Yuma County, CO Sheriff Chad Day writes [via Ammoland.com]: This past spring spent all day at the state capital yesterday (March 7 2016), testifying on behalf of County Sheriffs of Colorado in favor of five pro-gun/pro Public Safety/pro liberty bills. All five bills, heard in the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs committee, were killed, as expected, on a 5 to 4 straight party-line vote. I was aware before I even left home to go testify, that the outcome was likely, however . . .

It is important for there to be an official record of Sheriffs support for such legislation for future consideration. What struck me though, was that during public testimony, the basic philosophical difference between pro-gun and anti-gun camps was so evident.

The anti-gun camp was very clear in their message of concern for any existence or carry method of firearms posing a great and unacceptable risk to public safety. As expected, the pro-gun testimony was likewise very clear that the availability of weapons for personal defense is what would minimize the inevitable situations where awful acts are carried out.

It should be no surprise that in general, I agree with the pro-gun sentiment. Where I tend to diverge, is that I believe the issue, the real core issue of almost every gun related bill or legislation is a proper understanding of the original and still current purpose of the Second Amendment to our United States Constitution.

It has been codified in case law that reasonable restrictions can be placed on American’s Second Amendment rights, however, that does not change the original and prevailing purpose of that right, so clearly and plainly listed in our bill of most basic rights as citizens of this free country.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was, and still is, for Americans to be able to protect ourselves from inappropriate and extreme over-each by our own government, in a word, tyranny.

As a representative of the government, I do not make that statement lightly. During my testimony in favor of one of the 5 bills presented for debate and public comment that day, I made the statement that the purpose of the Second Amendment was for Americans to protect themselves from our own government.

That statement was received with gasps by some in the gallery which was followed by the statement, “you are the government!”

That is a correct statement. As a public servant, it is the job of the County Sheriff, elected by the people, to protect the people’s right to arm themselves for the expressed purpose of protecting themselves from government tyranny, even if that tyranny, God forbid, were to come from me. This is the most simple and basic check and balance that exists in our free, liberty loving form of government.

This right is what gives teeth to free American’s exercise of all their other rights provided in our Constitution.

To be sure, it is the responsibility of law enforcement to seek out those that would violate law and pose a risk of safety to their fellow man, and deal with those acts swiftly and appropriately.

It is, in my opinion, and the opinion of many wise and learned constitutional scholars, an even greater responsibility of sworn law enforcement, to actively protect the God-given rights and liberties that this great country of ours provides to its free people.

Sometimes, the exercise of those rights creates the possibility of danger. The mere possibility of danger is not sufficient to infringe upon those rights. The standard is, and must be higher to tolerate the infringement of rights enumerated in our controlling document.

That statement and belief is the crux of the difference between the pro-gun and anti-gun crowd.

Anti-gunners are willing to infringe upon the rights of anyone, even sometimes the law enforcement personnel who swore and oath to protect them and their rights, in order to attempt to mitigate any possibility of danger. Conversely, and in general, pro-gun Americans are willing to except the possible danger that is part and parcel to living in a free society in order to maintain the ability to forcibly hold our government properly in check.

I see it as my proper and sworn duty to not only stand by my testimony, but to reiterate and expound upon it, and to encourage all law enforcement officials, elected and appointed, who have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States to do so as well, and boldly.

Sheriff Chad Day
Yuma County Colorado, USA
www.yumacountysheriff.net

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2016/08/one-american-sheriff-on-his-duty-2nd-amendment/#ixzz4IXjfgMJ6
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Recommended For You

61 Responses to Sheriff Chad Day: The Second Amendment Protects You From Me

      • On an Internet comments forum, my words are definitely meaningless. LEOs are pathological liars, Internet or real life.

        • I am a retired LEO and have known a great many during my career. I take umbrage at your comment regarding “pathological liars”. You paint all LEOs with the same brush which is the bigot’s way. When I was in the military, we endured the same kind of treatment from counter culture people calling us “baby killers” and the like.
          I’ve been told to leave establishments over something which took place there as far back as WW2, in the same way LEOs are being denied service at places like “Chick-filet”.

