Time for everyone to do some work...

It appears that the Missouri Sheriff's Association is doing everything it can to derail the SAPA in the senate. What is currently needed is a formal position if each and every Sheriff in Missouri. If they are unwilling to support Missourians rights, then let them publically say so instead of hiding in the shadows. These are elected positions, and as such Missourians deserve to know this information.

Soooooo... write/email/call your Sheriff and ask them for their formal position on the legislation.

http://www.libertytools.org/issues/sapa/Missouri-Sheriffs.php

If you get a formal response, please email it to: [email protected]

And yes "oh god another sapa thread!", but until we can get agree on just one and get them consolidated, this was probably the easiest way to bring it to your attention.

Even if your sheriff is listed it is worth contacting them again so that they know this is an item the public is concerned about. Even if you already know that the sheriff is against it, get them on record.

I contacted my sheriff again and will find out where he stands...I know he says he's pro 2nd amendment but.........if it stops the federal handouts, that may very well change the whole equation.

I did gather links to all of the threads I found, though I may have missed some.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/hometown/The-fight-to-preserve-the-second-amendment/32-652198/

I e-mailed a representative of the Missouri Sheriff's Association...here is the response:
     
  There is language in the bill as written that will hinder local law enforcement abilities to prosecute our most dangerous offenders, prohibit local law enforcement officers with partnering with the FBI, DEA, ICE, ATF.  This definitely places local LEO and Sheriffs in a bad position. At the local level, we need all the resources we can get when we try to combat crime and investigate criminal groups.
  Our sheriffs, like so many in rural America, do not have the resources that are needed to combat some of these more sophisticated groups that will venture from state to state with their criminal enterprise.  Here’s an example:  We have a bank robbery, the suspect robbed the bank at gun point...after initial on scene investigation the Sheriff would immediately call the FBI and or ATF in to assist and bring more resources to the table to assist us in the identity and apprehension of the suspect(s) involved.  
  As this bill is written, we would be in violation of the law and subject to consequences. This is NOT good for Law Enforcement or the community, our main goal should be the protection and service to law abiding citizens, even if we have to request the assistance of the Feds. LEO should not have their hands tied in efforts to combat criminal activity. Further...it upsets us that we have few folks spreading bad info that, “ Mo Sheriffs are opposed to SAPA” when that is completely false, we are opposed to the small bit of language in it that constricts us from doing the best job that we can.  

  So after hearing this, I have to agree...it sounds like the small bit of language needs to be changed or I would say SAPA is going to 'crash and burn.'
Just my two cents.

I'm not impressed with that response.

What "small bit" of language is the problem, exactly?

More important, what replacement language would fix it -- or would removing that "small bit" be the fix?

Actual problem language? Solution?

No?

SMH.

You're forgetting... we're the little people and we just need to do as we're told.

And which Sheriffs department? It sou ds as though he is parroting the MO Sheriffs Association line...

His example seems to ignore the fact that robbing a bank isnt a firearms offence... so he isnt being hampered from pursuing that. If the federal government dont want to pursue a case without having the right to use local resources to infringe on Missourians firearms rights, the sheriff, who swore an oath, should be telling them to get out of dodge anyway.

Okay guys, I listened to the Sheriff(s) and Rep. Jared Taylor at the rally at the Capital. They both said they were working on getting the language cleaned up. The The Sheriff, I e-mailed can not be revealed since it was a confidential e-mail between him and me. But he said nothing different from what I heard at the rally. It seems it is the Senate bill they're working on and having issues.

  The example I submitted from the Sheriff did indeed include a bank robbery with a gun. You must have just missed that.

  I don't know what to tell you guys except I suggest you write the Sheriff's Association and your local Sheriff and see what they say. I know for a fact that my Sheriff is pro-2nd because he and the county board signed their name to a proclamation stating they would Not uphold ANY anti-2nd shenanigans that would come from the Federal government.

  Post your Sheriffs replies on this topic.

I didnt miss anything... bank robbery is a crime, let's prosecute it. If you want to prosecute it as a firearms crime... do it yourself.

As for the sheriff signing a piece of paper... well good luck with that.

  I agree...of course everything is just a piece of paper...even the Constitution. It all depends on the people. Remember, Ben Franklin said, 'We have a Republic, IF, you can keep it."
  Our Founding Fathers were all concerned about the possibilities of what has happened and is happening to our government.
We have agencies that make, uphold and prosecute laws of which they have no Constitutional right to do...yet they do it. We have all three branches of government becoming a trifecta instead of separate checks and balances. So here we are.

Public hearing tomorrow, get your witness slips in.