• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

For some of those in here who aren't Americans, this is why we treasure our Constitution .

Sheriffs under fire over gun control

By Andrew Knapp
The Post & Courier

CHARLESTON, S.C. — When Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon talks about the right to bear firearms, he doesn't just talk about citizens defending themselves against home invaders, carjackers, robbers and murderers.

He talks about the Founding Fathers and the Revolutionary War. He talks about Americans need to oppose tyranny and about Nathan Hale, a colonial spy who died for such a cause when British soldiers hanged him in 1776.

To Cannon, the people's power to resist an overbearing government is what the Second Amendment is all about. That s why, he said, he spoke out this year against any new federal gun-control measures that he thinks would suppress that option, and he vowed to take no role in enforcing them.

Nothing has occurred since (colonial times) that suggests we need to be any less concerned about a central government that's too powerful, he said. The Second Amendment is a fail-safe that protects the country from that government.

He was one of the first South Carolina sheriffs to take such a stance in the wake of the mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school in December. Nearly a dozen sheriffs in the state, including all three in the tri-county area, and more than 470 nationwide have expressed such resistance.

Chief Greg Mullen of the Charleston Police Department said that he supports the Second Amendment, but that not every measure would violate it.

"No matter what you propose, there's always one group that thinks it's against the Second Amendment," Mullen said.

"That prevents us from having a reasonable and intelligent discussion about this."

Analyze and disobey

The movement among sheriffs is thought to have started in Colorado.

On the day President Barack Obama announced plans for new gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre, Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith vowed on his Facebook page not to enforce unconstitutional laws.

That same week in mid-January, Cannon stood before journalists, tipped live rounds out of a revolver's cylinder and said he would ignore new federal laws that he thinks are unconstitutional.

He caught flack for the display. In an interview weeks later, Cannon said he fielded calls from people who thought he shouldn't so publicly express his personal beliefs, and from others who thought it wasn't his job to deem laws unconstitutional.

An online petition calling for him to resign garnered 599 signatures, short of its goal of 750.

He said he doesn't regret the move. His position as an elected sheriff isn't a popularity contest, but a struggle to do what's right, he said.

That he's not alone bolstered his stance, Cannon said.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association assembled a list of 474 sheriffs and 18 sheriffs associations nationwide who took up the cause. Their arguments were similar: Sheriffs swear an oath to defend the state and federal constitutions, and enforcing a law contrary to those documents would break their pledge.

Cannon, who has a law degree, said that his reading of history texts during the past two years has strengthened his position. On his desk he keeps a copy of the Federalist Papers, letters written by forefathers expressing how best to protect rights and liberties.

The sheriff likens his refusal to enforce new gun-control laws to an Army soldier disobeying a commander. He said he would expect the same from one of his own deputies.

"He has an obligation to analyze and disobey an unlawful order," Cannon said. "Included in my oath is an obligation to uphold the Constitution and, to some extent, evaluate whether laws break it."

A day after Cannon spoke, Berkeley County Sheriff Wayne DeWitt issued a statement invoking the wishes of the nation's founders. He left it to lawmakers to draft legislation consistent with the U.S. Constitution. DeWitt declined to further discuss his stance.

Sheriff L.C. Knight in Dorchester County was not on the list published by the national organization, but he said he played a role in drafting a statement by the S.C. Sheriffs Association. That statement mentioned modern Americans distrust of government, and that sheriffs don't have the authority to enforce federal laws anyway.

Knight, a board member for the state group, added that efforts should instead focus on boosting penalty enhancements for firearm crimes.

"Taking a gun isn't going to stop violence," Knight said. "We've got laws against drinking and driving, but they still do it. We've got laws against marijuana, but that doesn't stop people from using."

'Pretty daring'

Cannon spoke out, he said, partially in response to Charleston Mayor Joe Riley, a consistent proponent of gun control who later was depicted in an advertisement for Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

A police chief working under a politician such as Riley, the sheriff said, is less likely to speak up against gun control.

Cannon cited research by PoliceOne.com indicating that many of the 15,000 police officers surveyed think new laws would do little to quell violence. Ninety-five percent, for example, thought limiting high-capacity magazines would not affect the crime rate.

Mullen, the Charleston police chief, cited statements from the International Association of Chiefs of Police indicating support for new measures.