          Any bigot can do as you have done here. Unfortunately, such people could do the same about any profession including their own because there are a few bad apples in every profession. Fortunately, the vast majority of members of any profession you might select are very good people.

          Your reaction is most often seen in those who have had a bad experience, usually because they or some friend or relation got caught violating a law with which they disagree. I recall one irate gentleman who went ballistic when I pulled him over for blowing a stop sign. One of his comments was, ‘I’ve been running this intersection for 15 years and never got stopped before’. In court, he denied his words and running the stop. It was a boon that we carried cassette recorders and recorded all contacts with the public, a fact of which the violator had been appraised.

  1. The citizens of Yuma County are lucky to have a Sheriff like Chad Day. God bless him and the other Sheriffs throughout the country who respect the citizens and the Constitution.

    • 1. Nationwide, the rank and file LEOs; regardless of rank, community size, force size, years experience, age, sex; support the 2nd Amendment and overwhelmingly reject the gun controls the anti-gun people seek to impose. Many of them own private firearms and re members of some pro-gun association. Most LEOs are conservatives to one degree or another, and lean more toward patriotism. This is also true of the armed forces who, historically, are 80% conservative while Congress is only about 15%. Primarily, the LEO leadership, especially those who owe their jobs to political appointments/hiring, tend to side with the anti-gun people. (Source: National Poll of LEOs by PoliceOne.com)

      2. The anti-gun people can’t or won’t accept hat the Founders would have wanted citizens to be armed in order to overthrow the government they had just designed and instituted. The anti-gun people ignore the fact that England was the legitimate government of the colonies. They ignore the fact that England was violating the rights of colonists which the English citizens residing in England enjoyed. They ignore the fact that, at the suggestion of the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, General William Howe ordered the military to deploy across Massachusetts for the purpose of confiscating weapons, powder, and ammunition from all colonists. They also ignore that on the evening of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was sent for by Dr. Joseph Warren and instructed to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them. After being rowed across the Charles River to Charlestown by two associates, Paul Revere borrowed a horse from his friend Deacon John Larkin. While in Charlestown, he verified that the local “Sons of Liberty” committee had seen his pre-arranged signals. (Two lanterns had been hung briefly in the bell-tower of Christ Church in Boston, indicating that troops would row “by sea” across the Charles River to Cambridge, rather than marching “by land” out Boston Neck. Revere had arranged for these signals the previous weekend, as he was afraid that he might be prevented from leaving Boston). The following morning British troops were confronted by armed colonists and the “shot heard ’round the world” was fired, initiating the Revolutionary War.

      On the way to Lexington, Revere “alarmed” the country-side, stopping at each house, and arrived in Lexington about midnight. As he approached the house where Adams and Hancock were staying, a sentry asked that he not make so much noise. “Noise!” cried Revere, “You’ll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out!” After delivering his message, Revere was joined by a second rider, William Dawes, who had been sent on the same errand by a different route. Deciding on their own to continue on to Concord, Massachusetts, where weapons and supplies were hidden, Revere and Dawes were joined by a third rider, Dr. Samuel Prescott. Soon after, all three were arrested by a British patrol. Prescott escaped almost immediately, and Dawes soon after. Revere was held for some time and then released. Left without a horse, Revere returned to Lexington in time to witness part of the battle on the Lexington Green.

      3. The anti-gun people fail to recognize that the 2nd Amendment is not my amendment as a conservative. The 2nd belongs to all of us; conservative, liberal, progressive, and independent. That taking away this right also takes away the right of the anti-gun people to change their minds on the issue. That once gone they will never be able to change their minds as so many have done following some experience in their lives. This is especially true of women who have been the victims of spousal abuse, stalking, etc.

