Advertisements
Home

Citizens Form Armed Response Group After Local Sheriff’s Office Cut to 8 Hours/Day Due to Budget Cuts

3 Comments

This is from Guns Saves Lives.

 I am glad to see people stepping up to protect each other.

How long before the liberals in Portland try to stop these people?

What would you do if your local law enforcement only worked 8 hours per day 5 days per week and only responded to life threatening calls?

Well, one rural Oregon community has an answer – they formed an armed response group made up exclusively of private citizens working on a volunteer basis.

Josephine County, Oregon – 70% of the land here is owned by the US government. Previously, the county was able to keep its government and law enforcement services running due to federal subsidies paid by the federal government.

When the feds cut that funding, the county had to make severe budget cuts according to Fox News. One of the main things that was cut, the local sheriff’s office. We aren’t talking about reducing the number of deputies or using patrol cars for a little longer then usual. We are talking GUTTED.

The office announced they would only respond to life threatening calls from now on. On top of that, the office would only operate 8 hours a day during week days. The government even went as far as to advise citizens to move to another county if they didn’t feel safe.

Well, a group of 100 citizens decided they could feel safe without agreeing to the massive tax raise proposed by the county government. So, they formed the North Valley Community Watch.

The group responds to calls that the sheriff’s office is unable to. Many members of the group carry legal firearms, although none have ever had to use them.

The group uses technology to keep the local residents informed about its operations and maintains a website and a Facebook page where they post local crime news, recent arrests, and other news.

According to Fox News,

Ken Selig — who was the longest-serving law enforcement officer in all three local agencies when he was forced to retire from the department due to cuts — told FoxNews.com he found the sheriff’s declaration unacceptable. And he felt compelled to guard his community’s vulnerable members.

“Who else is going to protect you when your government can’t?” Selig said.

Selig and his friend Pete Scaglione formed the North Valley Community Watch, a county-wide organization dedicated to helping citizens in non-life-threatening situations, primarily property crimes. It is one of a handful of community groups that have formed since the cuts. Without a robust Sheriff’s Office, their mission is broader than the typical neighborhood watch group.

Advertisements

Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control

2 Comments

This is from The New York Times.

It is refreshing to see these Sheriffs standing up to these

Unconstitutional gun laws.

Most people, including politicians fail to realize that the ultimate legal authorities in the land are the county sheriffs.  This was established from the time of the Founding Fathers and upheld by the US Supreme Court in the 1997 case of Printz v. United States.  Initially, the case was Mack v. United States, but by the time it reached the Supreme Court it was renamed.

Michael Ciaglo/The Colorado Springs Gazette, via Associated Press

John Cooke is among the Colorado sheriffs who are resisting enforcement of new state gun laws.

Multimedia

GREELEY, Colo. — When Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County explains in speeches why he is not enforcing the state’s new gun laws, he holds up two 30-round magazines. One, he says, he had before July 1, when the law banning the possession, sale or transfer of the large-capacity magazines went into effect. The other, he “maybe” obtained afterward.

 He shuffles the magazines, which look identical, and then challenges the audience to tell the difference.

“How is a deputy or an officer supposed to know which is which?” he asks.

Colorado’s package of gun laws, enacted this year after mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., has been hailed as a victory by advocates of gun control. But if Sheriff Cooke and a majority of the other county sheriffs in Colorado offer any indication, the new laws — which mandate background checks for private gun transfers and outlaw magazines over 15 rounds — may prove nearly irrelevant across much of the state’s rural regions.

Some sheriffs, like Sheriff Cooke, are refusing to enforce the laws, saying that they are too vague and violate Second Amendment rights. Many more say that enforcement will be “a very low priority,” as several sheriffs put it. All but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.

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.

In New York State, where Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed one of the toughest gun law packages in the nation last January, two sheriffs have said publicly they would not enforce the laws — inaction that Mr. Cuomo said would set “a dangerous and frightening precedent.” The sheriffs’ refusal is unlikely to have much effect in the state: 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.

