he "won't enforce" the act.
Cuomo has said the law will "save lives."
The law broadened the definition of banned assault weapons, increased penalties for illegal gun possession, reduced public access to gun permit information and required mental health professionals to report concerns about a gun-owning patient who posed a risk of harming himself or others. It bans any magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, and bars people from loading magazines with more than seven cartridges.
The bill was unveiled on Jan. 14 and passed through a "message of necessity" that waived a three-day waiting period. The Senate, led by a Republican-dominated coalition, passed the bill by a 43-18 vote hours after the text became public. The Democrat-dominated Assembly passed it the next day, and Cuomo signed it.
In the amicus brief, the sheriffs wrote: "Law enforcement's work is made more difficult attempting to enforce unclear laws that harm, rather than promote, public safety. The laws appear willfully blind to legitimate safety interests, and instead are tailored to impact, and negatively impact, law-abiding firearm owners."
Asked last week about the court brief, Cuomo said, "They're free to litigate — God bless America."
He did not directly say if he thought sheriffs should speak out against laws they enforce, but said, "They're politicians. They run for office, too."
On Monday, Cuomo said Rensselaer County Clerk Frank Merola was "not upholding the law" when he said last week he would refuse to release permit-holder information. The law allows permit holders to make their information exempt from state Freedom of Information Law disclosure if they apply and meet set criteria.
Merola, a Republican, said that sifting through the applications would take resources his office cannot spare. Instead, he will not release any pistol permit data.
"That's not for a county clerk to do on a blanket basis," Cuomo said. "You can't decide what the law is or change the law — their job is to enforce the law administratively."
Why in the hell should gun ownership be made public? Words just fail me at this time!
Because NYS is another planet, filled with fearful and childish people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hound
I don't understand why Kopel didn't bring it up.. I would at least like it there so it could be raised on appeal if all other things fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
Didn't the SCOTUS decision in the 1934 Miller case set precedence that the 2nd protected arms in current employ by military/militia? I think that it goes without saying, and one can fairly assume, that applies to ammunition feeding devices as well. Then again, most gun related regulations passed since have violated this precedence in one way or another (IE: M4A1, technically, according to the 1934 SCOTUS decision, is legal and protected by the 2nd).Quote:
Originally Posted by asmo
Don't read too to much into Miller. It was somewhat effectively neutered by Heller. "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons"Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Basically saying that the NFA didn't violate the 2nd amendment since the arms regulated under the NFA aren't protected by the 2A...
My note above still stands though -- when making a complaint throw everything in there.
CO Sheriffs Lawsuit Video
Long but educational, please check it out:
http://youtu.be/49F1uWp7kMo
Anyone else here at the Freedom Financial Expo center for the "Colorado Assault on the 2nd Amendment" rally?
Is there site that follows the progress of the suit? All I've heard is that it was filed and more sheriffs have signed on since. When might we see some action?
My wife and I were there. Good crowd.Quote:
Originally Posted by funkfool
I expect here http://www.i2i.org/Quote:
Originally Posted by Portsider86
I was there, of course I don't know who's who around the forum. Maybe I'm on team with some of the forum members...Quote:
Originally Posted by funkfool
It's called sarcasm sir. Learn it, love it, live it (on this forum).Quote:
Originally Posted by brand4
You lost me at the end there. Could you please be more specific? Sometimes I'm slow so go ahead and spell it right out.Quote:
Originally Posted by brand4
H o w. S l. O wQuote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I can count to potato!
I think the word is MOTHERTRUCKER!
Maybe ICEHOLE....could be MotherLover........or Sum nuv a Batch.......
Then I stand corrected and apologize.
Thumbs up.
Any word of trying to get an injunction to stop the enforcement before the law takes effect?
Wouldn't that be nice..Quote:
Originally Posted by WETWRKS
Quote:
Originally Posted by WETWRKS
I was just thinking about this. Anybody know anything?
Judge signed it June 10th, but it really does not stop the effective date. Just defines (using the AGs position paper) the legal aspects until such time as the case is tried in court.
http://www.i2i.org/files/file/Sherif...ion-Motion.pdf