      4. Laws/regulations restricting the rights of all citizens should never be left to people who have never owned or used firearms because they are already biased while lacking knowledge of the subject. The same should apply to deciding the fate of members of the armed forces which a very large percentage elected officials who have never served can never understand the actual needs of the military in order to accomplish the missions which elected officials hand them. his would also apply to LEOs and crime control.

      • The Sheriff’s comments and this reply are fantastic responses to Carter Goodwin’s statement yesterday. The antis simply can’t see past the object to condemn the person behind the horrible deed. And in the Orlando psychos case, all the king’s men failed to prevent his access to arms or surveil him despite abundant damning warning.

      • What is a LEO? If you are going to use jargon, it is really helpful for your intended audience to know what you are talking about. I am certainly pro-second amendment. I don’t know if you had good points or not because I didn’t know what you were talking about. Also, Americans, sadly, do not have much of an attention span. Get to the point in just one short paragraph if you want to be heard. Great research though!

  2. One of the good ones. Would that all cops felt the same. Yes-we are a bulwork against the evils of the gubmint.

    • and by his oath. Unfortunately, our elected officials take the same basic oath but forget it before the words cease to echo down the alleyways.

  3. One must remember rampant tyranny following disarmament is not a hypothosis. We were there in the 40s: After the National Firearms Act, the government was burning crops as people starved, seizing property and imprisoning people for their race alone, people were prohibited from owning certain types of property (gold) and many other acts of tyranny.

  4. Nice to know there are still some real Americans in Colorado. I have relatives out there who’ve watched it all go to sh!t since the 50’s. It’s one of the reasons why I absolutely hate (most) Californians.

    • The secret got out. Colorado’s population has doubled since 1985. Most of the people who moved here were either from California or back east. If you get away from the metro area (and a couple of rich ski towns) the rural people of Colorado are as hard core as anyone from the west or rural south.

      • I’m in the Springs, and we’ve had an influx of Texans everywhere I look. Our former Sheriff
        (Now being indicted for misconduct and sexual issues) Terry Maketa was very pro-gun and pro freedom. Despite the current allegations against him, he was a good guy in that regard.

  5. Thank you, officer. And, in a bit of maybe irony, If more LEO’s showed your perspective on the job, vs. say, the armed – er – enforcement arm of the overlords imposing their will on the recalcitrant among the proles; just speaking hypothetically, of course, maybe there wouldn’t be so much skepticism and push back.

    All five bills, heard in the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs committee, were killed, as expected, on a 5 to 4 straight party-line vote. I was aware before I even left home to go testify, that the outcome was likely, however . . .

    It is important for there to be an official record of Sheriffs support for such legislation for future consideration.

    Thank you for the perspective. This is a long game. Get the record out there, of the votes and the testimony. It won’t convince the anti’s, or Bloomie’s bought brigands (with sanctioned arms, of course). But it will convince the occasional observer. And it’s fodder to show the lying liars – er, again – lying.

    “All law enforcement say …”

    Really? So, it seems that Sheriffs tend to be a bit less often “No guns for you!” vs. say major metro police chiefs. I wonder, if the Sheriffs are elected by the people they patrol, while the metro police heads not so much has anything to do with it. Naaaah. That’s crazy talk.

      • That wouldn’t change much in the major metro areas. Police Chiefs are appointed by the Lefties that get elected. If you went to directly electing the Police Chiefs you’d get basically the same result.

        City folks generally vote left of center. Whether they elect Lefties that appoint Lefty Chiefs or directly elect Lefty Chiefs is basically irrelevant.

        • Valid points. But at least the people would have direct input into thier top cops and if you install a recall clause……..who knows what may happen down the road.

        • Yeah… I’m thinking we might actually get a worst result in some cities, as implausible as that seems.

  6. Even though you are a sheriff, the only type of “law enforement” there should probably be since you are at least elected, you are still an agent of the state carrying out tyranny on the citizens.

