Utah’s Sheriffs, gun defenders or political opportunists?

There’s a statement from the Utah Sheriff’s Association  going around Facebook and the web, a copy of similar statements making the national rounds, to the effect that elected sheriff’s don’t like the idea of President Obama taking their guns and will die stopping him from trying.

Obama has made no such effort, nor is he stupid enough to try. Even so, this missive accuses him of issuing “Executive Orders” to silence debate (which were not all orders and, obviously, haven’t silenced anything) and implies heavily that obama will send his goons to take everyone’s favorite gun.

Key section:  “No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights—in particular Amendment II—has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”

There’s a couple of ways to look at this:

– Who says these guys are competent to interpret the Constitution? Obviously, they know very little about it.

This talks about “traditional” interpretation, but anyone with five minutes can dig up enough legal cases on interpretation of the Constitution to fill a bus. The Constitution hasn’t had a “traditional” interpretation since Marbury Vs. Madison, and never will, nor any single part of it. Yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment.

So the idea of Sheriffs in Utah deciding what’s Constitutional is laughable.

– Second, in the impossible event that “federal” officials are going to come to Utah and do unconstitutional deeds, who do you think the feds are going to send?

There are several million guns just in Utah, in hundreds of thousands of households. A roundup like that would overwhelm the US Marshall’s Sherice and require the feds to deputize every federal employee in Utah.

That is, unless your paranoid fantasies extend to the idea that this is all a UN plot in which case I guess that division of UN Peacekeeping troops from Bangladesh hiding in Canada will be moving in.

What’s sad is what this statement really is: An attempt by the Sheriff’s Association to make political hay out of tragedy.

They know that looking tough against the big bad federal government — Utah’s largest employer, by the way — is a way to get votes. So they’re using  the deaths of a bunch of children in Connecticut to set up a big straw man — gun seizures — and then staunchly defend us against that.

Saying citizens must be armed is a tasit admission that they’re aren’t doing a very good job of keeping us safe. Maybe they should spend less time pondering the Constitution, and more time chasing crooks.

Share
This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Utah’s Sheriffs, gun defenders or political opportunists?

  1. Paula Stewart says:

    Thank you!

  2. Dallas Stone says:

    Charles, I was hoping someone would address this issue and you did a terrific job. I was embarrassed by the position the Utah Sheriff’s Association took, but worse, it made me lose faith in an organization that I would never have guessed would have stooped this low.

    • Artcore says:

      Dallas Stone said:

      “I was embarrassed by the position the Utah Sheriff’s Association took, but worse, it made me lose faith in an organization that I would never have guessed would have stooped this low.”

      So Dallas, would this be as low as the Obama Administrations role in Fast and Furious? You know, American weapons being sent over to Mexico through the ATF. That had Holder’s Justice Department’s finger prints all over it. Holder said he didn’t know about it, but e-mails indicate he did. Just in case you didn’t know, the Justice Department falls under the Executive Branch.

      My guess is, you could care less about Fast and Furious because it involves your Dear Leader. Funny how all you progressives seem to have amnesia on that issue. ;-)

  3. ctrentelman says:

    salt lake county sheriff Jim Winder has just issued the following statement.

    Note his comments of support but, also, his finding that there is nothing in anything President Obama has done that matches what the Sheriff’s Association fears and he sees nothing at all, at any time, to support the fear that someone’s guns will be taken away.

    In short, the Sheriffs’ Association is simply wrong and blowing smoke. Thanks, Sheriff Winder. One calm voice. Give your opposite number in Weber County a call and explain it to him, will ya:

    Copied from his facebook site
    Salt Lake County Sheriff Jim Winder

    Recently the Utah Sheriff’s Association prepared a preemptive message to President Obama stating their position on the current debate and presidential proposals concerning gun laws in the United States. The Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office is not currently a member of the Utah Sheriff’s Association and therefore, was not a signatory of the letter. This has raised a lot of questions from the citizens of Salt Lake County as to why I did not sign the letter and asking what my position is in regards to the issue. This is a statement of the Sheriff’s Office and the Unified Police Departments (UPD) position on this very complex and important issue:

    While not a member of the Utah Sheriff’s Association, Sheriff Winder supports the majority of the intent of the letter. However, after a review of the proposals suggested by the Obama Administration, we agree with the association president that currently there is nothing proposed that we object to and we can find no reason to believe that there would ever be a situation where federal officers would be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them their rights. We are confident in the process that Congress and the courts will continue to protect our rights as established.

