Skip to content

New Obstacle in Gun Control Discussion: Lack of Interest in Enforcement

In the wake of the Aurora movie theater shooting last summer, Colorado was able to pass certain gun restrictions, including mandatory background checks for private sales or transfers of magazines with more than fifteen rounds of ammunition. Gun control activists across the country thought, hey, if they can do it in Colorado—Colorado loves guns!—then the glorious future of no guns anywhere is nigh.

But the rollout has not been smooth, and the law not fully accepted, in a state that remains polarized on this permanently polarizing issue. Two state legislators, for example, who voted for the package have since been recalled, with another resigning rather than fight her own recall battle. While outsiders looking in saw a success that augured a new era of gun control around the country, Coloradans themselves were orchestrating a backlash against perceived heat-of-the-moment legislation.

As the law remains on the books, the resistance is also taking place within the ranks of law enforcement itself. As the New York Times reports, many (mostly rural) county sheriffs aren’t bothering to enforce the magazine restrictions, for reasons of both practicality and perceived constitutionality.

When they cite practicality, like the fact that magazines purchased before the July 1 ban are still legal to possess, they make a reasonable case:

When Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County explains in speeches why he is not enforcing the state’s new gun laws, he holds up two 30-round magazines. One, he says, he had before July 1, when the law banning the possession, sale or transfer of the large-capacity magazines went into effect. The other, he “maybe” obtained afterward.

He shuffles the magazines, which look identical, and then challenges the audience to tell the difference.

“How is a deputy or an officer supposed to know which is which?” he asks.

Perhaps the deputy or officer could trace the sales of each one. Law enforcement officials could thereby track down gun vendors who were breaking the law. But maybe even that would be a tedious use of limited resources, and prioritizers gotta prioritize.

The other justification is a bit more of an eye-roller: the Second Amendment. “Some sheriffs, like Sheriff Cooke, are refusing to enforce the laws,” the Times writes, “saying that they are too vague and violate Second Amendment rights.”

Don’t you love that? The laws are too vague and they violate Second Amendment rights. We see this annoying sort of argument frequently: people are never just content to cite either constitutionality or practicality on its own terms as a reason against something. When New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy was challenged in courts this year, for example, some ten billion articles were written about how (a) it violates the Constitution and (b) it doesn’t work anyway! Talk about tedious. Lord, for 2014, may you please grant our opinion-spouters the courage to make arguments on the power of either “(a)” or “(b)” alone. If something violates the Constitution and you believe in the Constitution, then that’s all we need to know; if something’s bad but doesn’t violate the Constitution, then the Constitution is wrong and should be changed.