    You are nothing more than an armed thug working for a mafia that was, in fact, voter approved to steal money and assets. You are nothing more than a common road side bandit, except at least the road side bandit does what he does out of pure self interest and not out of some foolish belief that they are “patriotic” and really there to “serve and protect”.

      • Nope, I’m not that guy…

        I just love how pro 2A people can be so vociferously against anyone taking away the right to self defense but then turn around and be pro-state on almost every other issue! It’s pure cognitive dissonance.

        Somebody magically says driving your car above such and such speed is “illegal” although it doesn’t harm anyone and then somebody that is paid to enforce that statute comes and pulls me over and issues me a ticket. What did that solve? Will I now never drive above that speed again? C’mon. All it did was serve to extract money from my wallet and put it into the state’s wallet.

        It would be no different than a bunch of guys blocking a bridge and they tell you that you can’t cross unless you pay them a “fee”. If an ordinary group of people were to do that they would be considered criminals and they would be dealt with swiftly. But magically somebody puts on a uniform and says they’re “government” and that magically makes it ok for them to steal and commit murder? Again, C’mon.

        If this sheriff was truly interested in freedom then he and all other sheriffs would round up the mafia that we call “government” and they would be taken into custody and tried for their crimes.

        Instead they are no different from soldiers in war who commit atrocities: “I was just following orders”. Yep, the good ol’ “I don’t make the laws, I just enforce ’em.”

        What a joke.

      • jwm,

        Please note The Punisher’s two main points:
        (1) Most government taxation (types and amounts) is obscene, excessive, and lacks righteous authority*.
        (2) Sheriff deputies will often be the law enforcement entity that ultimately enforces obscene, excessive taxation.

        No matter how much a Sheriff cheers for the Second Amendment and acknowledges its rightful purpose, you will pretty much never hear any Sheriff tell us that most taxation is obscene, excessive, and criminal in nature … and you will never hear a Sheriff indicate that he/she will tell his deputies to NOT enforce any government/court declarations regarding obscene, excessive, criminal taxation in general or against any specific person.

        On those counts, The Punisher is on the mark.

        * Governments’ sole reason for existence is to secure our rights and thus governments need a relatively small amount of money to accomplish that purpose, which they must necessarily acquire through taxation. Unfortunately, governments take excessive, obscene amounts of taxes for horribly inefficient and inappropriate objectives, such as welfare. Charities, not government, must provide charity (welfare) and all of the money those charities collect must be charity gifts — meaning that the people giving that money must do so voluntarily in an amount that is responsible for their situation. Sheriffs who enforce taxation for government run “charity” programs are just as criminal as thugs who would knock on your door and demand money — under threat of deadly force — for their charitable program, regardless of how noble the charity itself actually is.

        • uncommon sense. Note he says to round up the .gov mafia. He doesn’t make a difference in the .gov people doing their lawful jobs and those not.

          Frontier days are over. We are a superpower in a first world nation in the 21st century. We aren’t dropping back to a 17th century .gov. It ain’t happening.

        • jwm – it’s quite simple. I never said anything about violent overthrow.

          You want to stop what is happening? Easy. If even several million Americans would stop paying taxes and the Sheriffs would support that then the wheels of the machine would grind to a halt. This only all happens because like dutiful slaves we give to them…and then watch our TVs and bitch and complain about the “other side’s” candidate.

          It’s a scam. A game. And they win because we do nothing to stop it. We cheer on all of the Thomas Jefferson quotes and worship the constitution…but yet…the people who are supposed to uphold it are not the government…it’s the people…and reason the republic has failed is the same reason the republics of history have always failed: Once theft becomes legal and people realize they can lawfully steal from others, then it’s just a foot race to the end to see which side gets the most loot for whatever pet project.

    • And “The Punisher” would be on the phone to the po-po if he heard someone trying to get in his back door asking , no begging, them to please hurry up and get here.

      • Great strawman there, bro. Whenever you don’t have a good rebuttal to an argument, let’s just fall back on the democrat’s tactics and smear and slander them.

