Out Of Control: Sheriffs Refuse To Do Their Job
Here is about the last story I would expect to read on plain vanilla NBC News. Maybe the whole Ferguson mess is prompting a few producers, editors, and reporters in corporate media to start covering real news that effects your security: sheriffs using an “interpretation” of the Constitution that was pulled out of the gun lobby’s ample sphincter.
With more states passing stronger gun control laws, rural sheriffs across the country are taking their role as defenders of the Constitution to a new level by protesting such restrictions and, in some cases, refusing to enforce the laws.
Sheriff Mike Lewis considers himself the last man standing for the people of Wicomico County, Maryland.
“State police and highway patrol get their orders from the governor,” the sheriff said. “I get my orders from the citizens in this county.”
Lewis and other like-minded sheriffs have been joined by groups like Oath Keepers and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, both of which encourage law enforcement officers to take a stand against gun control laws.
While the position of sheriff is not found in the U.S. Constitution, it is listed in state constitutions. Nearly all of America’s 3,080 sheriffs are elected to their positions, whereas state and city police officials are appointed.
Lewis and other sheriffs, and their supporters, say that puts them in the best position to stand up to gun laws they consider unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms.
“The role of a sheriff is to be the interposer between the law and the citizen,” said Maryland Delegate Don Dwyer, an Anne Arundel County Republican. “He should stand between the government and citizen in every issue pertaining to the law.”
Click here for reuse options!When Lewis was president of the Maryland Sheriffs’ Association, he testified with other sheriffs against the state’s Firearms Safety Act (FSA) before it was enacted in 2013. One of the strictest gun laws in the nation, the act requires gun applicants to supply fingerprints and complete training to obtain a handgun license online. It bans 45 types of firearms, limits magazines to 10 rounds and outlaws gun ownership for people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.
After Lewis opposed the bill, he said he was inundated with emails, handwritten letters, phone calls and visits from people thanking him for standing up for gun rights.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: dave-dr-gonzo
David Hirsch, a.k.a. Dave "Doctor" Gonzo*, is a renegade record producer, video producer, writer, reformed corporate shill, and still-registered lobbyist for non-one-percenter performing artists and musicians. He lives in a heavily fortified compound in one of Manhattan's less trendy neighborhoods.
* Hirsch is the third person to use the pseudonym, a not-so-veiled tribute to journalist and author Hunter S. Thompson, with the permission of his predecessors Gene Gaudette of American Politics Journal (currently webmaster and chief bottlewasher at Liberaland) and Stephen Meese at Smashmouth Politics.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
raincheck August 22nd, 2014 at 06:34
.”I get my orders from the citizens in this county.” (At least the ones that vote for me in my gerrymandered district)
granpa.usthai August 22nd, 2014 at 07:26
bet they all support ‘the rule of law’ that prevents a black male from (legally) having a gun to protect themselves and their families from white racist.
Dan Hyatt August 22nd, 2014 at 09:23
Actually in St Louis Missouri, it went from Concealed carry permit to concealed carry endorsement specifically to address racism.
In st Louis before most people who got thier permit application refused were black, and out of almost 1000 arrests for illegal carry where there were NO OTHER CHARGES in STL, there was only 1 white man charged with illegal CCW, the rest were black.
Now the County police chief must provide good reason to refuse an endorsement…and it is no longer a permit. Mo is a SHALL ISSUE state
raincheck August 22nd, 2014 at 06:34
.”I get my orders from the citizens in this county.” (At least the ones that vote for me if I go against any gun control laws) EDITED… Just because
granpa.usthai August 22nd, 2014 at 07:26
bet they all support ‘the rule of law’ that prevents a black male from (legally) having a gun to protect themselves and their families from white racist.
Dan Hyatt August 22nd, 2014 at 09:23
Actually in St Louis Missouri, it went from Concealed carry permit to concealed carry endorsement specifically to address racism.
In st Louis before most people who got thier permit application refused were black, and out of almost 1000 arrests for illegal carry where there were NO OTHER CHARGES in STL, there was only 1 white man charged with illegal CCW, the rest were black.
