34300055001_4173572112001_4173562201001-vs

Reader Aaron writes:

Until recently I had no idea that sheriffs could serve as a buffer between overreaching statism and the humble citizenry. So when fine folks like Tim Howard (above) of Erie County in upstate New York show up at rallies promising to not enforce the SAFE Act, it puts a smile on my face. But it has me worrying, too . . .


For all the crowing about the SAFE Act, I have yet to hear them saying anything about New York’s non-expiring assault weapon ban. And no mention of the equally outrageous and un-Constitutional Sullivan laws.

I hear a lot of confusion and conflation, both in person and online, from fellow New York residents about the legacy laws and the SAFE Act. And I fear that this could get them in trouble when they put their sheriffs’ forbearance to the test.

It also worries me when people rely on a promise to selectively enforce a law that is on the books. As I understand it, any peace officer is sworn to uphold them all no matter how reasonable or ludicrous they may be. What happens when a statement of intent to personally nullify any law collides with that obligation?

What if there is someone the sheriff personally dislikes or has an issue with who is in technical violation of the SAFE Act? They now have leverage over that person despite their public promise to leave violators alone.

I don’t mean to impugn Sheriff Howard or other LEOs who support the Constitution. But I do worry about gun owners (especially in New York state) who take all of this literally and throw caution to the wind. You?

92 Responses to Question of the Day: Do You Trust Your Local Sheriff?

  1. Fortunately I don’t live in that shit hole, so I don’t have to worry about that crap. OTOH, you can think of moving to FL where the reduction in taxes you pay reduces dramatically and where the 2A is alive and well. 😀

    • There are parts of this country (Florida among them) where the 2A is alive, but there aren’t any where it’s both alive and well. We’ve accepted so many infringements and compromises over the last hundred years or so that the best you can say, in even the most pro-gun states, is that the Second Amendment, as written, is in “serious but stable” condition.

      It’s a testament to how far we’ve fallen from the “shall not be infringed” ideal that places with licensed concealed carry, background checks, and limitations on where licensed carriers can actually exercise their rights are held up as gun rights utopias.

      • Unless we are willing to fight over it (yea i’m going there). Then we have no choice but to swallow their garbage as presented. To be honest, we don’t have the votes to overcome them (not on any level in some states), and likely never will. Quite simply – people don’t like freedom. They want to be told what they can do, how much tax they can pay, and smile as their government with overflowing benevolence takes care of them for the sake of welfare and safety. They just keep shopping… and say “yes” to government services they don’t need. When a person or some people get out of line – the all knowing mother (gov) will nanny us children back in line with laws limiting our freedoms and elevating our taxes – and the people will love them for it.

        • You’re exactly right. The basic problem with the American system of government is that our founders mistook their own desire for liberty and independence as a universal human trait. The sad fact is, those who value such things are very much in the minority, so it’s really inevitable that we’ve ended up with the nanny state that we have. It’s actually kind of amazing that it took this long to get this bad.

        • Quite simply – people don’t like their neighbors having freedom. They want to be tell their neighbors what they can do, how much tax someone else can pay, and smile as their government with overflowing benevolence takes care of them for the sake of welfare and safety as long as they think that their neighbors have to pay for it. Fixed it for you..

      • Yes we trust our Sheriffs, as they have a proven track record of standing up for the public that they serve. In a time when most police on local and state levels are not trusted or well liked the Sheriffs have the respect of the citizens. They have opposed politicians that have taken advantage of the citizens, many times powerful politicians like governors, senators and members of the congress. One of the more recent things is standing against the laughable NY “safe act” that was hastily forced through by Cuomo as a reaction to a shooting incident, instead of anything well thought out it had zero effect on crime and made criminals out of some of the law abiding public that the law infringes on. The Sheriffs again took the side of the citizens. Our Sheriffs are welcomed next door neighbors, unlike most members of law enforcement.

    • While NY is a pit of despair, there is no right to bear arms in Florida outside the home. 790.01 bans concealed carry and 790.053 bans open carry. You may undergo a licensing procedure and pay $ to be able to carry a concealed weapon or firearm. The weapon must remain concealed at all times, because, ummmmm…..guns scare Floridians and ignorance is bliss.

  2. As a matter of fact, I do, since one of my uncles is a detective lieutenant and the current sheriff is a friend of my family. Didn’t much like the last sheriff, though, since under the past concealed carry system (“may issue”) he was one of those “if you haven’t been directly threatened or carry large quantities of money in the course of your job, you don’t need to carry a concealed weapon” types. I don’t think he much liked the reform to “shall issue”. Too bad! The current sheriff is much more gun-friendly, and a nice guy besides.

