Virginia Sheriff Says He’ll Deputize Thousands of Citizens to Protect Their Gun Rights

Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins

Sheriff Scott Jenkins (above right) Courtesy Culpeper County Sheriff’s Department Facebook page)

Following the change of control of Virginia’s legislature from red to blue, Democrats have been rushing to file gun control bills to be voted on and sent to an eager governor and signed into law. The bills include everything from an “assault weapons” ban to mandatory waiting periods to a red flag law to outright confiscation.

In response, counties across the state have been declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries and pledging not to enforce rights-infringing laws the legislature and Governor Coonman seem sure to put in place.

While Culpeper County voted to declare itself a 2A sanctuary, Sheriff Scott Jenkins told a meeting of the county board of supervisors . . .

The sheriff, elected in November to a third term in office, said he would not violate his oath of office by declining to enforce new gun laws, but asserted he was prepared to act otherwise.

He’s pledging to deputize thousands of Old Dominion residents, giving them the Second Amendment protections that will do doubt be built into the Democrats’ gun control schemes as carve-outs for law enforcement officers.

“If the legislature decides to restrict certain weapons I feel harms our community, I will swear in thousands of auxiliary deputies in Culpeper,” Jenkins said. “There’s no limit to the number of people I can swear in.” The sheriff added, “Personally, I don’t think some of the bills that are proposed will pass, I don’t think we’re that far left in Virginia.”

Maybe, maybe not. But given the types of bills Virginia Democrats have been pre-filing before they take control in January, they intend to enact as many gun control laws quickly as they can.

Sheriff Jenkins made his views clear in a Facebook post:

Look for more Virginia county sheriffs to take a cue from Sheriff Jenkins and offer this option to law-abiding citizens in their counties as well.



  1. avatar enuf says:

    More of this, we need lots and lots more of this.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      If only a single CA county Sheriff will have the guts to do this, I guarantee several others (out of our almost 60 Sheriffs statewide) will follow. Then it’ll become national news as well, and catch the attention of Sacramento.

      1. avatar MLee says:

        To get around it, legislators will just draft up some fancy language and make a law that says that “only fully commissioned and currently employed as law enforcement personnel are exempt from the restrictions.

        1. avatar Voldamort says:

          Reserve deputies are fully employed and duly sworn LEOs. They even make the same money as non reserve officers. They just only get paid when activated. While inactive, they still carry and wait for the phone call.
          And neither state nor federal law makes much difference if your county sheriff is on your side. As Sheriff Mack informed everyone, and sent the proof to every sheriff in the US, they are the ultimate LE authority, but only for their county. As he proved some 20 years ago when he met the feds at his county line with a bunch of reserve deputies, and sent them packing. He just said they weren’t allowed in his county, and if they tried to enter they would be placed under arrest, and if they resisted they would be shot.
          The feds made loads of dire threats (from just on the OTHER side of the county line 🙂 ) …. and then went away, not to return.
          All it takes is a sheriff that’s got a pair. Too bad that such are in short supply.

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          They can pass whatever state laws they want but they can’t defeat the federal law LEOSA that allows police to carry pistols regardless of state law.

          That said, LEOSA has a lot of requirements that the sheriff might not want to meet for his plan. The liability of authorizing non-trained citizens with power of arrest (not ‘citizen’s arrest’) could be… severe.

        3. avatar FunGunner says:

          I thought LEOSA was about carrying in public places, not ownership/possession of particular types in guns? Does LEOSA currently allow cops to own weapons that would otherwise be restricted? For example, can NYC cops own whatever guns they want do to LEOSA? If not, I’m not sure how it would protect deputized citizens from ‘assault weapon’ bans, unless they could claim that an otherwise banned gun was a duty-gun or authorized by their department.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Someone needs to find a California county sheriff with courage. Right now I don’t see any.

      3. avatar RGP says:

        Good luck with that, and don’t breathe the fumes from Windex while in CA, because it contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer.

  2. avatar former water walker says:

    Great! Where’s the coverage in a state I care about-ILLinois? All they needed to do in Virginia is show up to the polls. Not so ez with the blue Chiraq juggernaut…I will not comply!

    1. avatar Ironhead says:

      Honestly, until illinois finally cannot borrow any more money, or raise taxes any higher and finally goes bankrupt, nothing will change. Maybe not even then. But chiraq is destroying what was once a nice place to live.

      1. avatar Sam Hill says:

        It’s expensive to raise the dead once a year

    2. avatar Biatec says:

      I can’t wait to get out of Illinois.

      1. avatar Ruger Fanboy says:


      2. avatar Sam Hill says:

        Do like I did fify years ago. Put a snow shovel on top of your vehicle, drive south until you find 3 people in a row don’t know what kind of shovel it is. Hope you don’t run into a group of displaced NY’ers and end up in Keywest

        1. avatar Brad Yaeger says:

          No, drive West to Wyoming where real gun freedom exists. Just get a larger caliber pistol with hardcast for grizz.

          Hire a guy to clear snow from your driveway, just like a lawn cutter in Illinois.

          Been there, done that. Avoid FL at all costs, where it’s 93F for 6 months of the year and everybody is from New Jersey.

  3. avatar GS650G says:

    The sides are being drawn very clearly. A storm is coming.
    It’s always been fun to watch it happen somewhere else on TV but when they start in your neighborhood it’s very real.

    1. avatar Stateisevil says:

      I hope you are correct but I fear otherwise. They’ll likely only ram through bans on new purchases and red flag laws. This will probably not lead to war. The courts are useless of course. Confiscation would allow us to use the 2nd amendment for its intended purpose. Passive non-compliance doesn’t affect tyrannical regimes in the slightest as in California or New York or Connecticut.

