Bob Kennedy: Routt County sheriff must uphold the U.S. Constitution
On March 20, Lulu Gold submitted a letter to the editor, “Sheriff must uphold Red Flag law,” which I would like to address.
She claims that “the overwhelming majority of law enforcement and civilian population support this bipartisan bill.” Really? Where is her evidence? What proof?
By contrast, Colorado Public Radio reported that Colorado law enforcement and public support is evenly divided. Currently, 22 of Colorado’s 64 counties deem themselves, “Second Amendment Sanctuaries” with a dozen more on the horizon.
From where does the claim “overwhelming majority” come? Thin air?
Does she understand the word bipartisan? Twenty-five of Colorado’s 27 House Republicans voted “no” on the bill while all 35 House Democrats voted “yes.” The Senate is expected to vote along even more strict party lines. Please inform Ms. Gold that this is what’s known as the exact opposite of a bipartisan bill.
Finally, Ms. Gold states that Sheriff Wiggins has a duty to enforce Colorado’s law stating, “No discrepancy there.”
Let’s educate her, shall we? Article VI, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, established that the United States Constitution supersedes all other laws.
To this final point, this bill violates the U.S. Constitution.
The Second Amendment states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Infringe means to limit, undermine or encroach upon. Yet this is exactly what the “Red Flag” bill does.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizure of property. When a person has committed no crime nor is in the process of committing a crime yet their personal property is seized without due process, this is the classic definition of unreasonable seizure.
Absurdly, proponents claim the bill includes due process. How so when a firearm has already been seized? Because “due process” lies in the Machiavellian wording of the bill stating that the person whose firearm has been seized must establish “by clear and convincing evidence” they are not an extreme risk — a legal standard more strict than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, guilt is presumed and the accused must prove otherwise. Yet what reasonable jurist would rank presumed guilt alongside due process?
Ms. Gold should reconsider making farcical statements while getting to know the Constitution.
When Sheriff Wiggins refuses to uphold the “Red Flag” law, he is re-enforcing the supreme law of the land — the United States Constitution. Kudos to him.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.