He countered viewpoints about sheriffs' hesitancy to help enforce federal laws. Local law officers have a duty to contact federal authorities when they find violations of federal laws, Mullen said. His department, he added, works "hand in hand" with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Police officers may not directly enforce federal laws, Mullen said, but they cannot turn a blind eye because of their personal beliefs.

That practice backfired this spring for one sheriff in Florida.

Liberty County Sheriff Nick Finch ordered the release of a man arrested for carrying a concealed pistol without a license because Finch believed in Second Amendment rights, published reports stated.

Last month, Florida's governor suspended the sheriff, who was jailed on a felony charge of official misconduct.

"If any laws are passed, ultimately the Supreme Court will determine whether or not they should be enforced," Mullen said. "I don't think that s a decision that law enforcement should make."

The issue of having local law officers do the federal government's work has popped up before.

In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requiring state law officers to conduct criminal background checks. It violated the Constitution's concept of dual sovereignty, justices said.

Armand Derfner, a Charleston attorney who specializes in constitutional law, said sheriffs should recognize federal law as supreme.

"It's possible that a particular law may be held unconstitutional," Derfner said. "But it's pretty daring that an officer decides on his own that he s going to do that."

Debra DeShong Reed, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, declined to comment on the issue, but local advocates have been outspoken.

Margaret Kelly of Mount Pleasant, a member of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said opponents of new gun control tend to "throw the Second Amendment at me when explaining their position on legislation."

To Kelly, their argument says little: It doesn't explain, for example, why they think people have the right to carry a concealed firearm into a bar.

"There are other people who think the government is going to take their guns and destroy them," Kelly said. "They need to hide in the hills with all the paranoid people."

During her organization's recent march on Washington, Kelly said staffers from only one member of South Carolina s congressional delegation agreed to speak with her. The worker for Republican Tim Scott didn't help explain the senator's position on gun control, she said.

"He believes in the Second Amendment," she said, referring to what was said during the brief meeting. "That's it. That s all I learned."

Reach Andrew Knapp at 937-5414 or twitter.com/offlede.

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legisl...6311527-Sheriffs-under-fire-over-gun-control/
 
You and Will constantly tell us that we need guns to protect ourselves, partly because the police are mostly corrupt and not to be trusted when it comes to protecting us and upholding the law. Now you're gleefully using the ones who say they'll refuse to uphold new laws that THEY deem unconstitutional (thus, NOT DOING THEIR JOBS) to support your argument. Seems a bit hypocritical, no?

And while this sheriff has taken your central argument that you need guns to protect yourselves against some tyrannical government plot that's just around the corner, and dressed it up in words that indicate at least a 10th grade reading level, it doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Your paranoia is baseless and foolish for one thing, the idea that the small arsenal of rifles and handguns will do you any good against a government armed with tanks, drones, an Air Force, Navy and nuclear capabilities is also fucking ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

You and Will constantly tell us that we need guns to protect ourselves, partly because the police are mostly corrupt and not to be trusted when it comes to protecting us and upholding the law. Now you're gleefully using the ones who say they'll refuse to uphold new laws that THEY deem unconstitutional (thus, NOT DOING THEIR JOBS) to support your argument. Seems a bit hypocritical, no?

And while this sheriff has taken your central argument that you need guns to protect yourselves against some tyrannical government plot that's just around the corner, and dressed it up in words that indicate at least a 10th grade reading level, it doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Your paranoia is baseless and foolish for one thing, the idea that the small arsenal of rifles and handguns will do you any good against a government armed with tanks, drones, an Air Force, Navy and nuclear capabilities is also fucking ridiculous.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
See that's what you're not getting. No one says you HAVE to have a gun to protect yourself...we say, don't take away OUR right to own them. If you don't want one, don't buy one...just don't stop me from buying mine.
 
The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, right ?
So it means there, at least one other amendment in the Constitution (the 1st amendement), right ?