    • It’s nice to see a former high ranking trooper stand up to Albany. I know Sherrif Howard and most of his family members that are currently with the NYSP. I can state for a fact that all of them and the majority of the SP think that the safe act is garbage. Unfortunately for us, the people that have a say in the matter remain quiet and are a servant to the governor. The lowely foot soldiers however, have the people’s backs though we dare not speak of it in public. Molon Labe

  3. Trust no one, especially any elected official or other employed in the enforcement of unjust laws or the fighting of unjust wars.

    • There are so many laws that I would say that by far most of them are unjust or simply redundant. When it comes to harm there are only a handful of ways to harm someone and most harms done can be filtered down to one of those handful. Aggravating circumstances can be added to punishment. This way people who have not harmed someone won’t be harmed by the government simply because they violated an arbitrary rule on a piece of paper.

      All of the other laws could be handled by the market which is a much more strict disciplinarian if it would be allowed to operate freely by the a-holes who call themselves “politicians”.

  4. For the answer look to the Founders of this nation: they trusted neither people nor the positions of government, so they built in checks and balances to ensure those corrupted by power would be held in check.

    Where I live in California, I don’t trust my anti-civilian-carry sheriff, but since California is “may issue” not “shall issue” still, the sheriff has a lot of power over my 2-A right.

    “What happens when a statement of intent to personally nullify any law collides with that obligation?”

    As long as the world shall last there will be wrongs, and if no man objected and no man rebelled, those wrongs would last forever.
    Clarence Darrow

    Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may.
    Mark Twain

    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. – William Pitt (1783)

  5. One of the checks in place to keep our government limited is the local Sheriff, whose duty is to uphold the Constitution, not “every law on the books.” First and foremost, if there is a violation of the Constitution and the rule of Law, whether the violation stems from legislation, government, or citizens, the Sheriff’s duty is to uphold the Constitution and the rights of the Citizen above anything else. The Sheriff is designed to serve as a check against other elements of the government. This does not mean that Sheriffs operate with impunity, and it does not mean that we rely on the Sheriff while premitting legislation that undermines the Citizen’s rights, but it does mean that we should and can demand that Sheriffs uphold their duty, particularly against unjust legistlation.

  6. It also worries me when people rely on a promise to selectively enforce a law that is on the books. As I understand it, any peace officer is sworn to uphold them all no matter how reasonable or ludicrous they may be. What happens when a statement of intent to personally nullify any law collides with that obligation?

    I believe that the county sheriff swears an oath to uphold the constitution, and it is on the basis of that oath that a sheriff may declare intent not to enforce an unconstitutional law. That declaration has absolutely nothing to do with the sheriff’s personal views regarding a given law.

    Do I trust the sheriff? Moreso than any other law enforcement officer or office in the country. The sheriff, unlike all the rest, is elected – and as such, can be held directly accountable to the electorate.

    • ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      ******If you read nothing else this Memorial Day, make it this comment above*****
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    • Chip, would you consider running for San Diego County Sheriff and ousting the oath-ignoring Bill Gore?

    • “Directly accountable by the electorate.” Right, by 51% of the electorate. If you can’t change the minds of enough people by yourself to go over 50% then so much for this “direct accountability”.

      • Many forms of Gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pre­tends that democ­racy is per­fect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

        — Winston Churchill

        • The founding fathers of this country would disagree with that statement. I believe one of them stated that democracies eventually murder themselves, which is why we have a Constitutional Republic. The USA may have democratically elected officials, but it is not a Democracy. Actually the President is not really democratically elected. The Electoral College does not have to follow the popular vote and at times has not followed the popular vote.

        • Considering the passing of the 17th amendment, I’ll say while at one point we had a true republic, now, at best, we have a democratic-republic now.

    • I might trust the Sheriff some what more than the Chief of Police. The Sheriff is elected and actually can be held accountable. The Chief of Police is appointed and while his superiors may be held accountable, but he usually will not be.

  7. My sheriff seems pretty unwise and compliant to some other muse than justice but he has some loud, old political allies that mention California a lot.

  8. You would think by 2015, billions spent on social improvement, we still have criminals who impose their will on citizens. Our representives solution for this failure is to create and pass laws restricting citizens right to protect themselves. This is immoral and dare say it’s criminal.

