Sheriffs' Discretion: Can They Refuse To Enforce The Law?

In the United States, sheriffs are the chief law enforcement officers in their respective counties. While they are responsible for enforcing the law, there have been instances where sheriffs have refused to enforce certain laws, particularly those related to gun control and COVID-19 restrictions. This has raised questions about the effectiveness of tougher gun control laws in certain parts of the country. Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws are in the minority, and their actions are often based on their interpretation of the Constitution and their belief in protecting citizens' Second Amendment rights.

Sheriffs' refusal to enforce gun laws

In the United States, the refusal of sheriffs to enforce gun laws has become an increasingly prominent issue. While sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws are in the minority, their actions have significant implications for public safety and the democratic process. This issue is rooted in the ideology of "constitutional sheriffs," which asserts that the county, rather than state or federal governments, should control all land within its borders, and the county sheriff should be the ultimate law enforcement authority.

Across multiple states, sheriffs have publicly declared their refusal to enforce new gun regulations, citing their belief that these laws violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. For example, Eagle County Sheriff James Van Beek stated he would refuse to enforce Colorado's new "red flag" gun control law. Similarly, sheriffs in Illinois, Alabama, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma have refused to implement a new rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the registration and taxation of firearms with stabilizing braces.

The refusal of sheriffs to enforce gun laws is not without consequences. Sheriffs who refuse to uphold duly enacted state laws are violating their oaths, neglecting their duties, and undermining the separation of powers. Citizens can pursue legal avenues, such as a writ of mandamus, to compel sheriffs to carry out their non-discretionary legal obligations. Additionally, sheriffs who refuse to conduct background checks or execute extreme risk protection orders may face lawsuits and be held financially responsible if the firearms are subsequently used in incidents of injury or harm.

The actions of these sheriffs reflect a broader trend of constitutional sheriffs disregarding gun control measures. This trend began in 2013, with numerous sheriffs and county officials declaring their opposition to future gun control laws. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) has been actively recruiting sheriffs who align with their ideology and has faced legal repercussions, with multiple members indicted for breaking the law, including alleged illegal activity related to firearms.

Sheriffs' discretion in enforcing state laws

In the United States, sheriffs have wide discretion in enforcing state laws. While they are generally expected to uphold the law, there have been instances where sheriffs have refused to enforce certain laws, particularly those related to gun control and public health restrictions.

In some states like New York, Colorado, and Maryland, sheriffs have argued that certain gun control laws violate the Second Amendment and threaten rural culture, where gun ownership is often integral. For example, Sheriff Tony Desmond of Schoharie County, New York, refused to enforce the SAFE Act, stating that he didn't consider assault weapons illegal. Similarly, Eagle County Sheriff James Van Beek refused to enforce Colorado's "red flag" gun control law.

Sheriffs in other states, such as Illinois, have also refused to comply with new gun laws. Several Illinois sheriff's departments stated they would not enforce Governor J.B. Pritzker's "Protect Illinois Communities Act," which bans certain types of firearms and attachments. These sheriffs believe that the law violates the Second Amendment rights of their citizens.

In addition to gun control laws, sheriffs have also refused to enforce certain public health restrictions. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, sheriffs in multiple counties across the United States stated they would not enforce stay-at-home orders or gathering limits implemented by governors to curb the spread of the virus.

The resistance by sheriffs to enforce certain laws has raised questions about the effectiveness of these laws in their jurisdictions. While sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws are in the minority, their actions can have a significant impact on public safety and the enforcement of laws in their counties. In some cases, state officials have threatened to intervene or send state law enforcement to ensure compliance with the laws.

Sheriffs' stances on gun restrictions

While sheriffs are the chief law enforcement officers in their counties, with nearly absolute authority within their jurisdictions, some sheriffs have refused to enforce certain laws, particularly those related to gun control. This has sparked debates about the role of sheriffs in upholding the law and protecting the Second Amendment.

In recent years, there has been a growing rift among the nation's sheriffs regarding their stances on gun restrictions. On one side, some sheriffs have vowed to ignore any new gun restrictions that they deem unconstitutional. For example, the Utah Sheriffs' Association stated that they are "prepared to trade their lives" for the Second Amendment. Additionally, sheriffs in counties across Missouri, such as Lawrence County Sheriff Brad DeLay and Osage County Sheriff Michael Dixon, have expressed similar sentiments and denounced potential new federal gun control laws.

