Cuomo tells gun-loving sheriffs to STFU or GTFO

[mwrguy]

Get 'em, Andrew!

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.

Many county sheriffs oppose it, particularly its expanded definition of banned assault weapons, and have spoken out around the state.

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.

...

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.

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Sheriffs-Cuomo-asked-for-silence-4532930.php#ixzz2TxMHCLLj

[The Magistrate]

1. If He Has The Authority To Remove Them, Sir, He Certainly Should

A scofflaw has no business being chief law enforcement officer for a county....

[Sekhmets Daughter]

3. And the congregation said: AMEN!

[hack89]

16. What if the people that elected these sheriffs agree with them?

Who are elected officials beholden to - the governor or the people that elected them?

There is a huge urban / rural divide in NY on these gun laws. Telling people to STFU merely how out of touch Cuomo is.

[Hoyt]

29. Sheriffs enforce the law, and should quit sucking up to NRA types for contributions and perks.

[premium]

31. What perks would that be Hoyt? nt.

In my county, the elected Sheriff is very popular with dems and repubs, he was elected overwhelmingly.
Not by NRA types, but citizens of the county.

[Hoyt]

33. That would be dinners, trips, prostitutes, maybe guns, etc.

Are you one of those that think the NRA operatives are law-abiding, moral people.

[premium]

40. Then you know jack shit about Sheriffs.

What does NRA operatives have to do with Sheriffs?
Trying to deflect again?

[Hoyt]

41. They are politicians, always looking for a "contribution" or favors.

[premium]

42. And you know this how?

Had a lot of dealings with Sheriffs? If so, why? Could it be because of past run ins with LE? Are they the ones that have pulled guns on you several times?

[Hoyt]

43. You ever been involved in county politics? Appears not.

[premium]

44. You ever give a straight answer? Appears not.

[Hoyt]

46. I gave a straight answer. You don't seem to have experience to get it.

[premium]

47. A straight answer?

[The Magistrate]

32. Again, Sir: Scratch A Gun Fetishist, Find A Criminal

The whole 'law-abiding gun owner' line is in the same class as 'jumbo shrimp': the demands of their fantasy life as heroic slayers of 'thugs' and resistors to 'tyranny' require them to adopt an attitude of 'bending the rules' and 'defying authorities' in the pinch when the gun is in hand. So their actual attitude to the law is not 'I will obey the law' but rather 'I will decide which laws I will obey', and yet still their own conviction they are righteous and law-abiding people allows them to feel they are not criminally inclined when they harbor the intent to break laws at will, and even that they are not criminals when they actually break laws.

The attitude of a locale's populace towards a law does not mean a fig to the duty of a law enforcement official regarding his sworn duty to uphold and enforce the law. Nor, for that matter, does his own attitude towards a particular law. If these people are announcing they will not enforce a state law, a law it is their sworn duty to uphold, they are not fit to hold their office, and if some mechanism for removing them exists, it should be exercised to remove them, as they clearly are not willing to abide by the laws of the state.

[Chan790]

45. Then when state elections come around again...

they can re-elect those sheriffs and likewise not re-elect Governor Cuomo.

But...until then...the governor has the authority to fire sheriffs.

[hack89]

48. Sheriffs have to enforce the law - that I agree.

but they also have every right to disagree with the governor and to work to have the law changed. The gun law has widespread opposition in NY outside of NYC - Cuomo is merely using his power to quell political dissent.

[premium]

18. How are they scofflaws?

I read the article, nowhere did it say that they were refusing to enforce the new laws.
All they've done is voice their opinion and filed a brief with the court, which is certainly their right.

On edit, I was finally able to read the link the OP provided and it does seem that a couple of the Sheriffs are not going to enforce it, which they are duty bound to do.

[baldguy]

25. In NY, county Sheriffs are elected officials. The Governor can't remove them.

However, the State Atty can prosecute them if they don't enforce the state law. And there are also laws against police officials & law enforcement officers engaging in political activity.

[The Magistrate]

34. If The Article Is Correct, Sir, There Is A Constitutional Provision Allowing For Removal

I do not know if that is accurate, but if it is, and if these people make it obvious they will not enforce the law, they should be removed from office.

[mwrguy]

38. Apparently he can

If the article is correct.

[Daemonaquila]

2. Sorry, Cuomo is dead wrong.

I don't care what side of whatever issue you're on - a governor or other high-ranking member of government has no business telling other elected officials what they should or should not speak about. If you were cheering when the cops and other officials were standing up to Scott Walker's union busting, you can't turn around and cheer Cuomo for trying to shut up opposition voices. However an issue winds up, if we lose the ability for public debate, including among government personnel at all levels, we have a much, much bigger problem.

[loli phabay]

4. yup, the arbitrator should be the ballot box, its why there are different levels of government

[longship]

6. Yup, you're correct. However,

The voters also put in place the legislators who made the law. Now it is up to the sheriffs to enforce those laws.

It's a delicate situation, but the governor was probably on the right side of this issue, presuming that he instructed them to apply the law. There seems to be mixed reporting here, so who knows what really was said.

[loli phabay]

7. yup there is not enough info, not sure what the sheriffs should do in all honesty

If they believe a law is unjust or unenforceable or unconstitutional. They do have a lot of power in how their deputies apply themselves to certain laws for good and bad and individual depities have a lot of discretion within the sheriffs parameters. I dont see how the governer alone could force a deputy to enforce any law it would have to be all the elected officials, courts and district attorneys working together.