      1. avatar Brad Yaeger says:

        They won’t have to confiscate anything. If you bring a banned gun outside the house, OR use it for legit self-defense, you’ll be arrested and imprisoned. You’ll have to bury it, or shoot it only on a large tract of private land.

        Voila–done. No wars necessary.

  4. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Well, that ought to work out well…there are people out their that should have access to firearms, much less a badge AND firearms…

  5. avatar Merle 0 says:

    Now that, is awesome.

  6. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    So a government employee will put his paycheck before his honor, big surprise there. Will he deputize any and all who ask for it or will he screen out people he wants to disarm? This plan is not a good thing. If he had any honor he would resign when given orders to enforce unconstitutional laws.
    If the government could not find scum to do it’s bidding they would just be sitting in the state capital talking among themselves.

    1. avatar ronno says:

      Dont resign, simply refuse to follow the edicts and force them to do something about it.

      1. avatar LazrBeam says:

        Yeah, how’s that working out in illegal alien sanctuary cities/counties/states? They refuse to follow Federal law and I see no consequences. I mean if it works for them then 2A sanctuaries should work for us. Same principle kinda. Except 2A sanctuaries recognize unconstitutional actions whereas illegal alien sanctuaries are flagrant violations of long established immigration laws.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      I don’t see his proposal (threat) in the terms you describe. Rather, I see him taking an obvious turn that pulls-the-rug out from under the gun-control crowd.

      My read is that he will deputize nearly all of his county’s residents who hold VA carry permits. (Just my impression; not that he has been specific.) That – alone – will be enough to give pause to the gun-controllers. It will put the handwriting on-the-wall.

      If he can deputize his own county’s residents he could carry on to deputize residents of neighboring counties. Then, 2 counties distant; eventually, any VA resident.

      Carried to its fullest extent, the Sheriff of some 2A sanctuary county, anywhere in the country, could deputize any resident of any state. And, thereupon, extend LEOSA coverage to most of the population.

      Clearly, it wouldn’t have to go so far to achieve the desired effect. Congress – in passing LEOSA – effectively created two classes of civilian citizens: the police (active and retired); and, the “commoners”. Gun-controllers are just fine with this system of second-class citizenship.

      This VA Sheriff has found the fatal flaw in Congress’s plan: any Sheriff can deputize the unorganized militia! Is there NO county in America that would support its local Sheriff in standing-up for the 2A? That’s what the gun-controllers would have to count on. Do they feel lucky?

      1. avatar Bob says:

        In Florida, any deputized person must hold a FDLE CJSTC Basic LE Certification within six months of being sworn in. That means that have to attended and complete the State required Law Enforcement Academy and pass the State LE Exam. No active certificate means the badge is taken away and the person isn’t sworn anymore.

        I’m sure Virginia as a similar law setup.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          In my county, Polk, the sheriff will renew LE certifications if the person with those certs. volunteers a few hours a year to the Polk county sheriff’s office…

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          Not relevant.

          Under LEOSA, IF one is qualified for the LEOSA exemption then he is qualified for the LEOSA exemption.

          The idea – in it’s richest form – is:
          – NOT for VA Sheriffs to deputize VA residents to enjoy exemptions from VA laws.
          it IS – INSTEAD:
          – FOR WY Sheriffs to deputize MA/NY/NJ/MD/CA/. . . residents to enjoy exemptions from the laws of their home states.

          All we need to do is find some state – I’m just guessing WY is a good candidate – that gives its Sheriffs wide latitude in who they appoint as deputies who are merely volunteers, and the scope of the commission they get (arrest powers, qualified immunity). The WY sheriff and WY legislature is outside the political influence of MA/NY/NJ/MD/CA/. . .’s legislature.

          To enable this strategy Congress would have to amend LEOSA. That countermove I think we could STOP with a filibuster using 41 Senators. Moreover, men-of-means would not allow Congress to strip their armed body-/property-guards of their LEOSA privileges.

          Congress would have a tough time tinkering with LEOSA to disqualify volunteer deputies without damaging the retired “squires” exemption from state carry laws.

        3. avatar Bob says:

          Geoff “I’m getting too old for this shit” PR says:

          In my county, Polk, the sheriff will renew LE certifications if the person with those certs. volunteers a few hours a year to the Polk county sheriff’s office…

          Reply –

          A Reserve Deputy in Polk County must still be certified and if he/she does not have the certification over a four year period it expires and the person must complete the academy and state exam again.

          MarkPA says:

          Not relevant.

          Under LEOSA, IF one is qualified for the LEOSA exemption then he is qualified for the LEOSA exemption.

          The idea – in it’s richest form – is:
          – NOT for VA Sheriffs to deputize VA residents to enjoy exemptions from VA laws.
          it IS – INSTEAD:
          – FOR WY Sheriffs to deputize MA/NY/NJ/MD/CA/. . . residents to enjoy exemptions from the laws of their home states.

          All we need to do is find some state – I’m just guessing WY is a good candidate – that gives its Sheriffs wide latitude in who they appoint as deputies who are merely volunteers, and the scope of the commission they get (arrest powers, qualified immunity). The WY sheriff and WY legislature is outside the political influence of MA/NY/NJ/MD/CA/. . .’s legislature.

          To enable this strategy Congress would have to amend LEOSA. That countermove I think we could STOP with a filibuster using 41 Senators. Moreover, men-of-means would not allow Congress to strip their armed body-/property-guards of their LEOSA privileges.

