The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 17, 2013, 09:47 AM   #1
Kframe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 1999
Location: MN
Posts: 556
Minnesota Sheriff Shows REAL Common Sense Re: 2A

A lot of the time we complain about elected officials overreaching their powers and trampling on the rights of citizens. So, it's really refreshing when one stands up, speaks his/her mind and actually makes sense, real honest to goodness common sense (not the "common sense" proposed by the Federal Government).

The following letter makes me proud to be a Minnesotan, and I'd love to move to Pine County.

Quote:
Press release
January 15th, 2013

An open letter to the citizens of Pine County:

As Sheriff of Pine County, it is important for residents to know my position as it relates to the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In the past week I have had several requests and one meeting on this matter.
Normally I attempt to remain neutral on matters of politics but this issue transcends political division and I feel it appropriate to state my position.

I believe that the right to keep and bear firearms is fundamental to our individual freedom and that firearms are a part of life in our county. The Federal Government has a constitutional role in the governance of our republic but the United States of America is a democratic republic of individual sovereign states.
Each state has the absolute right to establish laws, within the confines of the constitution which is the supreme law of this republic, to regulate behavior.

As Sheriff, I swore an oath to follow the Constitution of the United States and to enforce the laws of the State of Minnesota. I believe current state law is sufficient to protect the public safety while providing individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

If the State of Minnesota desires to change current law, then it must do so through the legitimate process of legislation. In my opinion it is a moral sin to erode freedom through obscure regulation and administrative rules. I believe this is also true for both State and Federal Government.

I do not believe the Federal Government or any individual in the Federal Government has the right to dictate to the states, counties or municipalities any mandate, regulation or administrative rule that violates the United States Constitution or it various amendments.
I would view any such mandate, regulation or administrative rule illegal and refuse to carry it out.

Robin K. Cole
Pine County Sheriff
____________________________________________________
Pine County Sheriff’s Office
635 Northridge Dr. NW, Ste.100 Pine City, MN 55063 320-629-8380
Drop them a line if you support this stance, I know I do!

(SOURCE)

Sheriff Cole was interviewed this morning (1/17/13) on the Davis & Emmer radio show on KTLK 1130 AM and the audio of this is available (or will be later today) on iTunes Podcasts.
__________________
RN - ICU
NRA - ENDOWMENT LIFE
Kframe is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 10:10 AM   #2
RedBowTies88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Location: 609 NJ
Posts: 705
I love this sheriff defiance! This is the 3rd I've seen.. other 2 being in oregon.
__________________
"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 21. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
RedBowTies88 is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 10:16 AM   #3
A pause for the COZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 2012
Location: Braham, Minnesota
Posts: 351
Me to Brother.
I am just south of Pine county in Chisago county.
I will have to find out what my Sheriff thinks on the matter.
A pause for the COZ is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 11:33 AM   #4
Kframe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 1999
Location: MN
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBowTies88
I love this sheriff defiance! This is the 3rd I've seen.. other 2 being in oregon.
Yep! And really, I interpret it more as restraint and adhering to the guidelines of his employment rather than a self-inflation of his own importance.
I would guess that he's probably pretty strict and pursues crimes to the fullest that are within his jurisdiction. Enforcement of Federal 'powers' is not in his job description and he is affirming that to his constituency.

Too often we see those in power extending their powers beyond their defined purview (SCOTUS creating law, CDC viewing guns in the same light as bacterium, Federal law evolving into criminal code, etc).

That last parenthetical reference is extremely damaging, I believe.
Originally, the Constitution and Federal law were a framework to prevent Federal powers from interfering with State sovereignty and individual freedoms, nothing more.
It was up to the States to develop criminal codes and prosecute offenders.
(At least, from what I remember from High School Am. History and Civics classes, but it's been awhile so I'm not 100% on that.)
__________________
RN - ICU
NRA - ENDOWMENT LIFE
Kframe is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 11:44 AM   #5
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,435
I have no problem with the CDC maintaining gun violence databases and studies. They do it with other crimes against persons as well. There are enough mental and "societal" health aspects they SHOULD study it.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 12:05 PM   #6
Kframe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 1999
Location: MN
Posts: 556
JimDandy, my problem with the CDC's involvement is that they are defining gun ownership as equivalent to carrying disease, they are intentional framing it in a light that says 'ooo, icky, guns are like germs, they kill people, ewwww'.

