Excellent!

This is common sense out there...

Interesting times we are seeing. I never imagined so many states and LE agencies taking such a hard line stance. Still have my doubts as to them actually backing up those words if challenged on it though.

Shit, I never thought I'd have a state senator's legislative aide look at a group of gun owners and basically say, "I don't worry about the feds trying to confiscate our guns because there's a lot more of us than there are of them."

I'm impressed.  Not sure how that will really hold up in the face of real pressure but still it's impressive to see that level of resistance.

Fuck yeah.

The Sheriff of my county offered to deputize all law abiding gun owners in the event of what he considers Federal encroachment on citizens rights.  My county burned during the Civil War, we know something about these things.

Missouri's Sheriff's have come out swinging, nearly all of them as far as I can tell.

Yes.  How this plays out I have no clue.

Makes me proud of the show-me state.

Indeed

I'd be interested in seeing a complete list.  Google isn't doing it for me this morning.

If that time came I'd gladly join up. Too bad I'm a across the river. Fulton or Callaway County by chance?

FBHO and his treasonous cohorts.

Well, while many of us know that some LE people don't own anything but their duty weapon, there are an awful lot of them that have collections just like many of us do. They don't want to see all their guns become either illegal or have to be turned in just like the rest of us. LE are normal people too(I know that can be debated) and don't want to see their friends and family turned into instant criminals by the stroke of a pen..... and do you really believe that they'd go around locking all their relatives and friends up?? I can see some going full retard and going along with orders, but I believe the majority will not.

I hope we never have to find out although the current climate is not looking very good. Time will tell.

As a Native Texan who just moved to MO, I'm happy to see this.

Was kinda worried about what I had gotten myself into after seeing the piss-poor election results in November.

It's still circulating among the Sheriffs. The MSA will probably issue a statement sometime this week as will MDSA.

St Louis, Columbia and KC will always fuck us in that regard.

Who has the real power the man holding the gun or the one without one ordering him to do something?

When your power stems from a Constitution and you subvert that very Constitution you weaken your legitimacy and the reason men followed you in the first place no longer exists. The President and the US Congress should think about that.

We need rule of law to maintain order in our society. Liberals are openly advocating for doing away with that.

Great article to start my day off too.  Glad I'm currently in this state

I would love to hear more sheriffs take this stance.
Strong and creative message to the feds. "Nope, those are all sworn personal, you can't do shit"

He typoed "bear" unless he was doing a subtle thing like "bare their teeth".  That will be used as a source of derision and dismissal.  Of course, that won't mean dick when the sheriff submits a report to his constituency that he "shot the miserable basterds thare, thare and thare - yer welcome."  

My insight on the matter for what it's worth. I spent two years as a jailer/reserve deputy and three years sworn full time. Sheriffs are politicians above all else. I honestly think a lot of this is political grandstanding and expect these letter campaigns will be brought up often when they run for re election. The ugly reality is that many law enforcement agencies live and die by federal grants. Massive spending on homeland security post 9/11 got local LE addicted to federal dollars. Historically the Feds have always used funding to bully state and local governments into playing ball and this would be no different.

While I would expect many to turn a blind eye to federal weapons violations as we had no obligation to enforce federal law I seriously doubt any will actively interfere with federal agents doing so. That would result in all their grant applications finding their way to the bottom of the pile and probably federal charges of obstruction. I support these statements 110% as they send a cleared sage to anti gunners that law enforcement does not universally support tougher gun laws. I would not expect to hear of any shoot outs between you county sheriff and ATF agents though. A blind eye will be turned to violations and a blind eye will be turned to federal enforcement.

My $0.02

Personal attack:

"Hey, TGM! Yer mudder wears army boots.

(SOmeone had to ruin this thread)

We have a very vocal Sheriff up here in the cold and frozen tundra.  He's been on the news stating that he will not enforce any law that the zero forces on us.  Pine County, Mn.  Every once in a great while we get an elected official here that is awesome.

It ain't rocket science.  ...From the very-very similar Texas sheriff thread concurrent with this one:



The opinion won't get any action here because, and although it makes too much sense, it doesn't place me definately and clearly with a prevailing and popular opinion.  People might read it and realize it make much sense, but are afraid to agree becasue of the ARFCOM pile-on they risk.  Bottom line: it puts the Party cheerleaders on the bench because it makes them look at the problem objectively.

Yes this is a challenge.

Queue the crickets.

All of this is definitely hurting the MSNBC narrative, propped up by the parade of big city police chiefs, that law enforcement professionals support these restrictions.

added him to the good guy list

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1425821_.html&page=1

Definitely liked hearing/ reading this recently... we need more like him!

Nice.

What's the challenge?  No one is going to dispute that the electorate is apathetic and uninformed.  

The Sherrifs can't prove anything until the Feds try something.

As far as I can tell, you're stating the obvious as if it's insightful and wanting people to prove something that hasn't happened yet.

Perhaps you're getting crickets in response for a different reason than you think.

I thought he just wanted to line up a whole bunch of crickets for some reason.

. I had to fix a word use error in my own response to him, so I wasn't going to call him out on it.

Ha ha!  Y'all really got me.  

The challenge is not aimed at anyone in particular.

Sheriffs, telling the electorate what they want to hear, are heros?...something to get excited about?  We wouldn't act more kindly, but act more intelligent and more politically informed when we react to these sheriffs by saying something like "uh-huh, you better be taking this stand!", and less intelligently when we grab the pompoms (pompoms - is that the right word/spelling as such triviality seems so important in this thread) get up and cheer:

"We got the ball!
Come and Take it A-WAY!

etc.
etc.
etc.