In Liberty County, Fla., a jury in October acquitted a sheriff who had been suspended and charged with misconduct after he released a man arrested by a deputy on charges of carrying a concealed firearm. The sheriff, who was immediately reinstated by the governor, said he was protecting the man’s Second Amendment rights.

And in California, a delegation of sheriffs met with Gov. Jerry Brown this fall to try to persuade him to veto gun bills passed by the Legislature, including measures banning semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and lead ammunition for hunting (Mr. Brown signed the ammunition bill but vetoed the bill outlawing the rifles).

“Our way of life means nothing to these politicians, and our interests are not being promoted in the legislative halls of Sacramento or Washington, D.C.,” said Jon E. Lopey, the sheriff of Siskiyou County, Calif., one of those who met with Governor Brown. He said enforcing gun laws was not a priority for him, and he added that residents of his rural region near the Oregon border are equally frustrated by regulations imposed by the federal Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency.

This year, the new gun laws in Colorado have become political flash points. Two state senators who supported the legislation were recalled in elections in September; a third resigned last month rather than face a recall. Efforts to repeal the statutes are already in the works.

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 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.

Eric Brown, a spokesman for Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado, said, “Particularly on background checks, the numbers show the law is working.” The Colorado Bureau of Investigation has run 3,445 checks on private sales since the law went into effect, he said, and has denied gun sales to 70 people.

A Federal District Court judge last month ruled against a claim in the sheriffs’ lawsuit that one part of the magazine law was unconstitutionally vague. The judge also ruled that while the sheriffs could sue as individuals, they had no standing to sue in their official capacity.

Still, the state’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.”

Even Sheriff W. Pete Palmer of Chaffee County, one of the seven sheriffs who declined to join the federal lawsuit because he felt duty-bound to carry out the laws, said he was unlikely to aggressively enforce them. He said enforcement poses “huge practical difficulties,” and besides, he has neither the resources nor the pressure from his constituents to make active enforcement a high priority. Violations of the laws are misdemeanors.

“All law enforcement agencies consider the community standards — what is it that our community wishes us to focus on — and I can tell you our community is not worried one whit about background checks or high-capacity magazines,” he said.

At their extreme, the views of sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws echo the stand of Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff and the author of “The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope.” Mr. Mack has argued that county sheriffs are the ultimate arbiters of what is constitutional and what is not. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, founded by Mr. Mack, is an organization of sheriffs and other officers who support his views.

“The Supreme Court does not run my office,” Mr. Mack said in an interview. “Just because they allow something doesn’t mean that a good constitutional sheriff is going to do it.” He said that 250 sheriffs from around the country attended the association’s recent convention.

Matthew J. Parlow, a law professor at Marquette University, said that some states, including New York, had laws that allowed the governor in some circumstances to investigate and remove public officials who engaged in egregious misconduct — laws that in theory might allow the removal of sheriffs who failed to enforce state statutes.

But, he said, many governors could be reluctant to use such powers. And in most cases, any penalty for a sheriff who chose not to enforce state law would have to come from voters.

Sheriff Cooke, for his part, said that he was entitled to use discretion in enforcement, especially when he believed the laws were wrong or unenforceable.

“In my oath it says I’ll uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado,” he said, as he posed for campaign photos in his office — he is running for the State Senate in 2014. “It doesn’t say I have to uphold every law passed by the Legislature.”

 

76 Year Old Dies In Shootout With Gang Of Thug Robbers

Leave a comment

This is from Mr.Conservative.

Two sons and a daughter of Obama try to rob a

76 year old South Carolina woman.

It is a shame the punk Mrs.Hendrix shot did not die.   

article-2516263-19BF17FD00000578-592_306x423

                                    victim

A 76 year old woman is dead today after being attacked on her own property after returning home from bingo. The woman, Dorothy Hendrix, was shot twice outside her South Carolina home by three thugs.  Before being shot, however, she was able to shoot and wound one of her assailants.