Now the County police chief must provide good reason to refuse an endorsement…and it is no longer a permit. Mo is a SHALL ISSUE state
liberalMD August 22nd, 2014 at 06:41
While the Constitution doesn’t specifically describe the job of sheriff, it does call for the separation of powers into a legislative(the establishment of laws), an executive(the enforcement of laws) and a judicial(the interpretation of laws) branch. If this sheriff wants to interpret the law, he should run for a judgeship.
liberalMD August 22nd, 2014 at 06:41
While the Constitution doesn’t specifically describe the job of sheriff, it does call for the separation of powers into a legislative(the establishment of laws), an executive(the enforcement of laws) and a judicial(the interpretation of laws) branch. If this sheriff wants to interpret the law, he should run for a judgeship.
granpa.usthai August 22nd, 2014 at 07:21
well, you can’t make white officials obey a Black President if they’ve a collective mind not to do so, being that they all of course ‘believe in the rule of law’. (new catch phrase I’ve picked up on by the white republicans)
SO…
perhaps we are not asking the right questions?
perhaps this nice friendly smiling sheriff (or any white republican/US Military leader, etc. who would like to jump in) ?
1. which was your favorite lawless white racist terrorist group in Nevada?
2. which ‘rule of law’ did you enjoy seeing NOT being upheld in Nevada the most?
I would dearly love to see any of these ‘believe in the rule of law’ republicans asked this question until they answered it, or hell (not the one in Michigan) freezes over.
Nazis in Germany came into power the exact same way, and hopefully the military leaders that went along with this white republican sham will suffer the same results.
How’s about it WHITE Governor Perry (R) Texas, you – wink wink nod nod – support ‘the rule of law’.
granpa.usthai August 22nd, 2014 at 07:21
well, you can’t make white officials obey a Black President if they’ve a collective mind not to do so, being that they all of course ‘believe in the rule of law’. (new catch phrase I’ve picked up on by the white republicans)
SO…
perhaps we are not asking the right questions?
perhaps this nice friendly smiling sheriff (or any white republican/US Military leader, etc. who would like to jump in) ?
1. which was your favorite lawless white racist terrorist group in Nevada?
2. which ‘rule of law’ did you enjoy seeing NOT being upheld in Nevada the most?
I would dearly love to see any of these ‘believe in the rule of law’ republicans asked this question until they answered it, or hell (not the one in Michigan) freezes over.
Nazis in Germany came into power the exact same way, and hopefully the military leaders that went along with this white republican sham will suffer the same results.
How’s about it WHITE Governor Perry (R) Texas, you – wink wink nod nod – support ‘the rule of law’.
John Tarter August 22nd, 2014 at 08:37
They are only doing what Obama does who picks and chooses what laws he wants to enforce, so really what’s the big problem here? At least they aren’t actually changing the laws like our out-of-control president does.
ChrisVosburg August 22nd, 2014 at 11:52
John, what would you say is the most egregious example of Obama picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce? Be specific.
John Tarter August 22nd, 2014 at 08:37
They are only doing what Obama does who picks and chooses what laws he wants to enforce, so really what’s the big problem here? At least they aren’t actually changing the laws like our out-of-control president does.
ChrisVosburg August 22nd, 2014 at 11:52
John, what would you say is the most egregious example of Obama picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce? Be specific.
Dan Hyatt August 22nd, 2014 at 09:18
So the law says that if a college study drinks too much and takes pills because he is distraught that his girlfriend broke up with him and is involuntarily committed to the psych ward for a week. He is forbidden from owning a gun 20 years later….so if your wife dies and you become horribly depressed and your family has you committed out of excessive concern. You remarry with no long standing effects….you can never again own a gun.
No opportunity for revue.
ChrisVosburg August 22nd, 2014 at 11:50
Actually, it only requires a note from the applicant’s doctor saying “he’s okay now,” and the erstwhile madman can bang away at shadows again with the best of them.
Dan Hyatt August 22nd, 2014 at 12:16
Picking and choosing which portions of his law deciding what to implement and what not to implement
Trading a deserter for Gito residents
His chief legal beagle selling “assault weapons” to enemies of the United States and our allies…after giving the enemies the money to buy them..Fast and Furious
tj August 22nd, 2014 at 12:19
What a shocker, the conservative dan Hyatt knows absolutely nothing about this law, yet is here complaining about things that don’t exist. .and you people wonder why you are a national joke
ChrisVosburg August 22nd, 2014 at 12:32
It’s a little difficult to decipher your non-responsive gibberish, but if you are referring to the gun-walking programs conducted by the Arizona branch of the ATF and begun under the Bush administration, it has been the conclusion of every investigation of same that the programs were not authorized by President Obama or AG Holder, and neither of these guys were even aware of the program.