Whether these sheriffs really believe in understand the 2nd as we do or not, we should expect them to grandstand when they clearly have the support of their electorate.  No, I'm not criticizing the good and intelligent people in these counties; I'm complementing them because, and not knowing the sheriffs peronally, the honor is the electorate's and ONLY theirs.  We should cheer these sheriffs when they make these stands from within the confines of puke infested counties.  THAT would be ballsy; unexpected; politically valuable, debate stimulating; etc. etc. etc.

I guess the challenge is to fault me for not getting excited when we're thrown a bone by those sheriffs puffing up their chests and boasting without risk to their careers.  Gods bless them for doing it but it's NOTHING to get excited about.  Now, let's hear from those sheriffs elected from puke infested counties.  WHat should we expect them so say in this regard? Don't confuse that question with "What do we want them to say"?

A related challenge: Am I wrong to suspect all those cheering are further encouraged by ARFCOM approval because as a Group we're ignoring the root cause?  It's staring us in the face.  Anyone have the balz to conspicuously break from the herd with me and admit that everyone should have the right to vote, is stupid?  See? There.  I said it.  Letting the beggars who nearly outweigh the workers, vote, is stupid.  What should we expect the beggars to elect?  Look around you.  Listen to these politicians, elected by beggars, ridiculous points of view.  Should we be surprised?  Does ANYONE have an idea how the beggars can be convinced what they're doing is wrong, when how things now are to their satisfaction?  What's that reason they should change that will convince them to do it?  Sincerely, I want to hear it.

Ready to be called an elitist, racist etc. etc. etc. because that's the only weapon available to the opposition to counter meangful qualification--something like 'you don't pay you don't vote'?  I don't want to hear why this won't work--and it very well might not have the effect I'd expect, but it would be fair--I want to hear what else will work or even has a hope of working.

Ready?  Am I still just crazy?  Am I an elitist?  

Are the crickets aligned yet?  Come on people swimming the deep end of the IQ pool-myself not included.  Where am I wrong? Don't be skeerd.  Invite that special ARFCOM's wrath reserved for those breaking from the herd.

Thanks to anyone who read this.

Let me have it with all barrels.  I'm blindfolded and ready.  (I don't smoke.)

So much text for so little to say.

While we're throwing challenges out like drunken French swordsman in a 3 musketeers novel, I challenge you to get really crazy and throw out a "controversial" thought that hasn't been done 2,587 times in GD since Nov 6th.  Maybe not everyone should be able to vote?  What a fresh and brand new idea!  I have no idea why the crickets weren't lining up to applaud your bold new thought!

As to your other point:  so what?  Yeah, I'm not expecting the Sherrif of Cook County, IL to jump on board.  But it's damn good to see that some elected officials with police power are willing to fight tyranny.  In these dark times if you don't see something worth at least a positive mention in that, I don't know what to tell you.

ETA: basically, you're being a Debbie downer with out any real reason for doing so.  Go shit in some other thread about how Americas boned because we let idiots vote.  I'll probably even come join you, because I agree that voter apathy and ignorance is killing us.  But why turn a thread about something positive into doom and gloom?  Makes no sense to me.

It seems I've given you the impression that what I'm doing in this thread is to shine light on how awesome I am.  I'm not awesome and I'm not doing that.  

I like how you put it though.  Cleverly worded insults are often the call to the rest of the cheerleaders to get up and support the team help me with this rogue!, and they often work, especially among youths,  

 

With all due respect: It's going over your head.....isn't it?  These guys, although arguably each are doing a good/right thing, are just as likely if not more likely doing more to secure their careers than fight tyranny.  Their voters deserve the honor of being recognized for having political sense; not the sheriffs.  I'm trying to enhance the positive light being emitted from tis thread by shining it where it belongs.

...Or, maybe you simply don't like that the cheerleader reference fits you?  (I don't know enough about you to have an opinion that it does fit you; I'm just saying it's possible that it does and your offended by yourself and chosing to throw the messenger under the bus.)    

Again, the intent is not to shit in the thread but to try to get people to realize that although these sheriff's stories are heart warming, they have little or no political value, and to explain why they're contributing little or no value.  



I believe you.  That it doesn't or isn't making sense is a believable reason why you've concluded I posted all that because I'm a gloomer and doomer.

...And you're right in that I should start my own thread, and before that charge, I plead no contest.    

I have to disagree.  Your average random citizen who doesn't spent any time during their day thinking about gun rights is going to take a lot more notice of an authority figure like a Sheriff saying "these types of laws are unconstitutional and I won't enforce them" then they will if you or I say it.  They'll dismiss us as gun nuts.  Authority figures, rightly or wrongly get more consideration from most folks when they say things.  That alone makes these statements very valuable.  The media pushes the drumbeat that cops and citizens as a whole support more restrictive gun laws, and here is a cop telling them not only do they not support more gun laws, but what is being proposed goes against our founding documents and principles.  How on earth is that of little or no political value??

And yes, if it makes you feel good you can call me a cheerleader.  Won't hurt my feelings a bit.    I'm a glass half full kind of guy, and I'm just not finding the negatives in this story that you seem focused on.  Even if it is nothing more than political pandering, it does not hurt our cause to have LEO saying pro 2nd amendment things.  

Peace.