        Aren’t a good percentage of the readers and commenters on here typically posting about what they would do in a self defense/home defense situation? Why do you think I would be any different? I am advocating for the smallest, least amount of government intrusion possible. That means maximizing self defense to the fullest. In my view, if someone breaks into my house with ill intent, the sheriff’s only job is to come and pick up the body to take to the morgue.

        But that’s cool. If you are for letting paid armed thugs unlawfully entering peoples’ homes, stealing their property, killing them because they possess a plant, substance or object that has been deemed “illegal”, then go right ahead and advocate for that. I, personally don’t want anyone to wield the “hammer” that we call government. If the liberals hold it they just use the hammer to smash the people and things they don’t like – if the republicans wield it then they just use it to smash the peolpe and things they don’t like. Either way it’s wrong, illegal and evil. It’s two sides to the same coin and it’s ridiculous that we think in this manner and approve of these things. Instead, how about we abolish the hammer?

        • Your ideological purity describes no place in history. While I may basically agree with you about the soft tyranny that penalizes us for minor infractions you seem to forget that most of our country is incredibly far from the good sheriffs position. It’s easy to attack good men, let’s see you go after those who are actually destroying our way of life.

        • Joseph –

          The reason you don’t see it very often in history – there are brief flashes of brilliance – is because most people are only too eager to become slaves and have others tell them what to do and how to live.

          Basically once theft becomes legalized then it’s all downhill from there. In a nutshell. Doesn’t matter if it’s a monarchy, oligarchy, republic, dictatorship. Some get taken from and some get given to and the unbalance continues until it can’t possibly any longer and then bad things happen. Then a power vacuum ensues and the process typically repeats itself.

          You could say I’m “ideologically pure” but that’s just a fancy way of saying that I don’t advocate theft from ANYONE. Even if they are ideologically, sexually, racially, theologically, politically, whatever opposed from me I don’t condone theft by force. Most other people just don’t realize it or they don’t want to come to grips with it psychologically, but by aligning right or left all you are doing is advocating for the theft, by force, of someone else’s property. Either right here at home or somewhere abroad, but usually both simultaneously.

  7. Most of the Sheriffs in Colorado were against the 2013 gun laws, many of them signed up to sue the State over it and have since refused to bother even attempting to enforce those laws.

    • In fact 52 of the 54 elected Sheriffs in Colorado came out against the 2013 state guns laws. Most sued the state in federal court. 10 Sheriffs are appointed.

      • Yeah, I was too lazy to look up the numbers. The Sheriff in my county doesn’t give a damn about the “new” laws and is actively working to get them repealed. His Deputies don’t attempt to enforce them at all.

        Irish Democracy.

      • It may come as a surprise but the County Sheriffs Association, the Game Wardens Association, and the Highway patrol all went public with their objections to the rash of gun controls the legislature passed and the governor signed here in California.

        Our own Sheriff has advised the people to buy a gun and get trained. He has publically stated that he will not enforce these new gun controls and there is a letter to that effect posted on the County Sheriffs web page. He also has said that if it comes to it, he will deputize every pro-gun person in the county.

  8. Our elected Sheriffs in Colorado are some of the best in the nation. Strong support of the U.S.Constitution.

    Surprisingly even the Democrat Sheriff’s.

  9. A good man, and we all appreciate his efforts and dedication to what is the real and true America. Unfortunately, you can’t fix stupid.

  10. I don’t think people understand who aren’t from or aren’t in CO, that this state is still pro-gun/freedom, it’s Boulder, Ft. Collins, and Denver that aren’t. The entire state other than those places are still the same gun loving people they’ve always been. Boulder starts all the hippy crap, then it flows down to Denver, and the population there dictates state action through the massive voter base. We have campus carry, shall issue concealed carry, permitless open carry, and “Make My Day” law.