    • Exactly the right description of the current situation in many areas. This needs to be corrected ASAP. Keep the pressure on your elected officials and let them know your views and that this kind of lawmaking will affect your vote and the votes of your friends and relatives in the future.

    • Well, you have criminals in the street, and then you have criminals in the government. The criminals in government are much more of a danger to me, my liberty and my life.

    • “criminals who impose their will on citizens”

      I know it’s not what you meant, but that’s the best description of our government that I’ve seen in a while.

    • A true post. Our leaders are a pathetic group of mediocrity. We elected them to handle problems sometimes complex, and to come up with intelligent answers for these problems. Because they cannot come up with intelligent solutions they fear losing their basically “no show” high paying jobs, and so to appear as if they are solving the problems we hired them for, they pass more laws, useless laws that have turned us into a police state that borders on communism.

  9. Sheriff Dee Anderson of Tarrant County, TX is awesome! He is an honest guy and has signed off on about 9 Form 1s and Form 4s for me. He respects his constituents and the Constitution.

  10. My Sheriff is Joe Arpaio, so yes I do trust him, but only because I happen to have been born with the “right” skin color. He reminds me of Boss Hogg from dukes of hazard.

    • I remember living under Joe’s boot. Every deputy I interacted with in Maricopa County was respectful of individual rights. Even the guy who stopped me for doing 120mph on an empty stretch of I-10 let me off with a warning.
      But Joe is a fascist douche.
      Here he is on Penn & Teller’s BullSh!t explaining how legalizing drugs would cause everyone to immediately go out and take heroine:
      http://wakado.blogspot.com/2007/03/penn-and-teller-on-drug-war-sheriff-joe.html

      • Very similar experience. I have yet to have a truly bad experience with law enforcement in the valley (although I can’t say the same for everyone I know), but old Joe has some issues.

        • People tend to go 120 mph on alcohol sometimes. Pot is no worse and maybe less dangerous than the alcohol.

        • Don’t you mean 20 MPH?.. I’v never known a pot smoker that could manage to speed.

  11. NY & NYC- BTDT and when common sense prevailed I escaped, never looking back. Where I’m living, in every sense of the term, our county’s Sheriffs have always been pro-2A.

    “What happens when a statement of intent to personally nullify any law collides with that obligation?”
    I suspect that would depend on the [various] states laws. The Sheriff is the Chief LEO of the County, [generally] subject to guidance and correction by the State Attorney General. Historically, here at least, Sheriffs have ignored requests made by the state governor. The Governor cannot remove the Sheriff unless there is a compelling cause and that is a time consuming process.

    This all boils down to your local elections being so important. Here is your chance to directly affect your 2A rights as others would interpret them. The Sheriff and state’s AG set the conditions of the Amendments daily transactions. Should they feel that preempting or nullifying an unconstitutional firearms law because it is in violation of their Oath of Office, well they will have lots of support!

  12. We were neighbors once. So, enough to share a beer. I still don’t trust anyone, who’s tasked with enforcing laws, not to enforce them. You’d be a fool to do so.

  13. People need to educate themselves and others about jury nullification. This RIGHT is the PEOPLES’ check on bad laws. If a jury finds that the defendant has broken a law BUT said law is should not be enforced, they have the right, if not the duty, to nullify the law, which then is no longer enforceable. Hence the law is nullified by the jury.

  14. Throwing caution to the wind in this case is foolish. Elections have consequences, and if the next sheriff decides to enforce the SAFE act, you’re screwed.

    Had a safer, but similar scenario myself with a silencer. When I ordered it the local chief said he’d sign it. Election occurred while I was waiting on it to get to the dealer. New police chief wouldn’t touch it. Had to go the trust route. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad I have a trust).

  15. My sheriff is Ross Mirkarimi. Can’t even carry a gun due to his little domestic wife-beating problem. Trust? No way.

  16. I’m not upset when sheriffs ignore over-reaching laws that infringe on Constitutional rights.

    What I find frightening is when law officers enforce laws that do not exist — such as by hassling open carriers where open carry is perfectly legal, or by making up other sh1t just to flex their muscles.

  17. ‘Trust’ is something earned by only a very few in my world, but do I respect and support my local Sheriff? Yes. He supports the 2A and my right to CC. Even has a nice pro-active renewal program in place that makes it convenient and safe to renew before you expire. But you already know I support my local LEO, as I’ve spouted off about that enough. They are people just like us, just like the military, just like any segment of the population; there are good, bad and everything in between. I too however wouldn’t want to be in a position to have to inherently trust my freedom to LE not enforcing the (unconstitutional) law.

