>>But it's not up to law enforcement to pick which
>>laws they enforce. If they have a problem with a
>>particular law then they can ask for the legislative
>>branch to change the law.
>
>That process is likely well under way.

Fine - when that process is DONE then ok - until then - no.

>>Plus it's not up to law enforcement to decide which
>>laws are illegal (if any). (all this is common sense and
>>common knowledge too).
>
>It's not one man. It's a discussed issue and a consensus has been made among people in the position of acting.
>
>Men of conscience must move as they believe to be right. This includes refusing to obey an unconstitutional law.

It's not up to law enforcement to decide what is wrong or right - it's their job and sworn duty to uphold the law - not the laws that they THINK are unconstitutional. Plus these guys are not lawyers or judges - they're cops and not qualified to determine what's constitutional and what's not.

>>What if a cop suddenly decides it shouldn't
>> be against the law to murder drug dealers?
>
>That would be awful. That isn't what happened here. Not even close. Here we see many men of conscience exercising their personal motivation to try to keep America America, rather than letting it be nibbled away by unconstitutional laws.
>
>>I think it's naive to think that any sheriff who's ok with having more guns
>>in his district isn't politically motivated.
>
>If that were his motivation. It isn't. Many people have arrived at the same conclusion. Patriots they should be called.

I disagree. Fact is that if a sheriff's district has more guns then people are less safe and more shootings will happen. Plus what kind of sheriff would do such a dumbass thing? If nothing else he's endangering his own men! If I was a cop and my boss had just said he was going to break the law so that more guns (or at least not fewer guns) ended up where I work I'd be pissed off to no end!