Hendrix soon passed away from her injuries, but Steven Hagood, Tereba Geer, and Bradacious Galloway have all been arrested and charged with murder.

In 2011, Hendrix had been robbed while carrying money from the bingo hall she volunteered for.  She was unarmed and had to unwillingly give the money to her assailants.  She had since then applied for her carry and conceal license and purchased a firearm.

Her brother, Ronnie Lollis said that, “She had been robbed right here at her house, coming out of her house. That’s what made her get her gun. I don’t understand why she wanted to keep coming back.”

After returning from the bingo club on Saturday, the gang of three apparently approached the woman with the intention of robbing her.  Hendrix did have a large sum of money with her which authorities speculate that the gang had prior knowledge of, as the attack at her home seemed as if it had been planned.

 

Anderson County Sheriff John Skipper stated that, “This was not a random act. The robbery was planned, and she was specifically targeted. The trio had knowledge that Hendrix carried large sums of money home with her at night.”

When the gang approached her, Ms. Hendrix was able to draw her weapon and shoot one of her assailants in the stomach.  A different member of the gang also drew their weapon after seeing Hendrix shoot their friend, and proceeded to return fire.  Hendrix was hit twice — once in the abdomen and once in the arm.

Ms. Hendrix died in the company of family, holding hands, as she lied in her front lawn.

Lollis, told reporters that, “She fought. She was a fighter. She shot him.”

hendrix2

Murdering savages

The man who was shot in the stomach, Steven Hagood, 33 is currently recovering in a hospital where is being guarded by police.  The hazard to society was also “served with a family bench warrant for unpaid child support of $80,000.” This man should have been off the streets long before this could have happened.

The other two, Tereba Geer, 26, and Bradacious Galloway, 23, have been arrested and charged with murder.

How low do you have to stoop to steal from an elderly woman for a few bingo bucks?

Let us know what you think.

 

SAFE Act stance helps Howard win 3rd term as Erie County sheriff

Leave a comment

This is from The Buffalo News.

More LEO’s in New York need to follow the lead

of Sheriff Howard.

The law is turning New York into a Nazi Police State.

 

Four words that he uttered at a news conference last May helped Timothy B. Howard win a third term as Erie County sheriff.

The words were “I won’t enforce it,” and Howard was talking about the SAFE Act, a controversial new state firearms law that has outraged gun owners.

The support of angry firearms owners helped the Republican sheriff to a big win Tuesday over his Democratic Party opponent, retired Sheriff’s Deputy Richard E. Dobson, and Sheriff’s Lt. Bert D. Dunn, a Law and Order Party candidate who lost the Democratic nomination in the September primary.

Howard, 63, of South Wales, also received a big boost from having two candidates scrapping with each other over the votes of Democrats.

Late Tuesday night, a jubilant Howard thanked his supporters and leaders of the Republican and Conservative parties for helping him win. He said people all over Erie County have thanked him for his stand on the gun issue.

“I did what I thought was the right thing to do,” Howard told The Buffalo News. “People in Western New York feel strongly about the Constitution and Albany’s misreading of it.”

Since taking office in 2005, Howard has faced some difficult times – including prisoner escapes, mistaken releases of prisoners and suicides at the jail and prison operated by his department. But voters made him only the third Erie County sheriff since 1821 to be elected to three consecutive four-year terms.

“The SAFE Act was a major issue in this election,” said Carl J. Calabrese, a former Erie County deputy county executive who now works as a political consultant. “A lot of people in Erie County, both Republicans and Democrats, are hunters, gun owners and shooters … These are motivated people who get out and vote. In a low-turnout election year like this one, it can make a huge difference.”

Howard has repeatedly voiced his opposition to the state gun control law enacted earlier this year with strong support from Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo.

Howard supports a court challenge to the SAFE Act and has publicly stated that he won’t enforce the law, because in his view, it violates the constitutional rights of gun owners.

Gun owners worked hard to help Howard win, said Harold “Budd” Schroeder of Lancaster, chairman of the board of the Shooters Committee on Political Education. “Don’t you see the signs posted all over Erie County, opposing the SAFE Act? People are very upset about this.”

