Op-Ed On Pro-Gun Sheriffs Betrayed Progressive Hypocrisy

When New Mexican sheriffs stepped up and warned that they had no intention of enforcing unconstitutional anti-gun laws, we knew what would happen. Anti-gunners would poop kittens and freak out, screaming all about things like the “rule of law” and decrying these law enforcement officers holding tight to their oaths of office in which they promised to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”


A recent op-ed is such an example.

I’m glad we elected Kim Stewart sheriff.

Her opponent was hooked up with a right-wing cult called the “Constitutional Sheriffs Association,” which holds that sheriffs outrank federal law-enforcement. Joe Arpaio and Clive Bundy are big supporters. It grew from the old Posse Comitatus. (Jews exploit Christian farmers through taxes and unfair loans.)

These folks favor stronger penalties for illegal border-crossings and refuse to enforce laws they don’t like.

They mouth the same tired rhetoric against gun laws. N.M. Senate Bill 8 would require universal background checks. “Constitutional” sheriffs say such laws are unconstitutional – something even the conservative U.S. Supreme Court has not said yet. Essentially, these guys would refuse to enforce New Mexico laws they don’t like. Non-lawyers, they’d use the U.S. Constitution as an excuse.

Do you know what the author doesn’t mention in this screed? Ever?

Despite commenting that these sheriffs favor tougher penalties for immigration, he never once calls out law enforcement officers or other governmental entities who have expressly and explicitly stated they wouldn’t enforce immigration laws.


I ask, what’s the difference?

I mean, other than the difference I noted earlier that the Second Amendment is explicitly spelled out in the United States Constitution while immigration is a bit more of a gray area constitutionally, that is.

But that doesn’t matter to people like this, though. It’s OK for them and their’s to ignore laws until they’re blue in the face regardless of the constitutionality of those laws. The moment we decide we’ve had enough, though, suddenly we’re out of line.

No, as I said earlier today, we’re just done playing with a handicap.

I don’t expect people like this to like it, but then again, I don’t care what they like and don’t like. I don’t really care about them in any meaningful way. After all, they’re all for creating roadblocks to gun ownership that will jeopardize countless lives, the lives of people I may well care about very deeply, so why should I care about people who would risk the lives of innocent and law-abiding citizens while also displaying a profound sense of hypocrisy?

So, I won’t.

I don’t wish for harm to befall them or anything ill to happen to them, but I don’t give a flying damn about what they think, feel, understand, or comprehend. They’re non-factors in my decisionmaking processes and I’d just as soon see them as non-factors in our political processes as well.


After all, we’re such non-entities to them that they can ignore whatever laws they choose to while expecting all of us to toe the line where they decide to draw it, why should we return care what they think about much of anything?

Join the conversation as a VIP Member