Ohio Sheriffs back 2nd Amendment (sort of)

[Tod]

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20130131/NEWS01/301310026/Sheriffs-back-2nd-Amendment

Sheriffs back 2nd Amendment
They question Obama's gun plans

Area sheriffs are aligning themselves behind the Second Amendment, not the president, when it comes to gun control.
Dozens of sheriffs across the country are questioning the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s gun-control initiatives. Some, including 28 of 29 Utah county sheriffs, have sent Obama letters saying they won’t enforce gun laws they believe would violate the Second Amendment.
“I’m in total support of the Second Amendment,” Richland County Sheriff Steve Sheldon said. “I think what the federal government is trying to do is wrong and how they’re doing it is wrong.”
Sheldon met with U.S. Rep. Bob Gibbs on Jan. 11 to talk specifically about the actions of the federal government concerning gun laws.
Morrow County Sheriff Steve Brenneman agreed with his Richland County colleague.
“At this point, I am going to uphold and support the Constitution to the best of my ability,” Brenneman said. “I am pro-Second Amendment and pro-Constitution.”
Obama has laid out a plan that includes strengthening background checks for gun purchasers, limiting the size of ammunition magazines and banning assault weapons.
“At this point, I don’t know what actions are going to be taken, but for every action, there’s a reaction,” Sheldon said. “We’ll make some kind of determination once we learn what’s going to come out of Washington.”
Brenneman echoed those sentiments.
“There’s so much speculation out there at this point,” he said. “When I see what it is, I will know what I will do or not do.”
The issue has come to the forefront in the wake of the Dec. 14 shootings in Newtown, Conn., where 20 first-graders and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
“In Ohio, we have concealed-carry laws. Every sheriff’s office in Ohio has the responsibility to register concealed-carry recipients,” Ashland County Sheriff Wayne Risner said. “We haven’t had any issues. The problem hasn’t occurred from the people who follow the rules. It’s been people with (mental-health) issues.”
Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, reportedly struggled with such issues.
Like Sheldon and Brenneman, Risner supports the Second Amendment.
“We’re sworn to uphold the Constitution,” he said. “I don’t think anybody’s done anything to change the Constitution.”
Crawford County Sheriff Scott Kent is taking a wait-and-see approach.
“I think all 88 sheriffs should get together and come up with a unified decision,” Kent said.

Risner is the president of the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association.

I commented with this:

From the article: “In Ohio, we have concealed-carry laws. Every sheriff’s office in Ohio has the responsibility to register concealed-carry recipients,” Ashland County Sheriff Wayne Risner said. “We haven’t had any issues. The problem hasn’t occurred from the people who follow the rules. It’s been people with (mental-health) issues.”

Sheriff Risner admits that "the problem hasn't occurred from people who follow the rules" but that people with issues don't follow the rules. What value is there in having a rule that only serves to penalize and infringe upon the rights of law abiding people?

How do the sheriffs rationalize upholding (or failing to defend their county residents from) EXISTING infringements upon Second Amendment Rights, such as the requirement to obtain a permit for a concealed weapon? Permit implies permission, which implies privilege, not right. Don't misunderstand me: I am fully in favor of any firearm owner seeking out as much training and developing as much competence as possible, but that issue should not be confused with seeking permission to carry concealed.

How do they rationalize registration and taxes for suppressors, and limitations on ownership of fully automatic weapons, limitations on barrel length, etc? ALL of those items concern firearms that have a place in defense.

Even the Department of Homeland Security recognizes that a select fire (semi or fully automatic) firearm has a role as a "personal defense" weapon (their language). Last June 7th they solicited bids for such items chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO.

History makes it clear that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow ordinary citizens the means to overthrow a tyrannical government should political reform fail. In the late 1700's "Well regulated" meant "properly functioning", not "with extensive governmental oversight". Militia referred to every able-bodied adult male between 17 and 45. Nowadays the age and gender restrictions would be construed as discriminatory. All persons who formed the militia were expected to provide their own weapon of military capability, but today that ability has been eroded - infringed upon - by legislation such as the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act.

If we are going to draw a line in the sand, can we at least draw it in the right place? The stance the Sheriffs' are taking is commendable, but inadequate. It looks suspiciously close to being nothing more than political convenience to draw a line in the sand at a place the enemies of individual liberty are not (at this time) expected to cross. We know that people like Diane Feinstein would like to confiscate all weapons. She, and others, have said as much. Our goal should be nothing short of regaining ALL of our lost rights. The goal should NOT be to position one's self politically for the next election.

 

[Pericles]

Interesting how many people (A) want to stay in a public office and (B) don't want to get shot.