Not everyone agrees. As they walked out of a polling place at Edison Elementary School in the Town of Tonawanda, William and Pauline Stelmach said one reason they voted for Dobson was Howard’s refusal to enforce the gun law.

“Howard is the sheriff. He is supposed to enforce the law, not make laws,” William Stelmach said.

Democratic Party Chairman Jeremy J. Zellner said Howard’s attack on the state gun law provided a “distraction” from the real issue of the campaign, which he said was Howard’s “poor leadership” of his department.

“When he took that position, it gave him a wedge into Democrats who would not normally vote for a Republican,” Calabrese said. “A lot of Democrats are blue-collar people, union people, hunters and gun owners.”

James E. Campbell, chairman of the University at Buffalo’s political science department, said he believes the split of Democratic Party voters probably had a bigger impact.

Dobson and Dunn had battled for the Democratic Party nomination, with Dobson narrowly winning in the primary. Dunn then decided to continue in the race as a minor party candidate, spending more than $300,000 of his own money.

The sheriff makes $79,000 from the county for running the largest local police force in Western New York, a department with more than 1,000 employees and a requested budget of $118 million for the coming year. In addition to his county salary, Howard receives a State Police pension of more than $50,000 a year.

Howard was in the State Police for 24 years before joining the Sheriff’s Office as undersheriff in 1998. He became sheriff in June 2005 when his predecessor, Patrick J. Gallivan, was appointed to the State Parole Board. Gallivan has since been elected to the State Senate. Howard won elections in 2005 and 2009.

Howard has come under intense criticism at times. The low point of his tenure as sheriff came in April 2006, when prisoner Ralph “Bucky” Phillips escaped from the County Correctional Facility in Alden.

Before he was recaptured months later in Pennsylvania, Phillips went on a high-profile crime spree that included killing one state trooper and badly injuring two others with gunfire.

Howard’s department was criticized for the Phillips escape by the state Commission of Corrections. His department also has been criticized by state and federal agencies for prisoner suicides and overcrowded conditions at the Erie County Holding Center.

Howard said he has worked hard to improve conditions in both the jail and the prison.

Dobson, 68, of East Aurora, and Dunn, 43, of Orchard Park, have both criticized Howard and claimed they would be better choices for sheriff, but neither candidate ran an aggressive campaign.

The race against Howard was like a “David vs. Goliath” quest, Dobson said late Tuesday.

Dunn said he hopes Howard will hold no grudge against him for trying to beat him in the election.

“Win or lose, I’ll be back at work in the Sheriff’s Department at 5:45 tomorrow morning,” Dunn said Tuesday night. “I’ll do a good job for him. Even if he gets mad at me, I don’t interact with him very much, so I won’t really know.”

 

Florida boy, 7, finds ancient canoe while scuba diving

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News.

I hope this young man gets a plaque at the museum where this canoe will be placed.

 

OCALA, FLA. –  A 7-year-old boy may have uncovered a piece of history while scuba diving with his grandfather at Owen Lake near Ocala.

Koen Ergle saw a piece of wood in about 8 feet of water a couple of weeks ago and pointed it out to his grandfather, former Marion County Sheriff Ken Ergle.

His grandfather wanted to keep moving, but Koen was persistent.

“He was on my secondary respirator and I could hear him making noises and pointing to the wood,” Ken Ergle told the Ocala Star-Banner. “I started fanning the sand off and still wasn’t quite sure what it was.”

He thought it was an old stump or a piece of a dock, but his grandson said it looked like a canoe. And, after two weekends of digging, they found out he was right. A nearly 20-foot canoe emerged from the lake bed.

“This is very complete, this is in good shape,” said Julia Byrd, a senior archaeologist for the Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources said Thursday. “These are ones we can really learn from.”

Byrd was among the officials who came to the site near Ocala to see the canoe. It will be slowly dried and eventually put on display at the Marion County Museum of History and Archaeology.