          Congress would have a tough time tinkering with LEOSA to disqualify volunteer deputies without damaging the retired “squires” exemption from state carry laws.

          Reply –

          LEOSA does not exempt one from AWB or Magazine Bans. If a Florida Officer wishes to visit California. He is exempt from getting a California CCW. He is not exempt from possessing an AR-15 in the State or having 17rd magazines for a GLOCK 17 in California.

        4. avatar MarkPA says:

          @Bob: “LEOSA does not exempt one from AWB or Magazine Bans. If a Florida Officer wishes to visit California. He is exempt from getting a California CCW. He is not exempt from possessing an AR-15 in the State or having 17rd magazines for a GLOCK 17 in California.”

          Thanks for the correction.

          If a state (such as VA) puts any onerous legislation up for passage the response can be ANYTHING; it doesn’t have to be a direct hit. Responding by doing an end-run around that state’s Won’t-Issue laws would have a powerful impact on whatever legislation it was considering.

          So, e.g., a WY Sheriff could offer to deputize MA residents as a response to its AG arbitrarily declaring certain makes+models as banned under the state’s AWB law.

          It now occurs to me that my original (mistaken) point might still apply to a NEW Congressional act.

          Congress might make another attempt at an AWB or a magazine limit. Would they allow a carve-out for LEs? If they did not then a lot of LEs/retirees who have such weapons/magazines would be adversely affected. Not good politics. Asking cops to kick-in the doors of other cops to arrest them for violating a Congressional AWB/magazine-limit.

          The easy solution is for Congress to allow a carve-out for LEs. If a WY sheriff can deputize ordinary citizens throughout the land and thereby end-run around Congress’ plan, that would be a deterrent to passing the law.

          LEOSA doesn’t cover any AWB/magazine-limit NOW. It doesn’t need to because there is no Federal AWB; and Congress wasn’t interested in that particular topic when it passed the now sunset AWB.

          But a NEW AWB/magazine-limit would have to take into account not only active-duty cops but retirees as well. Remember, those retirees are out there defending the persons and property of men-of-means; these are important political donors. Do these donors want their armed guards down-graded? Does Mayor Mike want his Praetorian Guard of 15 retired NYPD officers limited to 6-round magazines while protecting him? What about their “assault weapons”? If armored car robbers aren’t complying with the law will Brinks want its drivers to be limited to shotguns with 5-round magazines?

          State AWBs/magazine-limits are ineffectual inasmuch as compliance rates are low. Moreover, it’s easy enough to move one’s contraband to a relative’s home out-of-state. The Holy Grail is Federal law; and, that is likely to be vulnerable to frustration via a LEO/retired-LEO carve-out.

        5. avatar Hannibal says:

          LEOSA has specific requirements now. If you cannot meet state certifications you cannot be the “leo” part of “leosa”. They narrowed it considerably since its inception.

    3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      to Chris Mallory
      Do you really believe we are dealing with honorable people? These people who want to take own guns? Who want to violate our civil rights?

    4. avatar Higgs says:

      Chris – Sorry I think you are wrong.

      The laws have not even been voted on, forget being passed. The Sheriff is doing the right thing by pointing out what he can legally do while still holding office if the law is passed. By doing it publically if hopefully will pressure lawmakers that may be on the fence to also do the right thing. (maybe)

      You have to play the game if you want a chance to win.

      Resigning, in this case, is quitting before the game starts because you are afraid you might not win.

      1. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

        It doesn’t matter anymore when the lead starts flying the dead on both sides will be huge i just hope Patriots come out on top

  7. avatar Leslie says:

    One problem though! Once “Deputized” the Sherriff has to be able the PAY and UNIFORM and assure for proper training (Insurance Certification) of “Deputized” Citizenry. Culpeper, VA. isn’t a very large county and has limited funding…

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      No Mr or Mrs silly that’s not how it works. But if you want a T shirt that says “just been deputized”. You can pay for it out of your own pocket. About $20 or less.

      1. avatar Leslie says:

        So the Culpeper Sheriff Department is going to deputize ~48,000 County Citizens, that take only his orders (i.e. Private Militia). Answerable to no one except to him…

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Please look up how many cops are arrested, put on trial, convicted, and sent to jail. It does happen. In fact it’s going on now all across the country.
          Now we can also talk about weapons education a safe gun handling classes. Perhaps at local schools? We need to make sure they are all trained.

          Where do the instructors come from?
          Apple seed. The Boy and Girl Scouts. The 4-H. Having been with the 4-H marksmanship group I can say they are very capable of training adults too. And have done so.

        2. avatar Leslie says:

          I don’t recall, the Boy Scouts of America offering Firearms Training when I was a Boy Scout, or ever seeing another Boy Scout with a Firearms Proficiency Badge on his sash…

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          The marksmanship badge is one of the original 14 merrit badges offered, and is still one of the most requested and obtained badges. Hard to believe you were a boy scout and didn’t know this.

        4. avatar Another Ed says:

          Regarding the teaching of shooting skills in Scouting, the Cub Scouts teaches archery and the shooting of BB rifles, while older Scouts can earn Archery, Rifle Shooting (.22 LR or black powder) and Shotgun Shooting Merit Badges.

        5. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          The Boy Scouts also have Cowboy Action shooting as well as a Pistol shooting badge. I wish they had these when I was a scout!!!

        6. avatar Hurley Henson says:

          Why not, the democrats don’t follow any rules or laws when they allow illegals to break the laws like they do. If there can be sanctuary cities for illegals then there sure the hell can be sanctuary cities for the law abiding and second amendment people. It is past time people join together and destroy the gun grabbing filth and scum.