    Sheriff Winder, the members of the Sheriff’s Office and UPD fully support, obey and defend the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Utah. We are a country of laws and order, guided by long established government processes that are meant to ensure and protect our freedoms, including the right to bear arms. We have taken an oath to obey those laws and will do so. The constitutionality of all laws is determined by independent evaluation and scrutiny by the judicial branch of government. Once that has been done and a law has been determined to be constitutional, every law enforcement officer has the duty to enforce it. The determination of whether or not a law is constitutional is not left up to any one person or group or collective group. If it were we would cease being a nation of freedoms.

    Sheriff James M. Winder, the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office and Unified Police Department fully supports the Second Amendment as established by the Constitution as well as every other Amendment provided by it and will defend those rights of the citizens of Salt Lake County.

    • Artcore says:

      Hey Charles,

      Why not put forth the same effort in addressing the Obama Adminstration’s role (via Eric Holder and his Justice Department) in Fast and Furious? (….Crickets).

      • scoder says:

        You mean the program that was started under the Bush Administration?

        • hawg says:

          just like iraq and afghanistan, obama liked bush’s idea so well he re-instated it (after bush cancelled it), gave it a new name and DIDN’T put trackers in this time. that program?

    • hawg says:

      “The Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office is not currently a member of the Utah Sheriff’s Association”

      you know, just for the sake of complete and objective journelism, you should maybe ask Winder why not?

      • ctrentelman says:

        howg … the very minute you are my editor and can issue directives based on what you think constitutes fair and objective journalism you can tell me to do that.

        until then, your recommendation is noted and logged.

        • hawg says:

          I wasn’t “telling” you to do anything. (that would be like herding cats)

          I was just wondering aloud if a real investigative, cover all bases, get to the bottom of it, type of journalist would maybe “see” that all on his own. my mistake i guess, sorry.

  4. TigerToz67 says:

    When I voted to elect a sheriff, I voted for the man I thought would best uphold the law. When I voted for the president, I expected him (if needed) to make a nomination which Congress would vet for a Supreme Court justice who MIGHT interpret the law. This seems more like some guy saying “I can’t get no respect these days.” these days. I would be much more comfortable if they would do an internal review of how they conduct searches and arrests during the night than try to interpret which law they will enforce. They were never elected for this position. Just sayin’

  5. Bob Becker says:

    Good column, Charlie.

  6. mohokat says:

    Who says these guys are competent to interpret the Constitution? Obviously, they know very little about it.

    And we are to assume that you know and also competent to interpret it. Charlie the omnipotent wizard at least according to you.

    I call them Patriots.

  7. Tom says:

    Great article Mr. “T” – thanks.

    Interesting that the bozo’s who are behind this BS to begin with are “Sheriffs” who of course are elected politicians. I think you got it right that this is nothing but a straw man argument these morally bankrupt politicians are setting up so that they can appear to be hero’s by knocking it down.

  8. Terry Thompson says:

    Mr. Trentelman,

    I have become accustomed to your personal attacks on me and relegate them to where they belong. I realize that I am your home town target and that makes me subject to your continual attempt at making a living at the expense of others. However, when you choose to demonize and degrade other Utah Sheriffs I will draw the line on your disrespectful treatment of exceptional law enforcement leaders.