I have no problem if the CDC was only studying violence in general as that is a manifestation of sickness and mental instability, but they don't focus on an 'epidemic of rape' or 'an epidemic of domestic assault' but they do focus on an 'epidemic of gun violence'. It's a tainted stance.
__________________
RN - ICU
NRA - ENDOWMENT LIFE
Kframe is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 12:51 PM   #7
Progress
Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Location: WNY
Posts: 18
The problem is the funders of the cdc study are anti gun. The last time the cdc studied gun violence they found that a gun in the home is more likely to kill a member of the household than it was an intruder. Those kind of studies only further the anti gun contingency and should not be funded.
Progress is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 01:38 PM   #8
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,435
Actually they DO study domestic violence. When What's-his-name the KC Chief player snapped, I was able to point to statistics from their DV study in a debate. I also regularly point to the CDC studies. And find them less biased than the FBI, as the CDC calls it homicides, which theoretically include justifiable as well as criminal, while the FBI calls it murder.

As for more likely to kill a family member rather than an intruder, those studies SHOULD be funded, as long as they're scientific and reasonably unbiased/intellectually honest. And I wouldn't dispute that those likelihoods expressed are accurate. We are more likely to screw up than shoot an intruder. THat doesn't mean we shouldn't have them, just that we know we have to be careful and studies like that just reinforce the message.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 01:39 PM   #9
smokiniron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 10, 2012
Location: Utah
Posts: 232
Call the Sheriff

I called Sheriff Cole to verify the story and to thank him personally.

I'm encouraging my public officials to be a little more outspoken where they can. They are the tip of the legal sword, and their voices might go a long way in turning away those who would blur the line between constitutional rights and usurpation of the law.

- Smokiniron
__________________
"Figure Out What You Believe and STAND YOUR GROUND!"
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Lots of Cast Iron to Cook With...
and a few defensive firearms, too!
smokiniron is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 02:44 PM   #10
Progress
Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Location: WNY
Posts: 18
@JimDandy: Why would the NRA campaign (and successfully) to defund those studies?
Progress is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 02:49 PM   #11
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,435
Because it's not exactly glitter and glamour to point out people shoot themselves in the head while cleaning their firearms from time to time.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 03:30 PM   #12
btmj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 766
I think the CDC appropriations bill should contain language which prohibits them from studying any crime or social activity. The Center for Disease Control should focus on disease: physical ailments caused by virus, bacteria, parasite, insect/snake bite, food-borne toxins, genetic defects, etc.

Why in the world are they studing poverty, video games, rap music, firearms, and prison over-crowding. None of this has anything to do with disease.
btmj is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 03:44 PM   #13
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,574
Very commendable.

There is enough (what is the word? stupidity? idiocy? blindness to facts? I don't know) in my state that I really applaud this declaration.

Examples:
One of the daily papers in the Twin Cities is really left leaning.
They posted this despicable anti NRA article:
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/c...1.html?refer=y

There is a blog site run by someone in my state about gun violence that is so incredibly naive and judgemental I can't be bothered to read it any more and and will not mention it here because I don't want it to get any more attention. (Although I was initially informed about it here at TFL.)

Years ago when the concealed carry legislation came up several of my legislators passed around a bullet proof vest which they donned before they made their speeches about how the streets would run red with blood and vow they would NEVER enter a store that was NOT posted as a gun free zone. Sheesh!

Thanks for posting this.
DaleA is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 05:20 PM   #14
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Guys, it is not that an intruder is statistically likely to turn your gun on you, it's that suicide by gun has a very high percentage rate of effectiveness.

The majority survive gunfights. A very small minority survive a suicide attempt by gun.

Now, since hanging is the second most common form of suicide by American males, and poisoning is the most common form of suicide by American females, removing guns would probably not have much impact on actual suicide rates.

Until we get rope control, and barbiturate control, and razor blade control...
MLeake is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 05:21 PM   #15
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,091
So far, I've seen similar letters out of about three sherriffs.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 07:12 PM   #16
Magnum Mike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2007
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 334
I saw one from Missouri and Wyoming.
Magnum Mike is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11668 seconds with 9 queries