        7. avatar Leslie says:

          Isn’t this regardless as how you look at it a way to giving up you’re rights that your trying to protect…

    2. avatar Arc says:

      Very well, if a Sheriff in Texas deputized me for the same reasons, he can pay me a token $0.02 and I’ll supply my own uniform out of pocket. That, or bust out some of my old frog suits and throw on some armor. Depends on what the Sheriff needs.

      1. avatar LazrBeam says:

        I volunteer to be an undercover parking violation cop and wear my own clothes, thank you very much.

  8. avatar Aaron says:

    the highway to hell is paved with good intentions. good initiative bad judgement.

    1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      BTW, the header of this page spelled “Sheriff” wrong.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        You’re supposed to roll the R’s. It’s 2019, we’re all multikulti or something now.

        1. avatar Special Ed says:

          It’s spelled Sherrrifff.

        2. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

          Pardon me, while I whip this out!

  9. avatar LKB says:

    I like the sheriff’s approach — one of my pipe dreams is for a governor of a pro-2A state to essentially declare all adults in the state who are not ineligible to own a firearm and who are willing to sign up, are enrolled members of an official “state militia,” and thus able to rely on the established military/LEO exceptions to various federal gun laws. (It would take some very careful legislative drafting and lawyering, but it might be possible.)

    However, I fear the well-meaning sheriff here has made a tactical goof. He should have kept his plan to exploit the auxillary deputy provisions under his hat. With this now out in the open, expect the antis to just amend their bills to include provisions making their new laws applicable to auxillary / noncommissioned / non-full time LEO’s to close what they will perceive as a loophole.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      LKB: I take it that you are the lawyer who occasionally posts here. If so, your comments are very encouraging.

      Any state can do as it pleases with gun-control laws until SCOTUS finds the law unConstitutional.

      What you seem to overlook is Congress’ LEOSA and its treatment of RETIRED police.

      IMO, Congress passed LEOSA to create a class of “squires” who – upon retirement – would become a private armed force for men-of-means; to guard their exalted persons and property.

      The gun-controllers are happy with this arrangement. Police who retire after 10 years are proven agents of the state and remain on retainer to the state by virtue of receiving a valuable pension. Retired police are trustworthy – unwashed masses of citizens are not.

      Should widespread deputizing of citizens occur, Congress would have to tinker with LEOSA to rein-in the treatment of both active-duty police when traveling out-of-state and retired police. They would have to make the LEOSA exemption applicable to only those police who are active-duty or retired as full-time officers for 10 years.

      Admittedly, Congress COULD so amend LEOSA. So, the question becomes, could WE STOP them? All it should take is 41 Senators from right-to-carry states opposing the amending legislation. We, the PotG, OUGHT to be able to get 41 of our Senators to stop such an amendment.

      As I see it, this Sheriff’s idea – as it operates through LEOSA – is the club that will compel a resolution of the right-to-carry debate. How am I mistaken here?

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        You may have just opened a can of “2A worms”. That will make the skin of the gun grabbers crawl.

      2. avatar LKB says:

        To qualify under LEOSA, you have to have (or have had, in the case of qualified retired LEO’s) statutory arrest powers. In most states, only commissioned LEO’s have that power.

        It is highly unlikely that the sheriff is going to give official arrest powers (which would include qualified immunity) to a wide range of people not under his direct supervision and control; indeed, it would be exceedingly unwise for him to do so.

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Why are you afraid? You can already conduct a citizen’s arrest. They are rare. But do happen.

        2. avatar Leslie says:

          And who oversight’s a “Killing”, when a simple “Citizens Arrest” escalates beyond the judgement of the deputized citizen…

        3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to Leslie
          You do know that all police involved shootings, on duty or off duty, are investigated correct? Some even lead to a court trial and conviction of the officer.

        4. avatar Leslie says:

          I suspect that’ll make Deputized Sheriff recruiting even harder…

        5. avatar MarkPA says:

          @LKB: I am grateful that you responded.

          “It is highly unlikely [a Sheriff will] give official arrest powers (which would include qualified immunity) to a wide range of people not under his direct supervision and control; . . . exceedingly unwise for him to do so.”

          In America there are a lot of Sheriffs; some in low-population counties. It is highly unlikely that Joe Arpaio would be elected Sheriff of a county; but, there you go, it happened anyway.

          I don’t envision jumping to any extreme any time soon. I envision a VERY SLOW and measured rolling-out of the strategy. Find some county with a population of 100 citizens and 10,000 cattle. If it’s citizens want to take the lead they can tell their Sheriff that they will support him. He deputizes 10, then 20, then 50 of these citizens.

          Somewhere, another Sheriff jumps on the bandwagon and deputizes 5 and then 10.

          Each Sheriff will – initially – be very selective in whom he deputizes. Yet, the gun-controllers won’t know just how selective any Sheriff is. Likely, these Sheriffs will tell their new deputies that they are making a statement for the rights of responsible citizens to carry responsibly. If he gets any hint that one of them is out to screw-the-pooch for the campaign his deputization will be revoked.

          Deputizing a volunteer is NOT so very UNlike hiring a new employee. You interview the guy; check his background; put your money down; and, take your chances. It’s not like all deputies/beat-cops are perfect choices. The risk to public safety and the county’s budget for insurance premiums isn’t likely to jump with a few hundred volunteer deputies added to the LEOSA-qualified ranks across the nation.