On the other hand, some sheriffs have taken a more moderate approach, acknowledging the complexity of the issue and the varying perspectives of their constituents. For instance, Johnson County Sheriff Chuck Heiss in western Missouri welcomed a debate about curbing mass shootings but disagreed with banning assault weapons or limiting ammunition magazine sizes. He identified the mental health system as the core problem. Heiss and Dixon both asserted that they would enforce gun laws passed by Congress and upheld by the courts.

In certain states, sheriffs have publicly refused to enforce specific gun control measures. For example, Eagle County Sheriff James Van Beek in Colorado stated that he would not enforce the state's new "red flag" gun control law. Similarly, several sheriffs in upstate New York have expressed their reluctance to enforce gun regulations passed by state lawmakers, forbidding concealed weapons in sensitive areas such as government buildings, schools, and public spaces. These sheriffs view the measures as “limiting."

The refusal of some sheriffs to enforce gun control laws has led to concerns about public safety and the interpretation of the Constitution. While sheriffs are elected officials with significant law enforcement powers, their refusal to uphold certain laws can have consequences for the communities they serve and potentially put lives at risk.

Sheriffs' refusal to enforce gathering limits

In the United States, sheriffs are unique in law enforcement as they take an oath to perform a variety of actions such as keeping the peace, enforcing state laws, and/or defending their state's constitution. While their central function is in the enforcement of state and local laws, not every sheriff shares the same responsibilities. For instance, in Colorado, the Sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer in the county to which he or she is elected. Their authority within their jurisdiction is nearly absolute and without external challenge, with some exceptions.

In November 2020, several New York sheriffs stated that they would not enforce Governor Cuomo's COVID-19 holiday restrictions, including limits on the number of family members "allowed" to gather in private residences over the holidays. One of these sheriffs, Richard Giardino, wrote on Facebook, "With regard to the Thanksgiving Executive Order, the Fulton County Sheriff's Office will NOT be enforcing it against our County residents. [...] I trust people in Fulton County to use their own judgement on who and how many people they invite."

In some cases, sheriffs have refused to enforce certain laws because they believe that the law violates the state or federal constitution. For example, in 2019, several county sheriffs in Washington State publicly stated that they would refuse to enforce a state gun control law that was passed by a voter-approved initiative, citing their belief that the law violates the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Similarly, in 2013, some rural sheriffs in Colorado refused to enforce a measure similar to Initiative 1639, claiming that it conflicted with the 2nd Amendment.

While local sheriffs have broad discretion over how to enforce state laws, they may not unilaterally decline to enforce a law unless a court has determined that the law violates the federal or state constitution. In one instance, a Federal District Court judge ruled against a group of sheriffs who had sued over a gun control law, stating that while the sheriffs could sue as individuals, they had no standing to sue in their official capacity.

Sheriffs' authority and jurisdiction

A sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer in a county and has wide discretion in enforcing state laws. In Colorado, for example, the Sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer and state court officer for their county, and their authority within their jurisdiction is nearly absolute and without external challenge. They are responsible for general law enforcement, wildland fire suppression, and search and rescue at the county level, in addition to operating the county jails and courthouses.

However, there have been instances where sheriffs have refused to enforce certain laws, particularly those related to gun control. For instance, in Colorado, several sheriffs refused to enforce the state's new gun control laws, arguing that they violated the Second Amendment. Similarly, in New York, two sheriffs publicly stated they would not enforce the state's tough gun law package, and in Illinois, several sheriff's departments refused to comply with the governor's new gun law. In some cases, sheriffs have also refused to enforce laws related to private gatherings and coronavirus restrictions.

While sheriffs have the discretion to enforce laws within their jurisdictions, their refusal to enforce certain laws can have consequences. In the case of gun control laws, their inaction may not significantly impact the state, as most gun charges are filed by state or local police. However, their refusal to enforce laws can set a precedent and raise questions about the effectiveness of tougher rules.

Ultimately, the authority and jurisdiction of sheriffs vary depending on the state and county, and while they have discretion in enforcing laws, their refusal to do so can be controversial and have legal implications.

Frequently asked questions