[Beware Owner]

National Sheriff's Association Announces They Will Not Support Unconstitutional Gun Control Laws - YouTube

National Sheriff's Association Announces They Will Not Support Unconstitutional Gun Control Laws - YouTube

[Rustin]

Wow. That was excellent!

[kensb2]

Awesome news. Can we get the FOP, etc do to that? Also, that sheriff in the back left had a pretty awesome 'stache!

[janice6]

Good to have the support of good people.

[oldman11]

Excellant, good for you. 100%

[Captain Ron]

Why does it say MOX News unfair and biased at the end of it?

[pipedreams]

These guys are welcome in my home any day.

[wprebeck]

Originally Posted by kensb2

Awesome news. Can we get the FOP, etc do to that? Also, that sheriff in the back left had a pretty awesome 'stache!

I started a now-locked thread about the FOP (I'm in it, and very active). Seems local lodges across the country are sending the national lodge a letter stating we are not in favor of more gun control, and that we do not wish the national lodge to endorse any gun control.


It didn't end well, because a number of people here don't believe cops will do anything other than follow orders.

[kensb2]

Originally Posted by wprebeck

I started a now-locked thread about the FOP (I'm in it, and very active). Seems local lodges across the country are sending the national lodge a letter stating we are not in favor of more gun control, and that we do not wish the national lodge to endorse any gun control.


It didn't end well, because a number of people here don't believe cops will do anything other than follow orders.

That was kind of where my post was directed. I read through and posted in that thread. My take on it basically this: it's great that individual FOPs will stand with the citizens, same as how we were all getting excited as individual sheriff's depts were standing up with us. Now, the nat'l sheriff's association has stood up with us, to be counted. That holds VASTLY more weight with the general public than the individual sheriffs doing it. Now, hopefully the efforts of YOUR FOP in KY and other locals will get the nat'l FOP to stand up and say they will be counted with us.

[poikilotrm]

Originally Posted by kensb2

Awesome news. Can we get the FOP, etc do to that? Also, that sheriff in the back left had a pretty awesome 'stache!

FOP = urban. Urban = liberal. FOP = liberal. So, no.

That was what I was thinking. The hat and the moustache freakin rock.

I am absolutely stunned that any LE org would actually oppose that sort of a law. It almost gives me hope.

[poikilotrm]

Originally Posted by wprebeck

It didn't end well, because a number of people here don't believe cops will do anything other than follow orders.

History supports that view. I would like to see a break with history.

[Beware Owner]

Nobody can throw a blanket out there that LEO is not on our side on this issue anymore. At least sheriffs have stood up.

[sheriff733]

Originally Posted by poikilotrm

FOP = urban. Urban = liberal. FOP = liberal. So, no.

That was what I was thinking. The hat and the moustache freakin rock.

I am absolutely stunned that any LE org would actually oppose that sort of a law. It almost gives me hope.

I'm a member of the FOP, albeit not very active. But I would have to disagree with them being liberal. I think your view of them is flat out wrong.

What makes you say they are liberal? I'm asking a serious question. Not trying to start a pissing contest.

[poikilotrm]

Originally Posted by sheriff733

I'm a member of the FOP, albeit not very active. But I would have to disagree with them being liberal. I think your view of them is flat out wrong.

What makes you say they are liberal? I'm asking a serious question. Not trying to start a pissing contest.

Let me refine my point. The rank and file may not be liberal, but the heads of the local FOPs almost always act about as conservative as Barney Frank in their press releases. The FOP backed the 94 AWB. They back the present assault on liberty.

Anything that smacks of progressive expansion of police powers they are for. Granted, that is both sides of the aisle in DC, but then both sides of the aisle in DC run from socialist to communist, and both sides are anti Constitution, which is not conservative at all.

[BradD]

I like seeing videos in which it seems that LEOs will not confiscate guns, but look closer. Below is a link to their position statement.

http://www.sheriffs.org/content/nsa-...nt-gun-control

The last "whereas" and conclusion make it clear that they will enforce a law if the courts say it's constitutional.

What happens after a few more liberal presidents pack the SCOTUS with judges who (will lie and) say that it's constitutional to prohibit all but single-shot .22 rifles? It seems to me that the Founders set up the the possibility that sufficient long-term control of the presidency can undo parts of the BoR which contains rights that are supposedly not debatable. Is there a "hole" in the way the Founders set up this system?

I'm an engineer, not a politician or lawyer. Someone educate me on this subject. Where's my thinking going wrong?