    Yes, we have UBC’s and mag limits(nobody gives two shits about magazine law here). Our knife laws are pretty ridiculous, but not over the top dumb. We are not this bastion of anti-gun, hippy loving stoners like most people seem to think we are. Need I remind people of the 2 recalls and the 3rd one who just quit after these laws were passed? Yes, there’s some work that stil needs to be done, but this is not the liberal haven people think it is, nor are we anywhere near a comparison to CA, MA, NYC, or any other freedom-less states or major cities.

    • A quibble with your post. Our knife laws ARE over the top retarded and are selectively enforced. Trying carrying a larger knife in Aurora and let me know how that works out for you. Those APD assholes almost beat my ass and took me to jail over a seat belt cutter on the left shoulder strap of my medical kit when I was trying to render aid to a downed person. (Doodad in question: https://www.amazon.com/Gerber-Strap-Cutter-Black-22-01944/dp/B001PTGOKA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1472367261&sr=8-1&keywords=gerber+seat+belt+cutter )

      On top of that this state gets worse every year. Up until 2012 a friend of mine went camping every single weekend of the year. Now? Not fucking worth it. Every place within 3 hours of the front range is overrun by hippies.

      Honestly, as soon as my wife is out of vet school, we’re out of here. Screw Colorado. It’s over taxed, over regulated, one of the most expensive states in the nation and simply not worth it any longer.

      Oh, and Denver/Boulder delenda est.

      • If Amendment 69 (ColoradoCare) passes this Fall, I will be moving out of this state. Colorado has a flat rate income tax and the Tax Payers Bill of Rights (TABOR). If Amendment 69 passes, we will have a Sate Constitutional Amendment that will be exempt from TABOR and create progressive income tax. This will be the final nail in the coffin.

        I can deal with magazine limits. UBCs will be a Federal thing, sooner than many think. However; I refuse to allow the state to rob me blind to pay for a forced, failed healthcare program.

        • 100% agree about ColoradoCare. This is just one example of the stupidity I can’t stand coming out of Boulder and Denver. The ACA is an abysmal failure, well surely we can just go farther with it and it will work!

          I don’t even remember the new taxes for ColoradoCare off the top of my head (that could be an after effect of that sixer of Heineken last night though) something like 10% on employee’s wages charged to the employer and 9% on “investment” which they’ve failed to define and could mean anything. It’s almost as if they’re trying to kill jobs.

          We’re already on our way out the door. As I said, as soon as the wife is done with vet school we’re outta here. Seriously eyeing Windtunnel Wyoming (Cheyenne).

    • What you just said about CO also applies to CA. The metropolitan areas are few but they have the largest concentration of voters who are mostly left leaning, while the rural (96% of the CA land area) residents are freedom loving, pro-gun… and that includes conservatives, liberals, and independents.

  11. The purpose of the Second Amendment was, and still is, for Americans to be able to protect ourselves from inappropriate and extreme over-each by our own government, in a word, tyranny.
    Okay, but I always thought it was for duck hunting.

  12. I just don’t get this point of view. Why are we not celebrating the expression of our Constitution and freedoms when 5.policemen are shot in Dallas? Our democracy is what protects us from tyranny not an individual with a gun. And how great are the rebals doing in Syria, Fallujah, Ukraine or any other place where a bunch of people take on a military.

    • Michael Stout,

      You wrote, “Why are we not celebrating the expression of our Constitution and freedoms when 5 policemen are shot in Dallas?”

      For the same reason that we do not celebrate the expression of our Constitution and freedoms when 5 women are raped in Dallas. Men and women are free to move about, associate, and even engage in consensual sexual relationships as they see fit. Unfortunately, some people abuse their freedom and rape women. Does that mean we should ban free movement, association, and consensual sex among adults? No? Neither should we ban the ownership and possession of firearms.

  13. Very clearly laid out view of the debate. Me likey. The answer is neither for everyone to own a gu, nor is it for no one to have one. There should be limitations (which there are) as well as freedom (which varies state to state). I wish firearm safety was a mandatory class in school and that safe storage laws were more common or more common sense. Dunno if it will happen.

Leave a Reply

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