The stage is set for a bloody confrontation between gun owners who refuse to cooperate with post-Newtown gun control laws and law enforcement officials intent on enforcing draconian, unconstitutional legislation. Not that there are a lot of LEOs who answer to that description . . .

Fifty-two of New York’s 62 counties have passed official resolutions condemning the New York SAFE Act and/or vowing not to implement its provisions. Sheriffs throughout New York have publicly declared that they will not enforce the mandatory “assault weapons” registration, the seven-round restriction on handgun loading or any of the Act’s other requirements.

By the same token, Colorado sheriffs have stated their unwillingness to enforce that state’s new ammunition magazine-related laws or the “universal background check” requirement for private gun sales. As the New York Times points out in Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control, “all but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.” According to the Times, this unprecedented opposition to gun control from those charged with enforcing it is . . . a bummer.

The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado is playing out in other states, raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown will have a muted effect in parts of the American heartland, where gun ownership is common and grass-roots opposition to tighter restrictions is high.

So much fail in one sentence.

First, the “tougher” rules will have no effect where it matters: reducing criminal use of firearms; a fact about which Times scribe Erica Goode is either blind, indifferent or willfully ignorant. Second, the “tougher” rules will not have a “muted impact” on the “American heartland” (i.e. anywhere outside of Manhattan). The laws have already done much to [further] alienate gun owners from their state government, government in general and, by extension, the rule of law.

And third, if Ms. Goode thinks the impact of unconstitutional civilian disarmament laws is “muted” now, she should wait until law enforcement agents working for the State of New York and/or the State of Colorado take it upon themselves to enforce these deeply unpopular laws.

Because it will happen. The Sheriffs can bitch all they like, but Colorado and New York politicians have state police ready, willing and able to exert their authority on the matter. If not them, the ATF? Count on it.

According to the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services, since 2010 sheriffs have filed less than 2 percent of the two most common felony gun charges. The vast majority of charges are filed by the state or local police . . . Countering the elected sheriffs are some police chiefs, especially in urban areas, and state officials who say that the laws are not only enforceable but that they are already having an effect. Most [Colorado] gun stores have stopped selling the high-capacity magazines for personal use, although one sheriff acknowledged that some stores continued to sell them illegally. Some people who are selling or otherwise transferring guns privately are seeking background checks.

Some people? Victory! Just as “some people” stopped drinking during Prohibition, I guess. The question now becomes: will the State attempt to bell that cat? The Times doesn’t address that issue for New York but makes it clear that Colorado’s poobahs are reticent to engage in a LEO bun fight.

[Colorado’s] top law enforcement officials acknowledged that sheriffs had wide discretion in enforcing state laws. “We’re not in the position of telling sheriffs and chiefs what to do or not to do,” said Lance Clem, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Safety. “We have people calling us all the time, thinking they’ve got an issue with their sheriff, and we tell them we don’t have the authority to intervene.” Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws around the country are in the minority, though no statistics exist. In Colorado, though, sheriffs like Joe Pelle of Boulder County, who support the laws and have more liberal constituencies that back them, are outnumbered. “A lot of sheriffs are claiming the Constitution, saying that they’re not going to enforce this because they personally believe it violates the Second Amendment,” Sheriff Pelle said. “But that stance in and of itself violates the Constitution.”

Setting aside the outrageous statement about the number of sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun control laws and the inanity of Pelle’s take on his oath to the United States Constitutional, see what I mean about the conflict to come? There’s always some liberal/fascist with a badge ready to do the government’s bidding.

In the main, gun owners in “the American heartland” are not going to suffer gun confiscation and the loss of their gun rights inherent in the post-Newtown gun control laws without a fight. Whether or not this resistance erupts into an armed conflict and perhaps something even wider (and darker) depends on events. One thing is certain: the fuse is lit. Even the New York Times knows it.