          Nevertheless, your point needs to be thoroughly investigated. If a volunteer deputy commits a tort or civil rights violation in the county where he is deputized I see it as falling on the county. What does that risk look like?

          If the incident occurs in the state where he is deputized, but OUTside the county where he is deputized, where does that risk fall?

          If the incident occurs in a state OTHER than where he was deputized, where does that risk fall?

          My recollection of LEOSA is that retired police have no protections (other than exemption from carry laws). I suspect that active-duty police outside their state-of-jurisdiction have no protections. Once the scope of liability is well understood Sheriffs will dole-out deputizations accordingly.

          Suppose, for the sake of illustration, that outside the deputizing state, there is no liability on the county. Well, then a Wyoming Sheriff can deputize an Alabama resident with little fear that an incident will kick-back on his county.

          This idea has potential primarily as a threat which CAN be realized incrementally in small measure – a dozen volunteer deputies at a time. Since it is NOT clear to what extent it may be realized, legislators will have to FEAR it.

          Unlike the die-hards on TTAG, I don’t see any necessity to refrain from discrimination. If a Sheriff will deputize 1 or 10 or 100 of his friends, I DON’T CARE. Maybe these carriers will all be “ordinary millionaires” who will be careful not to put their personal fortunes at risk by irresponsible behavior. The result is the same. If one Sheriff can do it then MANY Sheriffs can do it. And, the number of relatively-ordinary civilians carrying in defiance of state laws will grow OUT-side the control of Congress and state legislatures.

          The legislatures of the Won’t-Issue and AWB states will have to ask themselves whether they want people keeping and bearing arms in their state under the auspices of:
          1. Some nameless Sheriff in Wyoming; or,
          2. a tolerable law of their own design.
          Not a difficult choice; IMO.

      3. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Your proposal is right in line with the founders, as well as the early Congress’ intent for the militia, although you are a bit more progressive in allowing for women.

        Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution allow the Congress:
        To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

        With Congress’ authority established, they passed the Militia Act of 1792, fully defining what the militia is:
        “…every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years.”
        The Militia Act of 1862 then allowed “any male of any race” to serve.

        When someone says the militia is the just the National Guard, it’s important to remind them of what the founders and early congress intended.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          1776. I win.

        2. avatar Leslie says:

          Pub.L.64-85, 39 Stat.166 “National Defense Act of 3 June 1916”! You lose…

        3. avatar LKB says:


          You are of course correct, but needless to say BATFE won’t consider legal status as a member of the “unorganized militia” under federal law to be a basis for claiming the LEO/Mil exceptions to the NFA or GCA.

          Now, what if for example Wyoming set up an official auxillary state militia, open to all adults residing in the state with clean records, who were willing to go through (at the individual’s expense) a one week training session every two years, and upon completion of the initial training session would be issued a select-fire weapon (which the state would officially own but would be purchased with funds donated by the militiaman to whom it is being issued)? That would present BATFE with a real pickle, as the state is free to buy all the post-Hughes FA toys they want (read: AR’s with a giggle switch for $1000), and the BATFE really cannot tell the state who is / is not a state LE/Mil member under state law.

          (I suspect that there may be something buried in the CFR that BATFE would assert blocks this, but it’s an interesting thought exercise nevertheless.)

        4. avatar MarkPA says:

          Interesting thought exercise; albeit I can’t imagine a state taking on the NFA`34.

          Nevertheless, it lends itself to variations on the theme.

          Suppose Congress adopted another AWB and a state decided to take-on that challenge. Go through the same exercise; but this time, the state would accept a “gift” of firearms not compliant with the new AWB.

          The state might elect to store its property anywhere it desired. It might designate VFW halls as state “arsenals”. Or, its militia officers’ homes. Possibly even the homes of its militiamen/women.

          What might BATFE doe about that scenario?

          Would a state legislature stand-up to the Feds and save its residents’ contraband from confiscation without compensation? There must be one or two legislatures that would do so; at least as an interim measure until Congress discovered that its attempt would fail.

          In the face of such a threat, Congress might not go through with adopting such an AWB.

          The foregoing scenario suggests a state registration log of militiamen/women who gifted their weapons to the state. Nevertheless, the state could decentralize the records and destroy them after the weapons were returned to the donors.

        5. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Leslie, beyond lying about being a Boy Scout, you seem to have trouble with reading comprehension. We were discussing original intent. Try and keep up.
          Oh, and 1776 always wins.

        6. avatar Leslie says:

          Twelve years after 1776, George Washington by Executive Order the Disqualification Act of 1787 (i.e. The Shays’ Rebellion)…

        7. avatar jwtaylor says:

          LKB, perhaps something like the Texas state guard, which is organized strictly through the state of Texas, receives funding from the state of Texas, and is often active in times of emergency.

        8. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to Leslie
          The Cajun Navy is another example of a civilian run, civilian organized group. Their primary purpose is to beat the government at rescuing people in floods. And they are very successful at it. Which is why the Left really hates it. Because they can’t control it.

          Just listen to the communist NPR report.

        9. avatar Leslie says:

          And the “Culpeper Deputize Militia” are going to act exactly as the “Cajun Navy” will! You’re guaranteeing that…

      4. avatar Sam Hill says:

        Who says retired cops are trustworthy, a bunch of them arn’t trustworthy as full time academy trained, certified cops.
        Btw I was going to post this next few words in a separate post, but here is fine.
        If he does in fact deputize residents, I for one am moving there. Nothing I’d like to do more than write some of these idiots who think they are drivers, but could not drive a geased stake into a lard can. High dollar tickets. Bet I could balance, his budget paying every deputy full wages and overtime. If they act behind the wheel in Va, like they do in Ga. You see how I avoided saying drive cause it can’t be called that, even with most liberal definition of the word.