Byrd took samples to carbon date the canoe, which some believe could be several hundred years old, and to find out what kind of wood was used to build it.

“Many of the canoes found in Florida turn out to be made of pine, rather than cypress,” Byrd said. “It’s really hard to tell if they are prehistoric or historic. We use to think that the more refined canoes came later, but that is not always the case. People have been living in this area for thousands of years, so that is why we are doing carbon dating.”

The process will take several months.

The family donated the canoe to the museum.

“We just moved here two months ago,” said the boy’s father, Nick Ergle. “It’s amazing to think all the history that has gone on in this area.”

Organizers cancel Boulder gun buyback at request of sheriff

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Camera of Boulder,Colorado.

The irony really burns in this story.

Feel good gun  control laws biting do gooders wanting to buy back guns.

The do gooders are victims of the law of unintended consequences.

To be able to buy back guns they have to pass background checks.

 

Organizers have canceled a gun buyback at the request of Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle, who said Colorado’s new gun laws would make the Aug. 4 event nearly impossible to stage.

“The bottom line is what we anticipated doing would still be legal — but procedurally we can’t follow through with it at this time,” Pelle said Tuesday.

A stricter law that went into effect July 1 requires buyers to go to a licensed firearms dealer and undergo a background check. The InstaCheck systems used in the checks are not mobile, which means they couldn’t be used at the sheriff’s compound where the buyback was planned.

“It’s not a portable system,” Pelle said. “It can’t be done at the site.”

Essentially, for the event to work, Pelle said the group would have to find a licensed firearms dealer to host the event and then pay the dealer per transaction, “which becomes very unproductive,” he said.

Together Colorado — a group that bills itself as a nonpartisan multi-faith organization — had planned the event.

In an e-mail announcing the cancellation, Sheila Dierks said: “Sheriff Pelle has stood strong for this event, has done tremendous work to make it happen and he is as disappointed as we are.”

Event organizers had planned to give gift cards or tickets to sporting events to people who turned in firearms. Students raised nearly $8,000 to purchase the incentives.

The idea was to collect guns and then immediately hand them over to the Sheriff’s Office for destruction. Some of the remnants of the destroyed firearms would then be passed along to Boulder-area metalworking artist Jessica Adams to use for a sculpture aimed at creating gun violence awareness.

After consulting Deputy County Attorney Dea Wheeler, Pelle had concluded earlier that as long as members of Together Colorado passed required background checks, it would be legal for them to purchase firearms at the August buyback.

While he said he understands organizers may be disappointed, he said the “larger good” is accomplished by the background check requirement.

Empire State DA: I won’t prosecute Cuomo’s new gun law

Leave a comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

More and more Sheriffs and District Attorneys are saying

 we will not enforce these laws or prosecute people.

We need to get Obamacare nullified also.

Empire State DA: I won’t prosecute
Cuomo’s new gun law

Still virtually continuing for now on the theme of ‘nullification’, as we have over the last 2 days, here we present a case where a NY DA decides not to prosecute a misdemeanor due to having 9 rounds in a magazine instead of the now restricted 7. It was a reported case here recently from mid May but this represents a decidedly sensible change in events.

NY Governor Cuomo’s ludicrous “SAFE Act” is going to be heavily contested and hopefully not by just this one DA but also many other DA’s as well as county sheriffs. In New York State, as well as Colorado, Connecticut and now even Maryland, we see absurd intrusions regarding the abuse of the Second Amendment.

Much is not only to do with essentially unenforceable aspects to the new stringent laws but also, fortunately, a tendency to see local law enforcement realizing that their oath counts for more than this trend towards trashing of the 2A. Read “I won’t prosecute Cuomo’s new gun law” to find out the rationale and general comment.

Colorado Strong-Arming Sheriffs!

1 Comment

This is from The BlackSphere.

More Sheriff’s need to stand with Colorado’s Sheriff’s 

while they support The Second Amendment.

Where does your Sheriff stand?

This is a question that needs answered.

