Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws
We need more sheriffs and other LEOs like this to speak out.
Denny Peyman didn’t watch President Barack Obama’s gun-control announcement Wednesday. But the Jackson County, Ky., sheriff said he already knows how the proposals will affect the way he does his job: not one whit.
Peyman is one of several sheriffs across the country who are vowing not to enforce new firearms restrictions that could be imposed by Congress or by executive order.
“Kentucky is a sovereign state,” Peyman told NBC News. “The federal government is coming in and saying, ‘This is what you’re going to do.’ We’re not going to do it.”
The White House’s wish list includes an assault-weapons ban. Peyman said if it comes to pass, he won’t be part of any crackdown.
“Let’s say I know there’s a thousand assault weapons in my county ... I’m not going to be a witch hunter and go door to door checking,” he said.“I just happen to see someone with one?” he added. “He’s hunting? He’s on his own property? I’m not going to do a thing to him.”
I wouldn’t suit up for some self-centered maniac who would leave a whole compound of Americans to be killed overseas. Or for someone who sent thousands of guns into Mexico in an attempt to create a crisis. Not to mention that it’s an unlawful order. For that matter, until Holder comes clean about Fast & Furious, the “justice department” should be de-funded, and they can be the morality police on their own time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 0721 hrs
Since the Obama administration only obeys the laws it likes, Why should anone else have to follow laws they don’t like?
Try leading by example.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 0733 hrs
A. So we now promote our law enforcement enforcing the laws that they want? Awesome. So when a sheriff says he will not enforce marijuana laws, will you all cheer as well?
B. Leading by example, for sure. But don’t we aspire to always be the best we can be regardless of how the people around us behave?
C. The minute this sheriff lets a law breaking citizen pass, he should immediately be fired. It is not his job to pick what laws he enforces, it is his job to enforce all the laws. Whether he likes them or not. Republicans always complain about “activist” judges, is this NOT the same thing?
Ahhh, I get it. It is ok when it is something you agree with. Otherwise, “Burn them at the stake!”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 0838 hrs
That is exactly what I am saying.
Consitution says we need a budget every year.
3 years no budget- Fire them
Illegal imigrants should be procecuted and deported.
Obama says were not going to do that - fire himPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 0943 hrs
So when a sheriff says he will not enforce marijuana laws, will you all cheer as well?
Don’t know about anyone else, but I sure did.
Something important to keep in mind is that a sheriff is the only law enforcement official that is directly elected by the community. When that particular badge says that only such-and-such law will be enforced, it is a pretty safe bet that is exactly how the folks in the county want it. It don’t mean it is always right or proper, but it most likely is the will o’ the people in the area.
All that said, saying that your department ain’t going to enforce any new laws/regulations from the Federal Gov’t isn’t quite the same as saying a specific law isn’t going to be enforced. The We’re a sovereign state line kinda makes it into a different kind of thing, no?Posted by purplepenquin on January 17, 2013 at 0946 hrs
Here’s the KY oath of office, FYI. I particularly like the part about dueling:
The following oath is administered to Kentucky Secretaries of State:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of Secretary of State according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 1034 hrs
Here’s the KY oath of office, FYI. I particularly like the part about dueling…
I liked it too, but I’m not sure what your point is.
So we now promote our law enforcement enforcing the laws that they want? Awesome.
Silly argument. Selective enforcement has existed since the first law was written. How many 1-over speeding tickets have you received?
I think the federal government has been exponentially increasing its power over the last 75+ years. And it’s not exclusively coming from the left. Maybe states should start asserting their rights more often.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 1126 hrs
Any Law Enforcement learning the lessons of not enforcing the edicts of 1930’s style German socialists is just a great American.
I wish I had this kind of courage to stand up to socialist tyranny.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 1129 hrs
I’ll defer to George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion. on these types of issues.
Well just assemble 13,000 soldiers outs side this sheriffs office and make sure he DOES enforce laws he doesn’t like.