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:


      If a Sheriff deputizes someone, then that person becomes part of the Sheriff’s posse (derived from Latin, meaning “to have power, to be able”) and falls under the Sheriff’s jurisdiction. And the Sheriff is (constitutionally) the last line of defense for the citizens of his/her township. He/she may tell other sworn agencies to pound sand.

      1. avatar LKB says:

        No. Sheriffs are creatures of state law, and state law could be changed to limit their power or restrict who the sheriff can deputize. Such a change may be harder in some states than others (e.g., if a sheriff’s office and powers is set out in a state constitution), but it’s not like a sheriff is some sort of Roman People’s Tribune with inherent powers to ignore or override state law.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          @LKB: Thank you again for engaging on this possibility.

          So, likely, there are many states which will put a quick stop to the practice of deputizing volunteers. But, it only takes one Sheriff in one state to leave the opportunity as one to be exploited. There are 50 states; we ought to be able to fine ONE sheriff in ONE state that will leave him alone.

          So, first thing to be done is to tick-off the states one-by-one. Which ones have state laws allowing their Sheriffs to do what would be needed to be done? Of these states, which have legislatures controlled by gun-rights advocates? Now, we have a list of candidate states.

          Next, list the Sheriffs of these states and get the local politics of their gun-rights advocacy.

          How about the native American tribes? Can they deputize individuals not members of their tribes? What are their liabilities (they, after all, are sovereign nations)?

          How about the territories? (Not that any are friendly to the 2A.) Somewhere, there has to be a Sheriff’s department that needs volunteers who are willing to contribute their time and financial resources to support the department.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:


          I disagree, and I’d like to see links if you have them for support of your position.

          The office of Sheriff is constitutional, and a Sheriff (an officer directly elected by his constituency) is accountable to the citizens within his township. A state may set qualifications for a Sheriff, but the Sheriff is not bound to obey the State in all circumstances.

          For example, Article 3 Section 1 of the CA State Constitution consists of a single sentence:

          “The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.”

          Here in CA, the entirety of the State government is blatantly and boldly violating the 2A, which it is expressly commanded to uphold. Therefore, when the State fails in its duties, the Sheriff may – and should – fulfill his own oath and nullify such unconstitutional actions, thereby supporting the U.S. Constitution.

          The office of Sheriff pre-dates the formation of the States, and is therefore not a creature of the States.

        3. avatar LKB says:

          @ I Haz

          The fact that there were sheriffs at common law means nothing. In the U.S., sheriffs and their deputies, the requirements for serving as such, and the extent of their powers and duties, are all governed by state law. Period. The idea that sheriffs are somehow immune from or superior to state law is simply inane.

          You want a cite, go look up California Government Code Sections 24100-24105 for a start.

        4. avatar I Haz A Question says:


          I didn’t say Sheriffs are immune from state law. They are bound by their oaths to support and defend their state constitutions as well as the USC. But as in my example above, our CA document is – by its own wording in Art 3 Sec 1 – subservient to the USC. And when the State fails in its duties, the Sheriff may fulfill his own oath and nullify such unconstitutional actions, thereby supporting the U.S. Constitution.

          To suggest that Sheriffs must comply with and enforce blatantly unconstitutional laws because they’re somehow wards of their respective States is, in itself, inane.

          I certainly hope you never run for Sheriff anywhere, if your views on bowing to a State’s unlawful demands are any indication.

        5. avatar LKB says:

          @I Haz
          Your initial comment and my response regards the sheriff’s power to deputize. That’s created and governed by state law.

          If a sheriff doesn’t want to enforce what he believes to be an unconstitutional law is one thing. Whether he can deputize other people is something else.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        This is a common sovereign citizen line and like those trying to use the UCC to block traffic stops, it’s complete nonsense. The states have the power to determine law enforcement in their jurisdiction, subject to federal powers (i.e. they cannot stop federal agents from enforcing federal law). There is no magical Sheriff’s power, derived or otherwise, that supercedes that of the state.

    3. avatar AD says:

      Another glaring issue would be that this list could be quite convenient to someone who comes later. Then again, fascists are usually inclined to view EVERYONE as “political enemies.

  10. avatar GS650G says:

    They are going to put the laws on the books and the next time anything happens in VA involving guns and numerous victims they will move on the people who didn’t do anything wrong.

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      What do you mean “…next time…”? That’s what they are doing right now.

  11. avatar Bubba says:

    He swore an oath to uphold the law. *All* law.
    The Constitution is the supreme law of the land….nothing outranks it.
    This sheriff (and all LEOs) should refuse to enforce new ‘gun control’ laws because they contradict the 2nd Amendment, and are therefore *unenforceable*.

  12. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    As long as the militia is composed of all law abiding county residence regardless of the race, creed, color, national origin, or sexual orientation. His plan will be a success.

    I hope he is a smart man. And not stupid. Because if he excludes people and he fails to articulate why he excluded them. Then the entire plan will fail. I sure EVERYONE will be watching to see if anyone is discriminated against when it comes to being deputized.

    And yes you can be denied without a criminal record. Police calls to homes and businesses have written reports of trouble makers. Those reports are kept on file.

  13. avatar Dennis says:

    Bravo sheriff! Way past time for “real” Americans to start taking our country back from these poorly disguised marxists!