  18. Concerning the “sworn to uphold them all” part of the original post, from what I know in my area, individual officers have broad discretion when it comes to making non-felony arrests (this may vary in other jurisdictions). My brother is a Sheriff’s deputy, and he has told me many stories of dumping little bags of weed into storm drains, or telling a couple of guys who had a minor scuffle to shake hands and move on, to avoid jamming someone up for something more easily resolved. I don’t know if any or all unSafe act violations are felonies, but he could be simply directing his deputies to use their discretion when it comes to that particular unconstitutional law.

  19. Do I trust my local sheriff?
    I don’t know. While my local sheriff and his predecessors have never given the locals any trouble ( that I know of ) regarding concealed carry, the current and last one have put up a royal stink about any nfa items. I do think, but am not sure, that the current sheriff has since reversed his position. Currently, I am too broke to even bother with the notion of owning any nfa items or going thru the motions of buying one.
    As far as enforcement goes, our local sheriff department has little to do with that.

  20. The sheriff of my county, Pima County, is Clarence Dupnik. You might remember his performance on nationwide TV, following the shooting of Gabby Giffords, when Sheriff Dupnik blamed the shooting on the hateful influence of rightwing talk radio. Yes, Clarence Dupnik is a liberal Democrat and a dumb putz.

    • People call Arpaio a thug thanks to illegal search of the news times thanks to the feud between them, that being said last I check it’s wasn’t Arpaio’s boys that murdered Jose Guernea in his own home with a bogus warrant

  21. Well my local county Sheriff refuses to sign NFA paperwork, and has a special link on his web page to his own personal statement about “gun violence”, so no – I would say he can go fondle himself.

    Pierce Co. Washington, Sheriff Pastor. Guy claims to have a PhD from Yale, which makes the source of his opinions pretty obvious, but you have to wonder – what the hell is a Yale graduate doing as a county Sheriff in his 60s?

    Most people can agree that mental illness and firearms are a dangerous combination. We need to develop legal ways to block people with serious mental problems from obtaining or possessing guns.

    And gun owners need to step up to their responsibilities and not allow mentally ill friends or relatives access to guns.

    Rights always come with responsibilities. Perhaps we need a national campaign supporting gun owner responsibilities as well as gun owner rights.

    We definitely need a return to stronger values. We resort to violent rhetoric, violent language and violent actions too quickly and too easily. We get the things that we encourage or tolerate. And in America today, we are getting too much violence.

    Paul Pastor
    Sheriff of Pierce County

  22. Didn’t like the last sheriff. He was an older guy who was only interested in keeping his job. But we’ve had a new guy for about four years now. He had been a deputy for ten or fifteen years now and he’s really working at bettering things.

  23. My recently moved-in sheriff, Bill Elder, hasn’t done anything to make me not, but doesn’t mean that I should trust. The former, Mr. Terry “play with women under him ” Maketa, went on national TV during the ban talks and told everyone to stuff it. We’ll see what happens.

    • For all his misbehavior with female subordinates, Maketa was solid on gun rights, for sure. His predecessor, Anderson, by deciding he would behave as if Colorado were shall issue (which it wasn’t at the time), did a lot to help actually make it so. With Elder, the jury is still out as far as I am concerned.

  24. In general, I’d rather live with an elected “CLEO” than an appointed one. And one whose primary oath is to the Constitution, most certainly including the Bill of Rights.

    In fact, if I had my druthers there’s be an amendment to the constitution requiring all chief law enforcement to be elected by those over whom they have jurisdiction. And in this one case only, I’d even give legal immigrants not yet citizens the vote.

    However as many commenters have already illustrated, an elected “CLEO” can be a Bill-of-Rights-ignoring jerk too.

  25. Let’s see. No matter how supportive he may be of my natural right to possess the means of defending myself, I have to ask if he supports kidnapping and caging or otherwise initiation aggression upon any peaceful person who practices an unpopular lifestyle choice such as smoking pot.

    If he supports such activities then he is not only untrustworthy, he is downright evil.

    And no, doing it because it’s “his job” or “it’s the law the politicians told me to do it” is no excuse.

  26. Our Sherriff, Tim Cameron, has testified against Maryland’s draconian gun laws, and refuses to enforce them.

    And I’m good with that!