    At no point does our letter insinuate that the executive orders issued by President Obama are unconstitutional. Moreover, it should be noted that state peace officers are under no obligation to enforce presidential executive orders—those are directed to executive officials under the president’s direct command. It should also be noted that the United States Supreme Court (USSC) has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. All we did was affirm our duty to protect the Constitution. It just so happens that our position is consistent with the Court’s recent rulings on the Second Amendment. We are not suggesting that we have the authority to supplant the USSC as the supreme arbiter of constitutional authority; you will find nothing in our spitefully-criticized letter that even comes close to this.

    The letter is intended to be nothing more than an affirmation of our duties as constitutional officers. All branches swear (or affirm) an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. If any branch of government runs afoul of the Constitution, it is incumbent upon the other branches to bring it back into line. What you are suggesting is that the executive branch has no authority to challenge the other branches of American government; and it is somehow subservient to the others. Not so. That is the genius of the system of government we have. Although the USSC is the supreme arbiter of the Constitution, it can also be checked by the other branches if it becomes corrupt (we are not suggesting it is currently corrupt). However, the USSC has made some exceptionally unconstitutional rulings in its past (Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson). Thankfully, in Brown v. Board of Education the USSC reversed itself.

    If executive branch officials are supposed to be nothing more than order takers, then Bull Connor (Birmingham Alabama’s public safety commissioner during the Civil Rights Era) and his ilk were justified in depriving African Americans of their constitutional right to fully integrate into society. If you will recall, cities and states in the Deep South had laws on the books excluding racial integration (in opposition of Brown v Board of Education). I wonder how different the Civil Rights Era would have been if sheriffs in the Deep South would have told legislative branch officials in their respective states, counties and cities that they would not enforce unconstitutional laws against African American citizens. If the executive branch does nothing more than carryout orders given to it from the other branches of government, and it has no responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of the laws it enforces, then why were executive branch officials in Nazi Germany prosecuted under American and British jurisprudence at Nuremberg? Prosecutors correctly held the executive branch of Nazi Germany responsible for the unconstitutional laws it enforced against its own people and others. The defense that unconstitutional laws justified their actions was not upheld. Under American governmental theory, all branches of government have a duty to interpret the Constitution.

    You should be applauding the sheriffs of Utah for our sophisticated understanding of the Constitution, not castigating and demonizing us. Perhaps you would have the executive branch relegated to a backseat on the bus – that is your prerogative.

    As long as I hold public office, I will keep my oath.

    Sheriff Terry L. Thompson
    Weber County Sheriff

    • Dovie says:

      Ummm – Isn’t Obama commander in chief of the executive branch? If not, who do you think you answer to? I am pretty sure they sent in Natl Guard and Army folks in the deep south because local sheriffs didn’t do what they were supposed to. Most were wearing white sheets and polishing their guns and crosses. I can see an analogy there.

      • laytonian says:

        You are right, Dovie.

        It’s absolutely shocking that the Sheriff doesn’t even know our country’s civil rights history.

      • Decider says:

        Yes, yes, yes ! Right on Dovie !
        Citizens in this State do not need ANOTHER “Sheriff Joe” self-serving martinette.

      • Artcore says:

        Dovie said:

        “Ummm – Isn’t Obama commander in chief of the executive branch?”

        No Dovie, the President is Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces. You know…the military?

    • Joey says:

      “The letter is intended to be nothing more than an affirmation of our duties as constitutional officers.”

      Now sheriff, I’d like to watch you try to say that three times with a straight face.

    • Wendy Garcia says:

      Wondered how long it would take until someone brought up Nazis. GODWIN! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

      It is neither “demonizing, denigrating, nor disrespectful” for a person to raise their voice and question their elected leaders. It is the American way. I share the concerns raised in this post, and also feel this was an attempt to pander to people who are stirring up fears to gain political power. I believe Sheriff Winder has the correct approach, and I don’t think the jack booted thugs are on their way to come get our guns. Remember, those men and women are Americans too. They also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.

    • Hoser says:

      “It should also be noted that the United States Supreme Court (USSC) has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.”
      This is a strawman. A bogus argument because there is no proposal to ban guns.