[Hawkeye16]

Mox news is fake. Kind of like the onion.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[G36's Rule]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

Mox news is fake. Kind of like the onion.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

I was under that impression as well. Did they fake a presser, or is it taken out of context?

[Peace Warrior]

The Constitution made it clear and unequivocal that the local Sheriffs are the HIGHEST law of the States in each of their respective counties.

[poikilotrm]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

The Constitution made it clear and unequivocal that the local Sheriffs are the HIGHEST law of the States in each of their respective counties.

Can you quote that part of the Constitution for me?

[Jeff82]

tagged

[Glock20 10mm]

Originally Posted by poikilotrm

History supports that view. I would like to see a break with history.

This is pretty much the teller of truth, history.

[philipk]

Originally Posted by BradD

I like seeing videos in which it seems that LEOs will not confiscate guns, but look closer. Below is a link to their position statement.

http://www.sheriffs.org/content/nsa-...nt-gun-control

The last "whereas" and conclusion make it clear that they will enforce a law if the courts say it's constitutional.

What happens after a few more liberal presidents pack the SCOTUS with judges who (will lie and) say that it's constitutional to prohibit all but single-shot .22 rifles? It seems to me that the Founders set up the the possibility that sufficient long-term control of the presidency can undo parts of the BoR which contains rights that are supposedly not debatable. Is there a "hole" in the way the Founders set up this system?

I'm an engineer, not a politician or lawyer. Someone educate me on this subject. Where's my thinking going wrong?

You are correct in being concerned. This document is almost meaningless. If SCOTUS ruled 7 round limts constitutional, the sheriffs will enforce it.

Of more concern to me is the second PDF document from your link.

http://www.sheriffs.org/sites/defaul...20FIREARMS.pdf

8. Gun Safety Incentives. The nation's Sheriffs support enhanced firearms safety efforts including
incentives to promote both safe and secure storage and use of firearms.

That quote isn't much different that pro-gun control people's claim that it is "gun safety" and not "gun control"!

[DaleGribble]

Originally Posted by G36's Rule

I was under that impression as well. Did they fake a presser, or is it taken out of context?

Neither, the National Sheriff's Assoc did release the statement and hold the press conference, as vague as it was.

I'm sorry but I'm not impressed. They won't support infringements on the Constitution but if a court says new gun control laws are Constitutional then they'll follow orders.

My response: I have the ability to think for myself and determine what is just and what is unjust and I will base my actions on my beliefs. To bad the National Sheriff's Association doesn't feel the same way.

[BradD]

Originally Posted by DaleGribble

Neither, the National Sheriff's Assoc did release the statement and hold the press conference, as vague as it was.

I'm sorry but I'm not impressed. They won't support infringements on the Constitution but if a court says new gun control laws are Constitutional then they'll follow orders.

My response: I have the ability to think for myself and determine what is just and what is unjust and I will base my actions on my beliefs. To bad the National Sheriff's Association doesn't feel the same way.

Here is my question (I really want someone to tell me why I'm wrong):

The Founders set up the system stating that the courts declare what's constitutional. If the courts say a one-round mag limit, with .22LR max, is constitutional, then, by the method set up by the Founders', that IS constitutional.

My opinion is that banning or limiting guns in just about any way is unconstitutional. However, by the Founders' method, my opinion doesn't count. There's probably some guy somewhere who thinks that any number of laws are unconstitutional; his opinion doesn't matter according to the way the Founders set up the system.

We complain that the lefties and antis pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like. Are we doing the same thing?

Please tell me why I'm going wrong. I really want to be wrong.

[DaleGribble]

Originally Posted by BradD

Here is my question (I really want someone to tell me why I'm wrong):

The Founders set up the system stating that the courts declare what's constitutional. If the courts say a one-round mag limit, with .22LR max, is constitutional, then, by the method set up by the Founders', that IS constitutional.

My opinion is that banning or limiting guns in just about any way is unconstitutional. However, by the Founders' method, my opinion doesn't count. There's probably some guy somewhere who thinks that any number of laws are unconstitutional; his opinion doesn't matter according to the way the Founders set up the system.

We complain that the lefties and antis pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like. Are we doing the same thing?

Please tell me why I'm going wrong. I really want to be wrong.

Unfortunately I can't give you the answer you seek simply because I'm not a Constitutional lawyer or scholar, I'm just a humble public servant with a strong belief system.

My opinion is that while our founding fathers knew judicial review of new laws would be necessary, they had no idea that future generations would be so willing to **** all over the very document that enumerates their freedoms. I am also of the opinion that if they could see what their creation has morphed into, they would probably be very disappointed in us for not fixing it.