 

GUN GRABBERS HAVE BEEN ON A RAMPAGE OF LATE, DOING THEIR BEST TO UNDERMINE THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

sheriff-protest

However, the nation’s Sheriffs have have mostly united to stand firm and respect citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed rights. Colorado has recently been the bully pulpit of President Obama, campaigning for more gun control. In response to new, intrusive and unconstitutional gun laws, the Colorado Sheriffs have issued several statements backing the Second Amendment, not the Feds.

The CO Sheriffs leave no doubt where they stand:

County Sheriffs of Colorado believe in the Second Amendment of the United States
Constitution that guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms and that this
right shall not be infringed.  As our state and country continue to discuss and debate gun
control legislation, the position of our founders remains clear.  CSOC will not waiver on our
defense of the Constitution and will stand to preserve every constituent’s right to possess a
firearm.  We believe the Second Amendment is no less important as the other nine
Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.

Also, gun control does not equate to lower crime rates, which is really what we strive for.
Washington D.C. and Chicago, two cities known for their strict gun control laws, have some
of the highest rates of violent crime. In fact in Chicago’s 2012 homicide rate increased 16
percent over the prior year according to the New York Times.

And Colorado Sheriffs also weighed in on the “assault weapon ban”:

The County Sheriffs Of Colorado oppose a ban on so‐called “assault weapons” because of its
vague definition.  What many call “assault weapons” are actually semi‐automatic rifles that
operate the same as any other rifle in that they fire one bullet for every one time a trigger is
pulled. Semiautomatic rifles arenotmachine guns. They do not spray fire like a
machine gun.

The term “assault weapons” often is employed incorrectly to describe an ordinary semi‐
automatic rifle such as an AR‐15, which millions of responsible Americans own without
ever harming another person.

The previous federal ban on so‐called “assault weapons” was confusing and cosmetic in
nature. Guns considered scary such as those with a pistol grip were banned with no regard
for actual gun operation.

Now, in an attempt to circumvent the Colorado Sheriffs’ stand, CO lawmakers are trying to pass legislation that would pushback on the local lawmakers. Although Federal law usually trumps state law, the Sheriffs are not compelled to enforce the Federal law. With the new legislation, Federal law enforcement would have the same powers in the state as the Colorado LEO.

Essentially, this is one more power play by the Feds, via the Colorado, Dem-controlled legislature, to infringe on citizens’ rights.

Let’s hope the NRA, the Sheriffs, and every gun owner and Second Amendment proponent in Colorado is ready to stand firm and fight for our rights! Our battle cry going forward, in the memorable words of Charlton Heston:

 “You can have my guns when you take them from my cold, dead hands.”

 

 

Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures

Leave a comment

This is from The Washington Examiner.

Rep.Yvonne Davis(D.Dallas,Tx.) is a dangerous loon.

We The people need to get vocal in our support for the LEO‘s.

Most people, including politicians fail to realize that the ultimate legal authorities in the land are the county sheriffs.  This was established from the time of the Founding Fathers and upheld by the US Supreme Court in the 1997 case of Printz v. United States.  Initially, the case was Mack v. United States, but by the time it reached the Supreme Court it was renamed.

Supporters of the 380 sheriffs in 15 states who so far have vowed to defy new state and federal gun control laws claim that legislation is starting to pop up around the nation to fire any state elected or appointed law enforcement official who doesn’t obey federal orders.

The first effort emerged in Texas. Legislation proposed by Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws.

What’s more, it would remove any elected or appointed law enforcement officer for simply stating or signing any document stating that they will not obey federal orders.

A gun lobbyist told Secrets, “Beware because once something like this is introduced in one state, it will be followed very quickly in several other states.”

Secrets has charted the growing group of sheriffs opposed to new gun control initiatives. They argue that citizens should be allowed by buy the types of weapons they want to defend themselves. They also claim that there is no way to tell the difference between old rifle and pistol magazines and new ones that President Obama wants to ban.