  14. avatar strych9 says:

    So he’s willing to enforce any new laws that pass but deputize basically the whole county so that there’s no one, at least no one local, to enforce the laws against…

    Not sure how I feel about this stance. Might be genius or it might turn into some Joe Pesci type arguing about grits and Positraction.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      What a great, underappreciated lawyer movie… 🙂

  15. avatar Ray says:

    Funny how the anti cops crowd on TTAG is nowhere to be found when news like this pop up.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      You make a very good point. I hear crickets as well. And nothing from the Libertarians. At least no yet. Reason Magazine???

    2. avatar arc says:

      You hear nothing because sheriffs are usually elected and can be held to account. They are a whole other animal to appointed chiefs and cops. This sheriff is amazingly erring on the side of doing his damn job which is why you don’t hear much.

      BTW, all the crickets are frozen, wrong season.

  16. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

    Just a bunch of Political clap trap by the Sheriff to get reelected. His bosses will boot him right out of office if he does not stiff arm salute and click his heels and enforce the new laws that will eradicate the Second Amendment in Virginia. And if he turns out to be a real nut case and does start deputizing multitudes of people the Powers to Be will send in the brain washed jack booted National Guard Storm Troopers to sweep the streets clean with automatic weapons fire and armored troop carriers and helicopter gun ships.

    Lets face cold hard facts the Dems are in power in Virginia now and as Mao Zedong once said “Power comes from the barrel of a gun” and the State jackbooted henchmen now have the most men and the most powerful weapons so its a forgone conclusion. Obey the new laws “or else” and everyone in Virginia will soon know what “or else” means.

    I do not agree with any of the bans or confiscations that are now a certainty but there is nothing the Virginians can do about it now as they are doomed to disarmament while the courts look the other way as they always do. Its all over now and the Komarades of the Legislature are just waiting for the fat lady to sing the last song of doom. The cases of Vodka have been ordered for “The Party” to drink at the celebrations to follow the eradication of the Second Amendment in Virginia.

    As the Russians say тост за победу

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      -Virginia sheriffs are elected by the people, not appointed. They do not answer to any boss.

      -The Dems are, in fact, in power. But they are in no position to enforce their hyper-stupidity. They have no means to successfully enforce against massive non-compliance. At this time nearly half of the counties in Virginia have declared non-compliance.

      -Lastly… We. Will. Not. Comply.

      1. avatar Baldwin says:

        And @Vlad,
        I got your toast.

      2. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        quote——————-The Dems are, in fact, in power. But they are in no position to enforce their hyper-stupidity.——————-quote

        Not correct. The Governor can send in the National Guard at any moment, and can have the Sheriff arrested for not complying with the law. And Since the Dems won the Governor Race the Sheriffs ass is grassed. He will obey “or else”.
        тост за победу as the Dems are saying now.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          STFU crisco kid, the unrepentant liar. Or should I call you vlad tepes, the racist?

          It’s not hard to spot your bigotry and socialist drivel. You could at least try a little bit harder to not make it so obvious. It’s embarrassing.

          Unfortunately for you, he’s right and you’re wrong. Not surprising, really, being that you’re quite literally always wrong about everything ever. Printz v. U.S. established the duly-elected Sheriff as THE final law enforcement authority in their jurisdiction — yes, even above the feds. They very well have the statutory authority to tell the National Guard and literally everyone else to fuck in the direction of off — and they’d have less than absolutely no other choice but to do so. That, and the National Guard cannot be used as law enforcement in any capacity lest they violate Posse Comitatus. No, Sheriffs will not be made to comply, period. They haven’t been in ZOO York or KKKommiefornia, either, nor will they be made to. You know nothing, as per usual. Shut the fuck up.

    2. avatar AD says:

      His bosses? You mean the people of the county, right? Your thought has failed to launch.
      I’ll let you in on another not so well kept secret: As you head west the elevation gets higher and the land is very rugged. These areas are filled with people who have a long tradition of not giving a damn what some government says. Many, many revenuers found that out the hard way.
      Outsiders can go to those parts. Sometimes they don’t come out.

      1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        “His bosses? You mean the people of the county, right? Your thought has failed to launch.”

        No your thoughts have sunk at the dock. And I failed to mention the people in the legislature that will put pressure on the Democratic Governor to drag away the Sheriff naked and in chains and escorted to the gulag by Storm Troopers whose military vehicles will have the inscription тост за победу. Remember Virginia’s government has the best men “money can buy”.

        Don’t you love a non-democratic Representative Government because it does not represent the people and never has. It Represents the people who have the most money and are willing to buy the most power. The Founding Fathers were no dummies when it came to absolute power and corruption i.e. crush democracy by preventing adoption of a parliamentary government and substitute a Representative Government of the Rich and by the Rich and Powerful. Now you know who the next President will be , he will be the guy that has the most money i.e. Bloomberg, the high priest of the Anti-gun zealots.

        Bloomberg’s campaign hats are going to read тост за победу.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          STFU crisco kid, the unrepentant liar. Or should I call you vlad tepes, the racist?

          It’s not hard to spot your bigotry and socialist drivel. You could at least try a little bit harder to not make it so obvious. It’s embarrassing.

          Your own “thoughts” never so much as left the proximity of the ore mines from which the iron comes to make the steel for your ship that would have sunk before making it to the fitting out jetty. You have once and again failed to know what the fuck you’re even talking about to begin with. You, not anyone else here, need to remember that you’re willfully pig ignorant and know less than absolutely nothing, and that none of your predictions have ever come to pass. Not one. Not ever. Nor will they, because they’re all bullshit — and you know it. You know it because it’s been consistently and concretely proven to you by people who know better than you do, which is almost everyone else here.