I'm asking this 'cause sometimes, when I isten to conservatives talking about the US Constitution, I have the strange feeling that the 2nd amendment IS the Constitution, that the Constitution features nothing else but the 2nd amendement...
 

larss

I'm watching some specialist videos
There are currently 27 amendments to the constitution, however the 18th was repealed by the 21st (prohibition).
The idea that the 2nd amendment should be inviolate is cute. The constitution must constantly change with the times, otherwise it becomes outdated - e.g. 13th abolished slavery, 15th prohibits denial of suffrage on the basis of race, 19th grants woman's suffrage and of course the 8th, which prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment (this is just got around by subjecting prisoners to cruel and unusual punishment outside the country).
Although it is extremely unlikely that the 2nd will ever be repealed in our lifetime, it is not beyond reason that it could be in the future - we have no way of knowing what the future will bring in the way of social change.
 
The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, right ?
So it means there, at least one other amendment in the Constitution (the 1st amendement), right ?

I'm asking this 'cause sometimes, when I isten to conservatives talking about the US Constitution, I have the strange feeling that the 2nd amendment IS the Constitution, that the Constitution features nothing else but the 2nd amendement...

Not true. It's just that The Second Amendment is the most contested of all amendments. Like Rev said, nobody is forcing you to own a firearm. I totally respect your decision to not own a firearm. I, on the other hand choose to own firearms.
 
...and there is a treasure map written on the back of the document in invisible ink!
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
While I'm generally opposed to most gun control schemes, the problem here is that a member of law enforcement is taking it upon himself to decide what is or is not constitutional. And that in itself is unconstitutional. Just like the members of the military who wanted the luxury of deciding which orders they would follow, if any, based on their feelings about who was or was not the legitimate Commander-in-Chief, this kind of logic does not work within our three branch system.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Not true. It's just that The Second Amendment is the most contested of all amendments. Like Rev said, nobody is forcing you to own a firearm. I totally respect your decision to not own a firearm. I, on the other hand choose to own firearms.

But in a sense, he does have a valid point...if number 2 falls, there is NOTHING stopping the rest from being taken away. You know as well as I do, the whole reason at their attempts to enact strict gun laws has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with disarming a lawful populace. It's about making us more reliant, and compliant.

The Constitution was written in order of importance, the 1st being free speech, because as tax payers, they were denied a voice in England, by the very people taking their money, so they felt it most important to be able to complain, and be heard, but knew having some way to fight the oppression was just as important. There in lies why guns are number 2.

It is only my opinion, but I firmly believe if our founding fathers saw what the deal was today, they would switch the 2 around, and the right to bear arms would be their NUMBER ONE concern. Maybe I'll go get a ouji board, and see if George wants to have a chat! :D
 
And remember this.....



:D
All good information when you hear a noise in the night, shoot it 3 or 4 times in a panic, and turn the lights on to realize you've just shot a family member who got up to let the cat out. It'll be 23 minutes before paramedics show up to pronounce them dead.

And Revid... Fair point to an extent. I'm not against having a rifle for hunting, or even a handgun for home protection. It's that any dimwitted moron can go buy as many as they want at a gun show without ANY sort of background check or training. Then, their free to shoot whatever they perceive as a threat while holding up the Constitution as a shield against any sort of repercussions for their recklessness. I know that there are plenty of responsible gun owners out there. It's the other ones I'm worried about. I'd think that if the responsible ones were so worried about the government coming after their guns because of the dumbasses that ruin it for everyone, they'd be jumping at the chance to work with the government to implement background checks and firearms safety/education. They'd be painting themselves in a positive light in this argument by showing they're capable of reason and cooperation, instead of hooting and hollering like paranoid little babies who've been told they're too old for their pacifiers. It's this lack of a reasonable-minded majority among vocal gun owners/enthusiasts that leads me to want to seek out the ultimate precautions in every aspect of the gun control debate.
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Self defense and stand your ground are better than being shot and killed
 

Philbert

Banned
All good information when you hear a noise in the night, shoot it 3 or 4 times in a panic, and turn the lights on to realize you've just shot a family member who got up to let the cat out. It'll be 23 minutes before paramedics show up to pronounce them dead.