 

 

Colorado sheriff says lawmakers holding up pay raises over gun stance

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

The action of Colorado DemocRats smells of extortion.

The Sheriff’s have the power to refuse to enforce any gun

laws the believe are unconstitutional.  

The Supreme Court ruled this was legal for the Sheriff’s to do. 

 

One of a handful of Colorado sheriffs who oppose several gun control bills working their way through the state legislature claims lawmakers are threatening the salaries of sheriffs to punish them for their position.

The clash comes as pro-gun control elected leaders seek tighter restrictions on firearms in the wake of the Aurora movie massacre last summer and the Dec. 14 school shooting in Newtown, Conn. El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa, while saying he would be obliged to enforce new law, publicly said he would willfully ignore a ban on high-capacity magazines and may even sue to overturn new laws he deems unconstitutional. Now, he says a bill that would raise sheriffs’ salaries is being held up at the Capitol and he knows why.

“Senate Dems have made it known, ‘Sheriffs, obey or no pay for you,’” Maketa said. “The first word that comes to my mind is extortion.”

 

He cited an email he received from another sheriff that read, “…I have been advised by a reliable source at the Capitol that the Dems are seriously not pleased with the [sheriffs’] positions on the gun bills… support of SB197 [one of the gun bills] would put us in a more favorable light for salary bill support from the Dems…”

Democrats hold majorities in both legislative houses. Republican Rep. Lori Saine told FoxNews.com that Maketa’s charge must be taken seriously.

“Any implication that this salary bill is being stymied needs to be seriously investigated,” she said.

But Senate Democrats deny that gun politics has anything to do with holding up sheriffs’ pay increases,which are set by state law and have been unchanged since 2006.

“The position on pay raises has nothing to do with the sheriff’s stance on gun safety legislation, and everything to do with the economy,” Doug Schepman, spokesman for the Senate Democrats, told FoxNews.com.

Maketa says he would have to enforce bills signed into law. However, he said he would willfully ignore the ban on high-capacity magazines. Maketa says he’s looking into the possibility of suing to overturn the bills if they become law.

Delta County Sheriff Fred McKee, who is president of County Sheriffs of Colorado, said he had no knowledge of any Democratic lawmakers making any sort of threats in regard to pay raises.

“I haven’t heard anything like this,” McKee told the Denver Post.

Democrats say that they will allow a salary bill to raise sheriff pay to go to the floor, but only if seven Republicans, many of whom oppose the pay bill on fiscal grounds, sign on as co-sponsors. So far, that has not happened. Maketa said that is a hurdle that the gun bills did not face.

“None of these gun control bills they passed required any Republican co-sponsors — but for the sheriff pay bill, [the speaker] required seven Republican co-sponsors to put it up for a vote,” Maketa said. “I’m sorry, but that tells the truth right there.”

Maketa said some of the gun control bills that have passed the legislature as unenforceable — that he would simply assume that people’s guns had been purchased before the law and that they therefore would be grandfathered in.

“I can’t tell you when those [guns] were sold, bought and purchased. As far as I’m concerned, they were all pre-July 1 if the governor does sign this bill,” he told a crowd last week.

Schepman said Maketa and other sheriffs who have indicated they may not enforce the laws are out of line.

“It’s irresponsible for… sheriffs, including Maketa, to publicly state they will refuse to enforce certain gun safety laws,” Schepman said.

However, Maketa clarified to FoxNews.com on the phone that he would enforce laws when it was possible.

“I will enforce the new gun laws. I have to,” he said.

But other sheriffs have said they won’t, including Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, who told GreeleyTribune.com that he “won’t bother enforcing” certain new gun laws.

Despite Democrats’ outrage at statements like that, they maintain that it has not had an impact on sheriff salaries.

“In no way did I, nor my office, threaten the sheriffs that if they did not support these bills, they would not get a pay increase,” Senate President John Morse wrote on his Facebook page Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/26/colorado-sheriff-says-lawmakers-holding-up-pay-raises-over-gun-stance/#ixzz2OktU0cwk

 

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: