Post by: bigtex on April 01, 2013, 11:47:38 PM
The "key" points:
- Because I consider myself a pro-Second Amendment Sheriff, this is a very emotional and important topic for me. I also feel that it is important to let you, the citizens, know where I stand.
- I am a firm believer that the root cause of our nation’s incidents involving firearms is not the weapon used. The focus and the responsibility for these shootings should be on the violent and disturbed people who do the shootings. The weapon should not be the focus; the focus should be the mental stability and intent of the person handling the weapon.
- I am elected by you, the people, to uphold the laws and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington. Those constitutions allow law-abiding citizens a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. I do not believe those rights should be infringed upon, nor do I believe that infringing on those rights is an answer to solving the nation’s firearms concerns. I would like to make it clear that I oppose those who would try and take away these rights. I, as your Sheriff, support the citizens of this county against unconstitutional attempts to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
- I do believe, and strongly advocate for, legislation that calls for improved background checks for gun buyers at stores, gun shows and private sales.
For those that don't know, Grant County includes the areas of Moses Lake, Ephrata, Electric City, Grand Coulee, Soap Lake, Mattawa, and Royal City.
Post by: washelkhunter on April 02, 2013, 01:38:36 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 02, 2013, 07:06:40 AM
I take great offense at any attempt to require a background check between private parties. Its none of the governments business who i do business with.
Tom, Tom, Tom. Ending a sentence with a preposition, really? With whom I do business would be the proper phrase!
I wrote to Mitch McConnell (R) and Sen Chuck Grassley (R) yesterday because they're saying that some of what the left has to say on gun control isn't all that bad and maybe we should have expanded background checks. Do not be fooled into thinking that we will accomplish anything by giving the government lists of people who transfer firearms from one to another, except maybe letting them know where to pick them up when they're ready to do that. The number of people across this nation killed by weapons transferred in private sales, to include gun shows, is very, very small; less than 2% of the guns used in gun murders across the country. And, many of those murderers would have passed a check anyway. So, in allowing let the government to start keeping track of gun owners, we'll affect less than 1% of gun violence. It's a bad trade.
330,000,000 of us have never abused our 2nd Amendment rights and don't deserve to lose any of them. When someone does, prosecute the heck out of them. Until then, leave us alone.
Post by: csaaphill on April 02, 2013, 01:02:22 PM
Post by: csaaphill on April 02, 2013, 01:07:47 PM
Colorado, and apparently Texas (next) are being targeted with an attempt to set up a federal authority framework that will enable Secret Service agents (not just those guarding the president), and others of the U.S. Secret Service including uniformed division officers, physical security technicians and specialists, and other ‘special officers’, to arrest and remove an elected sheriff for refusing to enforce the law (or anyone breaking the law).
The bills being introduced defines law as including any rule, regulation, executive order, court order, statute or constitutional provision.
Why are they doing this? Here’s why…
It would establish federal authority police powers in a State, enabling an enforcement arm reporting directly to the president (the Secret Service).
It would potentially lead to enabling the president / executive branch to theoretically override the actions and preventative measures that are now being taken by many States throughout the country who are trying to preserve 2nd Amendment gun rights and who are prohibiting the enforcement of unconstitutional law passed by Congress or pushed by executive order.
As some of you may know, a growing list of sheriffs (more than 340 so far) across the country have expressed that they will not enforce a Washington mandate that clearly violates the Second Amendment.
Many State laws to preserve gun rights are gaining momentum. States include Montana, Ohio, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, Michigan, Utah, and New Mexico.
However, in Colorado, Senate Bill SB-13-013 has evidently just passed the Senate, and will be heading on to its potential signing by the governor, giving police powers and arrest authority to the executive branch of federal government (Secret Service) within the State. In Texas a similar bill has just been introduced in the State legislature.
The president and vice-president Biden have been actively pursuing state legislatures and pushing for passage of the bills. Obama is scheduled to visit Colorado in just a few days. “Colorado is a pawn for the Obama-Biden plan,” and then on to the next… at least those that won’t fall into line.
Quoted from Rep. Lori Saine of Colorado, who says she believes the bill is intended to be used as a foundation for later legislation that will surrender still greater control to federal officials…
“There’ve been so many explanations for the reasons they really need this bill passed. So what is it really?” “I believe it is intended to be used for setting up a framework so that at some other time they could expand it to possibly include being able to arrest a sheriff who is refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. They would justify it by saying that since we’ve already given the Secret Service this ability, why not give them just one more?”
It is a full court press by the executive branch of the federal government to empower themselves even further by inserting themselves as police authority within the state, to eliminate opposition.
…thought you’d like to know
Post by: bigtex on April 02, 2013, 01:19:38 PM
WA only limits it to NPS, USFS, USFWS, NMFS/NOAA to enforce fish and wildlife laws. USFS can also do specialized forest products and fire laws. All other authority comes from the sheriff.
Even Utah allows some federal law enforcement to enforce state laws, they just don't allow federal land management officers to do it unless sheriff approval.