          That non-demoKKKratiKKK “representative” government you’re talking about? That’s one that you would absolutely vote for in a heartbeat, being a consummate leftist who just loves grabbing people’s guns. By the way, a parliamentary government would be, and is everywhere else one’s been instituted, every bit a government “of the rich and powerful” as you THINK ours is. Whether you accept that assessment or not is irrelevant and doesn’t even enter into the calculus of this or any other dictation to you, either, so don’t bother objecting. You’re automatically wrong. Shut the fuck up.

          P.S.: I rightly and sincerely hope that the candidate you favor never wins the White House, just on general principle.

        2. avatar AD says:

          Then come! Walk amongst us! The army of your imagination will be swallowed up in these hills. Believe that. Your army comes from these hills. They will dogpile your unintelligent backside faster than you can ask “what?” Now crawl to the demanding moms and cry.
          You’re a joke. Anyone who knows anything laughs at you. Go read a book or something.

        3. avatar Selketskiss says:


    3. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

      Baldwin has the right of this. He was elected 56 to 44 percent, so as long as the voters are satisfied he will remain in office. This move will likely cement his hold on his office.

    4. avatar Another Ed says:

      How cruel to post something in Russian without providing a translation.
      “тост за победу” is “tost za puh-BEH-doo”, meaning “a toast to victory”.
      “за победу” can often be seen painted on the turrets of T-34 tanks in film footage from the 1940s.

      1. avatar AD says:

        Should it be forgotten that Russia would have crumbled without mostly US and lesser British support? Stalin, of course, always asked for more……. Nazi pirate ships did more damage than subs BTW.

  17. avatar GunnyGene says:

    At the moment this is all pure speculation, including what the Sheriff said. If push comes to shove, then we’ll see what happens with regard to the Sheriff’s vow to deputize thousands.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      He does NOT have to deputize EVERYone. Nor thousands. He only needs to start with 1 – ONE!

      Imagine, with great fanfare, he announces that on the 4’th of July he will hand-out an application – just one – to the first VA CWP-holder who volunteers to be deputized. That will get a lot of publicity.

      Then, on Veterans Day, he announces he will deputize all vets with a VA CWP who volunteer; probably hundreds.

      And so forth; every patriotic holiday another tranche of worthy applicants will be considered.

      Eventually, the message will register.

      The point is not to choose between NO-one and EVERY-one. Nor is it to nullify gun control laws by deputizing lots of folks resident in Won’t-Issue states. Rather, it is to highlight the uncomfortable (Constitutionally) distinction between civilian police (active-duty and RETIRED) vs. the unwashed 2’nd-class masses.

      If a Sheriff, any Sheriff, moves in this direction in a prudent manner his actions will be resistant to criticism. (E.g., well-known responsible veterans.) He won’t have to go very far before the gun-controllers realize that this is an end-run around their control of Congress and the legislatures. At the breaking-point we will get changes in state laws that begin to restore the right-to-carry.

      1. avatar Baldwin says:

        Nailed it!

  18. avatar AD says:

    Perhaps many of these western VA counties could throw in their lot with WV or KY. The culture is already more similar than that of their eastern neighbors.

  19. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Good Man!! Heck of an idea. He could also announce a permanent posse comitatus which includes people down to age 15. It’s time for apoplexy among the Democrats. You know, chocking and gagging on stage like Pelosi did yesterday only worse.

  20. avatar MDH says:

    Good on the Sheriff for upholding his Constitutional responsibility. Oh, and Clinton killed Epstein.

    1. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

      Name three things that don’t hang themselves:
      Christmas Ornaments
      Jeffery Epstein

  21. avatar Texican says:

    This is a genius idea! I’d pay for a badge and training out of my own pocket. As long as LEOSA applies to all deputies. Wouldn’t that be cool?! 2A supporters could fill up a sports stadium that normally disallows concealed carry but has to allow LEOs to carry their guns. And when no incidents occur it’ll be ammo to get ridiculous laws and rules repealed!

  22. Excellent! We The People need a few thousand Sheriff’s all across the nation like this one. For the Sheriff is the highest L.E. Officer in each county.

  23. avatar Dan says:

    Just making everyone a cop is not the solution.

    1. avatar arc says:

      Why not? We are all people, we all bleed red, so why not give everyone qualified immunity and the extra perks?

    2. avatar AD says:

      What’s the difference? By law I am already “unofficial militia.” Citizens ARE able to own, AHEM…. weapons of war. That’s the point.

  24. avatar Joseph says:

    Couldn’t the sheriff give orders to the reserve deputies that they can only arrest if empowered by the sheriff to do so? In practice, it would only be the people with a CCW.

  25. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    In 1966(?) at the Texas tower shooting. It was two deputized civilians and a cop who stopped the shooter. While other civilians used their own pick up “truck guns” to shoot at and suppress the sniper.

  26. avatar Anymouse says:

    If the Dems want to stop this, all they have to do is limit the LEO carveouts to POST certified officers. The sheriff could open his academy to civilians, if he has one, but few will dedicate the time and resources to comply with an unjust law when they can just ignore it instead.

  27. avatar d9inger says:

    “The sheriff, elected in November to a third term in office, said he would not violate his oath of office by declining to enforce new gun laws, but asserted he was prepared to act otherwise.”

    Didn’t his oath of office include “to support and defend the constitution…”? I understand the (proposed) laws and his oath are in direct conflict, but I think his statement is in conflict with itself.

  28. avatar Agent 714 says:

    If there’s going to be a second civil war, it will begin here in Virginia. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, but the tree of liberty needs to be fed..
    God Bless.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email