  27. My sheriff here in Florida is ‘Grady (because they ran out of bullets) Judd’.

    He signs NFA paperwork requests.

    Can I trust him? I hope I can.

    I also hope I never have to find out…

  28. Pierce county Washington Sheriff Paul Pastor runs a good, clean, and efficient, and within budget constraints and a somewhat strange prosecuting attorney’s office, effective department.

    That being said, I think he is first and foremost a politician. He is very interested in upholding the law (as he sees it). His position on the constitution and the second amendment is somewhat more unclear.

    He’s one of those guys you may never know where he really stands until the SHTF.

    He may well get that opportunity, the way things are developing nationwide.

  29. For my response, please read up on Betteridge’s Law of Headlines.

    (for those who can’t be bothered, the law states that any headline that poses a question can be answered with a, “no.”)

  30. My sheriff is an establishment democrat from a rich Seattle suburb. He supported I-594. During the election just about every law enforcement organization and pro civil rights group (including RKBA groups) that spoke up supported his opponent. The wealthy PACs supported him.
    As far as I know, he outright refuses to sign Form 4s and his office only approves CPL applications, because it is legally required to do so.

  31. The sheriffs serve the local people who elected them. Unfortunently, The state police serve the governor, and they are everywhere. So don’t worry about anyone here in NewYorkistan throwing caution to the wind, we are all more than aware of Cuomo’s troopers, and dread going through their too numerous roadblocks. No one is at the range flaunting a now illegal rifle. Many of us are now criminals, thanks to Cuomo and SAFE. We all lay low to not get discovered as one.
    FUAC!!

  32. Only as far as I can physically throw his old, fat ass.

    Which isn’t nearly far enough away from me as far as I’m concerned.

    He hemmed, and hawed, and crowed, and pissed, and moaned along with the rest of my state’s Sheriff’s Association to keep the racist, Jim Crow throw-back pistol purchase permit system. He also vehemently refuses to sign NFA paperwork, along with all of 101 (out of 105) other Sheriffs, and railed against every other positive reform as long as I’ve been in the state.

    He’s the kind of guy I wouldn’t piss on if he was on fire. Of course, that’s the way I feel about most every elected official (and most all their appointees for that matter), but that’s another story.

  33. In general sheriffs in red states seem to be supportive of the second amendment since they are elected officials and know that their views on gun rights can often decide an election. Even the yellow dog Democrat (“I’d sooner vote for a yellow dog than a Republican”) sheriffs in the south know where their votes come from. Local officials often have wide discretion in which laws they choose to enforce. Years ago when Oklahoma did not have a concealed carry law on the books I heard the Oklahoma County DA state in a public forum that he would never prosecute a “solid citizen” (his words) for carrying a gun. Unfortunately that sort of discretion led to tremendous abuse in certain areas back in the 1960s when people were murdered by the KKK and nobody was ever charged with the crime. So the Feds moved in, investigated the crimes, and brought federal charges against everybody they could find.

    Before everybody goes nuts on me please understand that I’m NOT accusing our local sheriffs of belonging to the Klan. I’m just making the point that the discretion of our local officials only goes so far. I highly respect our local sheriff and believe him to be a genuine friend of the Constitution. However a day may come when the federal marshalls show up and haul our good sheriffs away for killing a bug or spitting on the sidewalk. The precedent is there.

    So getting back to the question “Do I trust my sheriff?” Yeah, most of the time. Do I think that my trust of his discretion will keep me out of trouble? No, because for every issue the sheriff may protect me from, there’s another agency at another level that wants to put me away. Did I carry a gun in Oklahoma County based on the words of its DA? No, because the question of who was a solid citizen was left up to his discretion – probably influenced by how much money that citizen had donated to the DAs re-election fund.

    I much prefer to live in a country and state that’s firearm friendly. Even more I prefer a government that recognizes and obeys the law and recognizes our natural rights of freedom and self determination. I grew up in the People’s Republic of New Jersey and after 35 years in Oklahoma I would never move back to the traffic, high taxes, and incompetent meddling government.

  34. You may not like the “bible belt” but we have freedom here. It is amazing how south of the Mason Dixon you have freedom and slavery in many other places.