Again, what this has to do with my correction of your goofy read of the Maryland Firearms Safety Act is a complete mystery to me. Go home, you’re drunk.
William Carr August 28th, 2014 at 10:07
Bergdahl has not been convicted of Desertion.
He was a POW captured in time of War, and tortured.
Only the Right Wing crazies think you can accuse a Soldier of being a Deserter and that makes it true.
It’s disloyal to our troops; it would create a precedent of abandoning a POW, something we’ve never DONE.
But the Right Wing seize on any issue to use against Obama and politicize it without thinking about the implications.
William Carr August 28th, 2014 at 10:08
Actually, the Law would be administered by a Judge, who would decide if there was a clear and present danger, on a case-by-case basis.
Dan Hyatt August 22nd, 2014 at 09:18
So the law says that if a college study drinks too much and takes pills because he is distraught that his girlfriend broke up with him and is involuntarily committed to the psych ward for a week. He is forbidden from owning a gun 20 years later….so if your wife dies and you become horribly depressed and your family has you committed out of excessive concern. You remarry with no long standing effects….you can never again own a gun.
No opportunity for revue.
ChrisVosburg August 22nd, 2014 at 11:50
Actually, it only requires a note from the applicant’s doctor saying “he’s okay now,” and the erstwhile madman can bang away at shadows again with the best of them.
Dan Hyatt August 22nd, 2014 at 12:16
Picking and choosing which portions of his law deciding what to implement and what not to implement
Trading a deserter for Gito residents
His chief legal beagle selling “assault weapons” to enemies of the United States and our allies…after giving the enemies the money to buy them..Fast and Furious
tj August 22nd, 2014 at 12:19
What a shocker, the conservative dan Hyatt knows absolutely nothing about this law, yet is here complaining about things that don’t exist. .and you people wonder why you are a national joke
ChrisVosburg August 22nd, 2014 at 12:32
It’s a little difficult to decipher your non-responsive gibberish, but if you are referring to the gun-walking programs conducted by the Arizona branch of the ATF and begun under the Bush administration, it has been the conclusion of every investigation of same that the programs were not authorized by President Obama or AG Holder, and neither of these guys were even aware of the program.
Again, what this has to do with my correction of your goofy read of the Maryland Firearms Safety Act is a complete mystery to me. Go home, you’re drunk.
William Carr August 28th, 2014 at 10:07
Bergdahl has not been convicted of Desertion.
He was a POW captured in time of War, and tortured.
Only the Right Wing crazies think you can accuse a Soldier of being a Deserter and that makes it true.
It’s disloyal to our troops; it would create a precedent of abandoning a POW, something we’ve never DONE.
But the Right Wing seize on any issue to use against Obama and politicize it without thinking about the implications.
William Carr August 28th, 2014 at 10:08
Actually, the Law would be administered by a Judge, who would decide if there was a clear and present danger, on a case-by-case basis.
Dan Hyatt August 22nd, 2014 at 09:20
Rule of law is what a republic is…but remember, rule of law is not mandating what the sheriff does. When the president refuses to follow the rule of law he is violating the oath of office because he is upsurping the authority of congress and the high court. Police officers and Sheriffs have NEVER been required to draconian enforcement of the law…
and remember the war crimes tribunal after WWII….it was decided that government officials have the responsibility to disobey an illegal order.
By the way, the president is not disobeying an order, he is upsurping the authority of congress when he refuses to enforce the law.
tj August 22nd, 2014 at 12:12
By the way, your “info” about POTUS is 100% bs rw propaganda
William Carr August 28th, 2014 at 10:02
You’re deluded.
The Three Branches of our Government have areas of overlapping Authority.
Congress can regulate Immigration by writing a law. (If they ever BOTHER to do so.)
The President can regulate Immigration by deciding how to prioritize where he will spend the limited money Congress has already authorized.
The Courts can regulate Immigration by deciding if the Law Congress passed and the policies the President follows are consistent with the Constitution.
It’s self-regulating.
But the Right Wing is spinning their view that a (Democratic) President has no authority to Administer the law.
It’s funny; when the President was Republican, they gave him MORE power, remember?
Warrantless Wiretaps, authority to use Torture, authority to use gun-walking (Fast and Furious).