I assume you all beleive in our first Presidents judgement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 1241 hrs
Why so defensive, cynical? I provided the KY constitutional officer oath of office as a way to bring more facts/information to this discussion. If people want to say he’s violating his oath or shirking his duties or whatever, people should at least know what his oath/duties are.
Does everything have to be an argument?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 1324 hrs
If this Sheriff loses his job, Sidwell Friends School is looking for armed guards:http://www.sidwell.edu/news/article/index.aspx?linkid=32603&moduleid=379
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 1432 hrs
Be my guest Mark Maley. Washington’s actions failed to enforce the law, resulted in the repeal of the acts in question, helped cause the the formation and rise of an oppostion party and ultimately resulted in the expulsion from power of the Federalist party that supported Washington’s policies.
I assume you believe in the public’s judgement on the matter.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 1437 hrs
Those 13,000 Soldiers know that their current leader would leave them to die waiting for help to arrive, and then lie about it, if it would save him from some political downfall. George Washington inspired a bit more loyalty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 1444 hrs
We read different history books BVB.
Those farmers had fought against the British and were not about to support another confiscatory government. Until they did
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 1446 hrs
No they didn’t, Mark Maley. They didn’t pay the taxes, went back in the woods and voted the confiscatory Federalists out of power forever and overturned the taxes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 1455 hrs
Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between sedition and hot air.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 1639 hrs
Mark,
Why don’t we start with Obama? He has not submitted a budget to Congress in HUNDREDS of days, which is breaking the law.
Obama is unrepentent.
You are essentially calling for revolt against Obama with your comment.
Or is it OK for Obama to break a much more important law?
This LEO is just taking his cues from Obama…is that a bad thing now?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 1740 hrs
Why so defensive, cynical?
Defensive? So, I post that I don’t get your point and that’s being defensive? Maybe you deduced a tone that wasn’t there, because I didn’t (and still don’t) understand why you posted the KY secretary of state oath of office.
But, frankly, aside from the dueling part (which I really do find amusing), it was pretty much garden-variety, don’t you think?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 2135 hrs
If they did so, they really needed better publicists.
This is the moment when the new government asserted itself against the folks who felt they could nullify the laws they didn’t like.
I find nothing to back up your comment, other than your comments.
( and since Adams followed Washington’s 2 terms with one of his own and this event occurred early in Washigton’s First term , it hardly true that they went back and voted the Federalists out.And they paid the taxes. They did pay the taxes.
Kev, I’m clueless as to why Potus hasn’t proposed a budget. I’d o know that passing budgets in one house of congress that has absolutely no chance of being enacted in the other strikes most folks as a waste of time.
There is no compromise on either side . So the lack of a budget may be illegal but the lack of any.bipartisanship on either side is criminal .
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 2300 hrs
Washington sent troops midway through his second term, Mark Maley. Adams was a one termer and the Federalists were lost to history.
No, they didn’t pay the taxes and then they had them revoked.
By all means feel free to repeat the course of action.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 2319 hrs
Nice Dodge Mark.
So you let Obama break the law, but you suggest a citizen militia be raised to force this LEO to enforce the law?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 0746 hrs
VAP, I appreciated the info provided. While I too thought the duelling portion amusing, the part I thought most interesting was the first line. I believe POTUS has a similar line. The deputy in not the Sec of State, but if the first line of his oath of office is to uphold the constitution, I don’t have a problem with his statement. The 2nd amendment has been under siege since the inception of the constitution by power seekers on one side and pacifistic elements on the other and has passed all tests. For a President to make an order bypassing it(and the other branches of Gov’t) in any way is clearly breaking that vow. Who do you support, the vow breaker or the vow keeper? If your decision is based on your party affiliation or your personal emotions, I think you are likely making the wrong decision or even the correct decision for the wrong reasons.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 0924 hrs
Mark Maley and BVBig Bro, I was just looking up the whiskey rebellion usually recognized as centering in Western Pennsylvania to satisfy my curiosity and one line made me laugh:
The whiskey tax went uncollected throughout the frontier state of Kentucky, where no one could be convinced to enforce the law or prosecute evaders.
A little deja vu anyone?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2013 at 1059 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 54
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/22/2013 06:06 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).