    • laytonian says:

      Sheriff Thompson -
      Thank you for coming here … but you still don’t get it.

      First, President Obama did NOT sign Executive Orders; he issued 23 memorandums to various agencies, most of which contain things that any sensible citizen would deem fair.

      Second, it’s not USSC. It’s SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States).

      Hitler and the Third Reich? Sheriff Thompson has self-deported himself from the internet via invoke Godwin’s Law — but before he leaves, PERHAPS HE CAN TELL US WHICH OF THESE 23 HE HAS A PROBLEM WITH. Everything else he’s complaining about, are actions that Congress must take if they becomelaw. You’d think a self-described Constitution expert would know that.

      Here is the condensed list of “23 memorandums” (not “executive orders”) signed by President Obama.

      These are already within the responsibility of federal agencies, but many have not been funded due to political pressure. If you agree that these are perfectly reasonable actions to take, please share on your timeline.

      1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

      2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

      3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

      4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

      5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

      6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

      7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

      8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

      9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

      10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

      11. Nominate an ATF director.

      12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

      13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

      14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

      15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies

      16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

      17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

      18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

      19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

      20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

      21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

      22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

      23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

      • Artcore says:

        laytonian said:

        “First, President Obama did NOT sign Executive Orders; he issued 23 memorandums to various agencies, most of which contain things that any sensible citizen would deem fair.”

        Hmmm, perhaps Salon.com and other Leftist outlets didn’t get the memo about these “23 memorandums.” They’re all calling them Executive Orders.

        Not only do these violate the Second Amendment, but what about the transparency our Dear Leader promised us during his first Campaign in 2008? I thought all great stuff like this was supposed to be posted on Whitehouse.gov, or some other public place for all to see? Everything Obama says has an experation date.

        • scoder says:

          List the ways these violate the Second Amendment. List just one. Seems to me you don’t have any idea what is in the Constitution. Where is you law degree from? Where did you teach Constitutional Law? Oh, you don’t have one and never taught the subject. Are you even a High School grad?

    • Terry, You need to take a Breath. No Orders have been given by the President. No one is coming to take away guns. If there is a ban on Weapons that are not safe for the general public, I as a citizen would expect you as an elected official to not only support the law but to enforce the law that we were elected to enforce.

    • Lasvegasrichard says:

      You seem to be under the illusion that you are final arbiter of all 3 branches of government . Under your interpretation , South Carolina was justified in breaking free of the union , or more locally , that the federal branch had no say so in cases of polygamy , because the states rights were superior to federal law . In a smaller microcosm , it seems nothing can influence your determination to be judge, jury , and executioner.

    • willbike says:

      This isn’t Mr. Thompson first time having trouble with the constitution.

      http://www.standard.net/topics/featured/2011/01/12/sheriff-god-approves-capital-punishment

  9. Fodus says:

    “So they’re using the deaths of a bunch of children in Connecticut to set up a big straw man”

    Obama and his administration are doing the very same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum yet I don’t here you “rambling” about that.

    • ctrentelman says:

      President obama used children because he was trying to demonstrate — pay attention here — that it is bad to shoot children.

      Politicians have been doing that for eons. That is not what the sheriffs here are doing. I freely acknowledge they think shooting children is bad, but I don’t see them offering ways to cut down on that.

      • Wendy Garcia says:

        GWB used children at the signing of No Child Left Behind to demonstrate it’s important to educate our children. I didn’t see anyone complaining that the children couldn’t possibly understand what was going on then.

      • Fodus says:

        Mr. Trentelman,

        What I was speaking of is Obama’s politicizing of the tragedy. Just as you state the Utah Sheriff’s are doing with their letter.

        Your “pay attention here” comment was immature, rude, and patronizing. Prior to your response I always felt you had a certain level of professionalism and I have read, and enjoyed the greater majority of your articles since moving to the United States in 1997. So much in fact that I would skip to yours, along with others, before reading the entire paper.