It’s enough to make you believe Conservatives lie to gain political power…
Dan Hyatt August 22nd, 2014 at 09:20
Rule of law is what a republic is…but remember, rule of law is not mandating what the sheriff does. When the president refuses to follow the rule of law he is violating the oath of office because he is upsurping the authority of congress and the high court. Police officers and Sheriffs have NEVER been required to draconian enforcement of the law…
and remember the war crimes tribunal after WWII….it was decided that government officials have the responsibility to disobey an illegal order.
By the way, the president is not disobeying an order, he is upsurping the authority of congress when he refuses to enforce the law.
tj August 22nd, 2014 at 12:12
By the way, your “info” about POTUS is 100% bs rw propaganda
William Carr August 28th, 2014 at 10:02
You’re deluded.
The Three Branches of our Government have areas of overlapping Authority.
Congress can regulate Immigration by writing a law. (If they ever BOTHER to do so.)
The President can regulate Immigration by deciding how to prioritize where he will spend the limited money Congress has already authorized.
The Courts can regulate Immigration by deciding if the Law Congress passed and the policies the President follows are consistent with the Constitution.
It’s self-regulating.
But the Right Wing is spinning their view that a (Democratic) President has no authority to Administer the law.
It’s funny; when the President was Republican, they gave him MORE power, remember?
Warrantless Wiretaps, authority to use Torture, authority to use gun-walking (Fast and Furious).
It’s enough to make you believe Conservatives lie to gain political power…
grrace August 22nd, 2014 at 14:53
There are only so many ways to describe this “sheriff” as what he is… a nutcase. HE is certifiable & must be removed immediately.
grrace August 22nd, 2014 at 14:53
There are only so many ways to describe this “sheriff” as what he is… a nutcase. HE is certifiable & must be removed immediately.
cwazycajun August 22nd, 2014 at 15:59
so let me get this strait this jackass.. this law enforcement officer..Is willing to put not only his own life but the lives of his deputies and the public’s lives in danger by makeing sure as many people have as many guns as they can have ..under any circumstances well that makes absolutely no friggin sence..we see what happens when his officers go to a call and get shot down because of his skewed ideology
cwazycajun August 22nd, 2014 at 15:59
so let me get this strait this jackass.. this law enforcement officer..Is willing to put not only his own life but the lives of his deputies and the public’s lives in danger by makeing sure as many people have as many guns as they can have ..under any circumstances well that makes absolutely no friggin sence..we see what happens when his officers go to a call and get shot down because of his skewed ideology
William Carr August 28th, 2014 at 10:17
The Right Wing are Authoritarian in nature… and they’re so terribly frustrated that they don’t hold the Presidency that they’re doing an “end run”.
Basically, their Sheriffs are trying to seize Presidential power.
Maybe they can foresee the day when Conservatives have no power on the National Stage anymore, and are re-trenching.
These deluded Sheriffs are trying to Nullify laws they don’t like.
Which is ironic, because that’s the behavior the RW claims the President is guilty of.
Obama prioritized arresting potentially criminal undocumented immigrants and deporting them, and put the people brought to America as children and raised here at the end of the list.
As a consequence, Obama has deported two million illegals and the ICE holding cells are JAMMED.
But the RW needed something to complain about, so…
Now these “Sheriffs” are proposing to outright DEFY Federal Law.
If a law is passed saying private gun sales have to be registered at your local Sheriff’s office or at a registered gun dealer, the Sheriffs will just refuse to enforce the law.
And I’m sure they won’t understand why this is wrong.
William Carr August 28th, 2014 at 10:17
The Right Wing are Authoritarian in nature… and they’re so terribly frustrated that they don’t hold the Presidency that they’re doing an “end run”.
Basically, their Sheriffs are trying to seize Presidential power.
Maybe they can foresee the day when Conservatives have no power on the National Stage anymore, and are re-trenching.
These deluded Sheriffs are trying to Nullify laws they don’t like.
Which is ironic, because that’s the behavior the RW claims the President is guilty of.
Obama prioritized arresting potentially criminal undocumented immigrants and deporting them, and put the people brought to America as children and raised here at the end of the list.
As a consequence, Obama has deported two million illegals and the ICE holding cells are JAMMED.
But the RW needed something to complain about, so…
Now these “Sheriffs” are proposing to outright DEFY Federal Law.
If a law is passed saying private gun sales have to be registered at your local Sheriff’s office or at a registered gun dealer, the Sheriffs will just refuse to enforce the law.
And I’m sure they won’t understand why this is wrong.