Reblogged: Kenneth Buck Admirably Protects Rights Despite Colorado Law

[Blog Auto Feed Retired]

It’s bad enough that thousands of Colorado families were displaced by recent flooding; now they have to fear prosecution under rights-violating gun laws, too. Thankfully, Kenneth Buck, the district attorney for Weld County (northeast of Denver), has publicly declared that he will not prosecute rights-respecting flood victims under capricious gun laws.

A September 30 press release from Buck’s office states:

The Weld County District Attorney’s Office will not prosecute any cases associated with firearms transferred by evacuees of the recent floods.

A number of residents who were forced to leave their homes are now facing the long rebuilding process of damaged or destroyed homes. These residents have been forced to give their firearms to others for safekeeping during this challenging and stressful time.

While this seems an innocuous task, it is a violation of House Bill 1229, passed and signed into law during the 2012–13 legislative session. The legislation makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor if a resident fails to perform a background check before transferring a firearm to another individual.

Buck said it would be “unconscionable to prosecute [people] under these circumstances,” and, he added, “This is an example of the consequences of laws that are overbroad and not well thought out and illustrates how such laws can harm residents’ rights.”

Shame on the Colorado legislators who voted for the bill in question. And kudos for Buck for protecting the rights of people living in his jurisdiction.

Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.

Related:

• The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty
• Gun Restrictions Punish the Rational and Responsible for Acts of the Irrational and Irresponsible

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Link to Original

[Reidy]

This is interesting when you compare it to the conservatives' recent outrage over the Obama administration's decision not to enforce parts of Obamacare.  They insist that officials are sworn to uphold the law, not just those parts of it that they like, and anything short of this is a violation of their oath of office.  Does a different standard hold in this case?