        However, since you feel the need to resort to patronizing your readers, as you did here, and with what I see as so little reason to do so, I am forced to see you in a much different light and I am finding you to be remarkably uncouth.

        Please help me understand. I am hoping that there is some reason you can put out there and that it’s not that you’re just a bitter man who feels the need to turn things personal in comment sections rather than just putting out your point.

        If not then you have just lost a reader of 16 years. I would hope that means something but if not I guess after reading your response I shouldn’t be surprised.

        • Fodus says:

          Correction.

          The line, “However, since you feel the need to resort to patronizing your readers” should read,

          “However, since you felt the need to resort to patronizing one of your readers”

          • Charles Trentelman says:

            people who think what the NRA did regarding children, and what obama did, are somehow equivalent are, sorry, not very bright and need things explained to them slowly and carefully.

            If that includes you, well, if the shoe fits …

          • Fodus says:

            You’ve confused me….. (according to you, not hard to do) NRA? I thought we were speaking about the letter the Utah Sheriff’s Association wrote to Obama, and the article you wrote in response to it. I just re-read both, and my previous comments. I see nothing regarding the National Rifle Association in either.
            My comment was regarding your statement that the Utah Sheriff’s were politicizing the tragedy.

            “An attempt by the Sheriff’s Association to make political hay out of tragedy”

            I stated that the Obama administration was doing the same thing and you did not mention that once.

            Please clarify, “slowly and carefully” for this simple minded individual, why you mentioned the NRA in your response.

            I’m feeling a bit like Cinderella’s step-sisters. That dang shoe just won’t fit.

  10. Ben Pales says:

    Responding to Sherriff Thompson’s comments, let’s examine the Sherriff’s comments from the Standard Examiner from January 19th. Quoted from the story: “Terry Thompson said if a federal law is passed requiring law enforcement to go door-to-door looking for certain types of guns, that’s when we’ve crossed the line.”

    Mr. Thompson knows that no one, and I mean no one, has stated, or even floated the idea that someone would go door-to-door to collect guns. So why then would Thompson state this to a media outlet? Obviously to take advantage and feed off of the uninformed publics unreasonable fears that the big bad Federal Gubbment is cummin to Utah to take our guns! Mr. Thompson you insult the majority of the publics intelligence with your less than reasoned quotes. You obviously would like the majority of us to think, “Thank God that our Sherriff is here to protect us from that Socialist in the White House.” I for one though, have a much different thought process when it comes to you and your ridiculous statements.

    • Ed Brady says:

      Although I currently live in a state with more rednecks that the law (possibly) allows, I haven’t heard ANYTHING like the crap spouted by the sheriff. What malarkey!

  11. Ben Pales says:

    You are spot on Dovie, much more so than our convaluted Sherriff!

  12. Hoser says:

    Wow! Did my county sheriff just lower himself to the “Hitler did it too” level.
    Now that’s VERY DISTURBING. Is my sheriff listening to David Barton pseudo history.
    Will I now look forward to be pulled over on a regular basses? ( thanx to the patriot act the sheriff can find out exactly who I am and make me a target).
    http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf
    The Hitler gun control argument is B.S. Hitler was a dog lover, should I start comparing the weber county canine unit to Brown Shirts?

  13. Hoser says:

    After all they do work with “GERMAN” shephards.

  14. ctrentelman says:

    just a couple of points — which i also posted on the sheriff’s facebook page — and then i’ll send this discussion where it belongs, as sheriff thompson so elegantly puts it.

    I am glad to see we agree on so many points. He says the president’s “orders” did not violate the constitution, and I said the 23 “no they weren’t orders, just bureaucratic directions (read them)” are not only not unconstitutional but have failed, as the letter very clearly states they have, to stifle discussion.