And Revid... Fair point to an extent. I'm not against having a rifle for hunting, or even a handgun for home protection. It's that any dimwitted moron can go buy as many as they want at a gun show without ANY sort of background check or training. Then, their free to shoot whatever they perceive as a threat while holding up the Constitution as a shield against any sort of repercussions for their recklessness. I know that there are plenty of responsible gun owners out there. It's the other ones I'm worried about. I'd think that if the responsible ones were so worried about the government coming after their guns because of the dumbasses that ruin it for everyone, they'd be jumping at the chance to work with the government to implement background checks and firearms safety/education. They'd be painting themselves in a positive light in this argument by showing they're capable of reason and cooperation, instead of hooting and hollering like paranoid little babies who've been told they're too old for their pacifiers. It's this lack of a reasonable-minded majority among vocal gun owners/enthusiasts that leads me to want to seek out the ultimate precautions in every aspect of the gun control debate.

I always laugh when frantic anti-gun libs like TheBrokenWheel come up with dead family members stories...like Boob Costas and his "better to sit, and get shot, in a theater than to have someone with a legal gun start shooting and maybe hit someone innocent" crap...
Dumb ass drivers who drink and drive kill SO many more innocents than the very few dumbass's who shoot family members getting a drink of water or some such story.
Millions and millions of people have guns in their house...care to compare accidental shootings against drunks who kill our families daily? Are you a driver? Ever go to a bar, then drive home?
YOU I worry more about, than gun owners.
 

Philbert

Banned
See that's what you're not getting. No one says you HAVE to have a gun to protect yourself...we say, don't take away OUR right to own them. If you don't want one, don't buy one...just don't stop me from buying mine.



neighbor---guns1_o.jpg

Weird fact...

What’s more dangerous: a swimming pool or a gun? When it comes to children, there is no comparison: a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.

In 1997 alone (the last year for which data are available), 742 children under the age of 10 drowned in the United States last year alone. Approximately 550 of those drownings — about 75 percent of the total — occurred in residential swimming pools. According to the most recent statistics, there are about six million residential pools, meaning that one young child drowns annually for every 11,000 pools.

About 175 children under the age of 10 died in 1998 as a result of guns. About two-thirds of those deaths were homicides. There are an estimated 200 million guns in the United States. Doing the math, there is roughly one child killed by guns for every one million guns.

Thus, on average, if you both own a gun and have a swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.
Try prying a pool from someone's cold, wet hand.
 
All good information when you hear a noise in the night, shoot it 3 or 4 times in a panic, and turn the lights on to realize you've just shot a family member who got up to let the cat out. It'll be 23 minutes before paramedics show up to pronounce them dead.
You're such a sissy-ass fucking douche. Why don't you grow a set of balls and learn about firearms? Every time you open your cocksucker with your diatribe of diarrhea, you come off as an idiot. No gun owner is going to grab his shotgun, pistol, or rifle and shoot at a noise in the dark.

You probably squat to take a piss, don't you?
 
You're such a sissy-ass fucking douche. Why don't you grow a set of balls and learn about firearms? Every time you open your cocksucker with your diatribe of diarrhea, you come off as an idiot. No gun owner is going to grab his shotgun, pistol, or rifle and shoot at a noise in the dark.

You probably squat to take a piss, don't you?

Oh, I didn't see that coming a mile away. Rational argument met with pathetic macho posturing. Another case of you starting an argument (using a story you copy and pasted, as usual), someone offering you the debate you crave, and then you calling them a bitch/pussy/ass-wipe. Call me a pussy all you want, but YOU'RE the one who's terrified that you won't be able to carry a weapon that fires a deadly projectile 800 feet per second. You're just a pussy with a gun.
 
What’s more dangerous: a swimming pool or a gun? When it comes to children, there is no comparison: a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.

In 1997 alone (the last year for which data are available), 742 children under the age of 10 drowned in the United States last year alone. Approximately 550 of those drownings — about 75 percent of the total — occurred in residential swimming pools. According to the most recent statistics, there are about six million residential pools, meaning that one young child drowns annually for every 11,000 pools.

About 175 children under the age of 10 died in 1998 as a result of guns. About two-thirds of those deaths were homicides. There are an estimated 200 million guns in the United States. Doing the math, there is roughly one child killed by guns for every one million guns.

Thus, on average, if you both own a gun and have a swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.
Try prying a pool from someone's cold, wet hand.
Ok, fair enough

Now tell me one thing : Are swimming pool made to hurt/kill people ?
What's the ratio of kids playong with dady's gun and not hurting themselves or someone else ? And what's the ratio of kid playing in a swimming pool without hurting themselves or someone else ?
 
...and there is a treasure map on the back of it.
 
Top