[longship]

15. I think that you've hit the crux of the matter, and the solution.

It ain't perfect, but I can understand why the governor would have such a meeting.

Good for him.

[premium]

19. Nowhere in the article does it say that they're not enforcing the new laws,

they're voicing their opposition to certain parts of the law, and they filed a brief with the court, which is certainly their right.

On edit, I was finally able to read the link the OP provided and it does seem that a couple of the Sheriffs are not going to enforce it, which they are duty bound to do.

[longship]

23. I have no problem with that.

It's part of the process with any law.

But in the meantime, it is the governor's job to see that the laws of the state are enforced. So he has a meeting with the sheriffs to see how this can be done.

I don't see how anybody can complain about that.

Until a court acts, the law stands.

[premium]

27. I wonder if NY is the only state that a Gov.

can remove an elected Sheriff for other than criminal activity? I know that in my state, the only ones who can remove an elected Sheriff for anything other than a crime, are the voters.

[longship]

30. I dunno. The article leaves it open...

On whether that threat was actually made. I dismiss that claim as likely speculation, or from a source that doesn't rise to normal journalistic standards.

I just have to shrug on that.


Maybe a NYer can chime in on NY State constitution.

[longship]

5. On the other hand...

A law enforcement officer, especially one the head of a department, neglecting to enforce an existing law is a problem, whether they were elected or not. That is the issue here, I think.

This is a delicate issue, I know. So I can understand how such a meeting could get a bit edgy.

Hoping for the best all around. They should enforce the law.

[loli phabay]

8. thing is theres a lot of discretion allowed for leos in applying laws

As every situation is different, an example is failing to maintain lane whilst driving, its a ticketable offence but its left to the officers discretion on whether a ticket is issued or not, same as speeding etc or you would be writing tickets all day for one mile over.

[longship]

10. I imagine the meeting was all about enforcement.

I am glad that Cuomo had such a meeting. At least he would be able to remind the sheriffs that he is the elected chief state executive and a sheriff going rogue on this issue would not be advisable given the public opinion on the matter. Or some such thing. A gentle reminder!

[Lizzie Poppet]

17. Cuomo is correct to insist on enforcement. Telling them not to voice an opinion? Not so much.

Cuomo is well within his prerogative to insist that law enforcement officials you know...enforce the law (even when it's a pungently idiotic one...). He's way, way out of line suggesting they should refrain from voicing their opinion about said laws, however.

[NutmegYankee]

22. But many on DU are two-sided on this principle.

After all, Holder is the head of the DOJ, and Marijuana is in fact still illegal under federal law, hence he enforces it. But he heavily criticized on DU for it.

[longship]

26. Yup, it's a sticky wicket, all righty.

I normally don't enter into the fray on these issues because, as many here, I also am conflicted on what I would do if I were in that position.

Those who are so sure on these issues seem to see things in absolute black and white when they're obviously not.

Your Cannibis example is a good one.
Thanks for the insightful response.

[Daninmo]

36. There is also the issue of illegal aliens

What if law enforcement decides not to enforce the law there? Laws are laws, Do LEO's get to choose which laws they will enforce? Or only certain laws get enforced

[longship]

37. Well said.

Although your illegal alien example may not be the best example. Maybe that would be more federal jurisdiction, I would think. Of course, local LE would likely cooperate on federal law enforcement or there'd be hell to pay.

This is state law, AFAIK.

[Mojorabbit]

13. Yes there is. Slippery slope. nt

[Travelman]

20. No kidding!

This is very dangerous stuff indeed. I don't live in New York, but I'm reasonably certain that those who do live there didn't elect Cuomo to be the opinion-silencer-in-chief of that state.

Why anyone would cheer this on is beyond me. About the last thing in the world that I want is for someone like Nikki Haley to be emboldened with the idea that if you complain about her not setting up healthcare exchanges, that's a good reason to get fired from your state job. Talk about having a chilling effect on public discourse! Wow.




Man oh man, what a bad, BAD idea this is. Cheering this on is stupid on its face and dangerous on the whole. Cuomo should be scolded by open-minded people for this, not celebrated for it or encouraged to do it.

[premium]

9. Way to go Cuomo,

start shitstorm with the elected Sheriffs, and I emphasize elected, because if he did use his power to remove an elected Sheriff, then the voters of said Sheriffs would have something to say.

[longship]

11. The same voters who...

Put in place the legislature that crafted and passed the law and the governor who signs the law and whose job is to see to it that the law is enforced.

Do you mean those voters?

[premium]

14. You mean the law that was passed so quickly

that they forgot to exempt LE?

[longship]

21. Huh?

Passed quickly?

I don't know what you're about here. You talked about voters electing sheriffs. I added that they also elect the legislature who makes the laws and the governor who signs and makes sure law is enforced.

So tell me why this meeting isn't within the purview of a governor's job.

Also, please do not react to what is likely supposition in the reportage. What actually happened in the meeting has not been reported from a primary source, from what I've read.

So please relax. Not a big deal, if you ask me.

[premium]

24. My apologies,

I thought you were talking about the new gun control laws that the legislature passed so quickly.

They passed these laws so quickly that they forgot to exempt LE from them.

[longship]

28. No problemo!

We're just having a friendly discussion on a somewhat knotty topic.

[Bandit]

12. Sort of what those in Michigan have the say about the single un-elected individual

that discarded all elected officers in the towns and counties where they have control.

[Kingofalldems]

39. K and R for all the gun fanciers