    I said the Utah Sheriffs are not the final arbiters of the constitution, especially on the 2nd amendment. You say that as well. What the original letter means when it talks about a sheriff’s upholding the “traditional” interpretation of the 2nd amendment means, I have no clue since, as you clearly know, it has been before the court and interpreted many ways over the years. The current interpretation, by SCOTUS, is that some regulation is allowed and in light of current events I see no reason why we can’t discuss reasonable limits that protect gun owners, police and the public.

    Cop killer bullets, for example. Can we at least agree those should be limited or banned?

    We also agree that President Obama has not said, nor implied, nor hinted, that he intends to seize anyone’s guns so it will not be necessary, as the original letter says, for Utah Sheriff’s to lay down their lives opposing that action. You will be glad to know I’m happy about that. The feds have you seriously outgunned, and I hate covering funerals.

    So what are we fighting about, one wonders?

    No clue, just as I have no clue why the combined Sheriff’s of Utah felt a need to proclaim their support of the Constitution, which I always assumed and which support I share, since apparently Weber C Sheriff Thompson disagrees with the political reason I speculated on in my blog. I fully support that declaration, even as I wonder, “why now?”

    Have a nice day Sheriff, and be careful out there. Ice storm coming.

    • hawg says:

      “Cop killer bullets, for example. Can we at least agree those should be limited or banned? ”

      limited or banned?? I would like to see you even produce one. just one. where do you get them? who markets these things?
      every deer size caliber will defeat soft body armor. ban them too? you must be hanging out with bob wadman.

      • hawg says:

        say charles, there is a big gun show in salt lake this weekend (I think) I’m sure they’ll have tables of these non-existent bullets. or is this also a straw man thing to you?

  15. Roberta Beverly says:

    I’m afraid a reasoned approach to this whole ‘gun’ thing is never going to prevail. It seems that it is some much more fun? to rant like a lunatic. That’s what gets the attention. Thank you for insisting on reason, Charlie. It is so much easier to read than a rant. Rant’s make me crazy and want to go on a….well, a rant.

  16. hawg says:

    “Saying citizens must be armed is a tasit admission that they’re aren’t doing a very good job of keeping us safe.”

    X number of officers on duty at any given time, x number of citizens demanding safety and protection. do you really think they can always get there in time?
    it is not an admission they are not doing a good job, it’s a realization that they simply may not be available. then what charles? what are YOU prepared to do?

  17. MartyMcFly4 says:

    You had my support somewhat until the last section: “What’s sad is what this statement really is: An attempt by the Sheriff’s Association to make political hay out of tragedy.

    They know that looking tough against the big bad federal government — Utah’s largest employer, by the way — is a way to get votes. So they’re using the deaths of a bunch of children in Connecticut to set up a big straw man — gun seizures — and then staunchly defend us against that.”

    Obama and the Dems are doing the same thing. Anyone with any credibility understands that both sides are just doing what is going to give them political points. I’m not saying that both sides don’t think this was a terrible tragedy, just that both sides also know that none of these proposals will really make a difference. They just want people to vote for them so they’ll all do whatever it takes to get re-elected. For anyone who thinks the politicians are doing this to actually make the country safer, I have a bridge……

  18. sandy says:

    I am with the sheriffs. Could it be that they may know something that you don’t? Maybe one of you naive wimps should run for sheriff next time an opportunity arises.

  19. L Kelly says:

    You people are absolutely nuts. Charlie and the wankers…
    You all sit and wait to see what Charlie spouts then line up to lather on the platitudes….Good column Charlie…..Spot on buddy boy….finally, someone said it, way to go Charles……
    Wow, then you all meet at the water cooler at the Standard and laugh.
    Let’s all meet at the Golden Corral saturday morning and gin up some union stooges to enforce our enlightened agenda.

  20. new right says:

    the statement by the sheriffs show true ignorance stupidity nothing obama signed said the 2nd amendement is under attack it show the deficancy of the schools these sherriffs attended they certainly do not understand how the government works. It bring nothing but embarassement to this state/

  21. labman57 says:

    Last time I checked, we had a Judicial Branch which is tasked with the responsibility of determining whether or not specific Executive Orders or pieces of federal legislation were unconstitutional. When law enforcement officials decide to select which laws to enforce or ignore — or worse, encourage citizens to take up arms against the federal government, then they have crossed the line and have dishonored their job title.