    In other places you have legal public Marijuana intoxication. Homosexual marriage. Unrestricted welfare payments to single mothers with no limits. Persecution of women who try to have a normal heterosexual relationship while on welfare. Persecution of women who try to get off welfare. Attacks on home schooler’s. State ordered gun registration. State gun confiscation because your neighbor is afraid of you. Try to drink raw milk and they stick a gun in your face. You have to wait days to get a firearm.

    There is no freedom on the west coast of the United States. And freedom is disappearing in the north east.

    Don’t come here and change things to make yourself comfortable. Stay where you’re at and start voting and fighting for people who support freedom.

  35. I live in Santa Clara County(Silicon Valley) our state is ‘may issue’ and she only gives them out as political favors for those who donate to her election campaign. She also has a group called the ‘Sheriff’s Advisory Board’ that raises money to fund various toys and programs for her department that is completely OUTSIDE Board Of Supervisors control. It’s rumored that the only people on that list happen to be members of this ‘Advisory Board’………….

  36. When I was younger, we had a Sheriff get investigated by the DEA and some other alphabet soup. They took in all his deputies, interviewed them, some got arrested, then, they went out to the Sheriff’s house to ask him a few questions. He talked to them for a couple hours and got the whole thing sorted out and they lived happily ever after.

    I’m just kidding. The Sheriff saw the black Suburbans pull up, he ran out the back door into the woods, and put three into his own chest.

    The guy where I live now seems pretty good.

  37. Here in Houston (Harris County), our Sherrifs are usually better than the cities in terms of respecting freedoms. However, our current Sherrif Adrian Garcia hightailed it up to Austin to testify against open carry.

    His big hysterical point was that officers responding to shootings wouldn’t be able to discern good guys from bad guys, if people were allowed to open carry. Asinine talk like that disqualifies him for any position of authority in public service. Either he’s pandering to the antis base, or he really is that stupid.

    By the way, he just announced his candidacy for the Mayor of Houston election this year.

    Other sherrifs in rural areas are usually far superior in respecting rights.

  38. Thankfully i don’t have to worry about my sheriff.I don’t live in a place like the communist state of N.Y.

  39. I don’t trust my local sheriff, since I have filed a complaint and they have denied any action.

  40. Sheriffs come and go, eventually. The NY unSafe Act is on the books until it is taken off or stricken down.

  41. Not sure I would use the word trust. But, I would rather deal with the Harris County sheriff’s deputies, or the State Troopers here, than the (Houston) city police. Not a scientific observation, but, city police seem to catch all kind of doo-doo everyday, they are not as inclined to be evenhanded. Houston is a socialist city state, like all big cities, (again, just my take), They seem to have a different play book, law or no law. The Houston City attorney general outright refused to follow the state law on firearms in vehicles. The state revised the law to neutralize him, and others like him. Cities are a packed environment. The city government would make everybody a potential criminal if it could, subject to arrest and detainment at any time, any place, for anything. More people packed into less space, more potential for them getting out of control. Individual rights is not a prime concern. Somehow, strict gun control is supposed to protect us all, until someone pops up that could care less about the law. All to often good laws protect the wrong (yes, I know, who decides?) people. The police chief is appointed, the sheriff is elected. Right now Texas is deciding on “open carry”. In the country few, if any, people will be concerned, in Houston a firearm on open display might. An “isolated” incident in the county could be a massacre in the city. Fact is, bad people do bad things, city/county/state. Trust yourself, be civil, don’t be a victim of the law, or a “misguided” individual. You are your first line of defense. Be sure you are right.

  42. I’ll tell you who you can’t trust and that would be Sheriff Tom Dart of Cook County, Illinois. He is just another Democrat political hack, who is more about appeasing his socialist masters and not upholding the Constitution or the rights of citizens. Of course the same can be said for EVERY demorat politician in Illinois.

  43. as far as selectively enforcing the laws go you might google police law enforcement and supreme court decisions and read what comes up you will not like it i guarantee

  44. The outgoing Sheriff of Clark County: Not only no, but hell no. Threw the citizenry to the curb with his policies and supported Clark’s 67 year old handgun registration scheme (aka Blue Card).

    The ‘new’ Sheriff appears to be a bit better on paper, but he waffled on the repeal of the Blue Card system. Thankfully, our state Legislature has taken it out of his hands with NV SB175, which, in part, repeals the elder law allowing counties of a certain size to enforce gun registration. Just went up to Gov. Sandoval for signature.

    I’ll be shredding my pile of Blue Cards and hand-delivering the remains to my local substaion, with a cup cake. 😉

Leave a Reply

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