    Making fear-mongering, factually-inaccurate, hyperbolic public comments about “the government coming to take away your guns” will only serve to incite violence.

    Once again, self-righteous conservative politicians and pundits indignantly thump their chests, encourage their followers to take the law into their own hands, and angrily chomp at the bit over another opportunity to be on the wrong side of history.

    • hawg says:

      “Making fear-mongering, factually-inaccurate, hyperbolic public comments about “the government coming to take away your guns” will only serve to incite violence.”

      maybe you should talk to senator diane feinstein about that. what was that she said? “if I could have gotten 51 votes I would have done it. mr and mrs america turn them all in.” (paraphrase)

      can’t imagine how anyone would think the federal government might want to take guns away, can you?

  22. ZEN WORDSMITH says:

    Never owned a gun, most likely never will at this juncture.
    I have, akin to the [anti-nephite/levites] {BOM}
    “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” opted to “bury those weapons of war”. “Those who live “untrained by the gun”, will die by the gun.
    In latter days, my [Microsoft] or [Unison] softlead #2 pencil, can/may instigate the experience needed to “hold-back” any [Army].
    This without first, bluntly, “poking there eyes out” first.
    Great OP/ED [Charlie], One literary “Son of a Gun!”
    Regards from a “Dispositional-Utahson”.

    • Artcore says:

      Funny you Progressives–who care oh so deeply about gun violence–never like to discuss Fast and Furious, and our Dear Leader’s role (ATF and DOJ) in this fiasco. You remember, this is where over 300 Mexicans, and US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, and ICE agent Jaime Zapata were killed with guns sent over to Mexico through ATF and the DOJ?

      Good for these Sherriffs. They, like a lot of other Americans, have come to understnd that everything our Dear Leader says has an expiration date.

      Obama lied about tax increases being only for the wealthy, he lied about the provisions in ObamaCare, and he’s almost certainly lying about his intentions with our guns and our Second Amendment rights under the Constitution. Let’s be honest, this has nothing to do with gun safety, but everything to do with not letting a crisis go to waste.

  23. Artcore says:

    I put this link in the wrong area of my earlier post (accidentally put in the “website” area).

    This is a link listing other Sheriff’s Departments across the US who will also affirm their duty to uphold the Constitution with respect to Americans Rights under the Second Amendment. Looks like Sheriff Terry L. Thompson is in good company! Good for you Sherriff!

    http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/

  24. ctrentelman says:

    if we were talking about that, we might.

    do you and hawg have straw man building clinics on a regular basis? Really, you guys seem to spend a lot of time coming up with things other folks should have done, usually unconnected to the issue at hand, then criticizing them for not doing it.

    • hawg says:

      charles, we’re just asking clarifications to things “you” brought up. we didn’t know your editor has to “tell” you to do a complete job. wouldn’t have guessed

  25. Decider says:

    Waaaaaaaaaaaaa! and
    Booooooo hoooooooo! and
    I am offended!

  26. Libertarian says:

    Charles, you say it is paranoid to think someone in government will come to our homes and take our freedom. Obama wants to ban assault riffles and large magazines. Many utah residents own these weapons. If they are banned, who is going to enforce the ban? If no one in government is comming to our neighborhoods to collect the weapons, what is the point of the law? Laws have no meaning without enforcement.
    Of course Obama understands this simple idea. Therefore, he must have a strategy in mind to collect the weapons. I think the sherrifs are simply saying that they will not be the ones to collect the weapons.
    Many bloggers have pointed out corruption with Bush, Obama, Holder, Sherrifs in utah, etc. Do you want these figures to have the control that comes with an unarmed population. Without assault riffles and large magazines, the government knows they are up against a population that has small magazine pistols and hunting riffles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>