Sheriff Calls for ‘Sanctuary County’ to Protect Gun Rights

[hps1]

Sheriff Calls for ‘Sanctuary County’ to Protect Gun Rights
by Jordan Michaels on September 25, 2019
Related Tags: Buzz, News, R2KBA

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Reddit
• E-mail

Sheriff Roger Deeds is calling for his county to stop enforcing new state and federal gun control laws. (Photo: Hood County Sheriff)
A sheriff in rural Hood County, Texas, has begun the process of declaring his jurisdiction a “sanctuary county” in which any new state and federal gun control laws will not be enforced.

“People are scared. They don’t want to lose their rights,” Sheriff Roger Deeds told local media. “They have the right to protect themselves and we’re going to make sure that they keep that right to keep and bear arms and protect themselves.”

Deeds joins sheriffs in less gun-friendly states like Washington, Illinois, and California in calling for sanctuary counties to oppose state-level gun control laws. While the Texas legislature has historically defended gun rights, the Lone Star sheriff might be responding to calls for universal background checks from Texas Lieutenant Gov. Dan Patrick following massacres in El Paso and Odessa.

“That gun didn’t pull its own trigger. It took somebody with a demented mind that was maybe in that mental crisis mode to pull that trigger,” Deeds said. “Here in this part of Texas people don’t take too kindly to others, especially from the federal government, talking about wanting to take away people’s rights, people’s weapons, rifles, pistols.

“My message to the people of Hood County is I’m not going to stand by and allow anybody, if it’s the federal government or whoever, stating that they’re going to take away people’s rifles. That’s not going to happen,” Deeds said. “It can’t happen under the constitution of the United States the way it’s wrote anyway.”

SEE ALSO: Texas Woman Stops Five Robbers With Two Shots
Deeds told local media his proposal enjoys strong support from judges and county commissioners. If the proposal goes through it will have to be passed by the Commissioner’s Court of Hood County, and he hopes to get a vote next month.

“We’re doing this to the legal letter of the law, and that’s why we’re going to meet with the county attorney and make sure we get it spelled out right,” he said.

Pressure to enact more restrictive gun control laws has also come from Washington, where the Democrat-controlled House has passed numerous anti-gun bills, President Trump has waffled on his support for universal background checks, and former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke vowed to confiscate AR-15’s and AK-47’s.

SEE ALSO: Texas Democrat Claims AR-15s Fire ’50-Caliber’ Bullets, Weigh as Much as ’10 Boxes’
Deeds is up for reelection next year, and some have suggested that the move is more about politics than gun rights.

Whatever his motivation, Hood County gun owners are no doubt happy to hear that their sheriff is willing to push back against federal lawmakers intent on confiscating their firearms.

“We’re not going to be messing with the Second Amendment in Hood County,” Deeds said.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/...-sheriff-sanctuary-county-protect-gun-rights/

Regards,
hps

 

[kcofohio]

I wonder how many Chief of Police we would here from, if their post was an elected position.

 

[JERRY]

I wonder how many Chief of Police we would here from, if their post was an elected position.

none; they count on pleasing 4 out of 6 council members in order to keep their job.

 

[BigBore44]

Wish I could vote for Mr. Deeds. Regardless if it’s politically motivated or not. Even if it is, he’s playing the right game in this environment.

 

[Virginia Jim]

My county sheriff keeps me stocked with .223 brass. Better than campaign liquor.

 

[Poper]

Wish I could vote for Mr. Deeds. Regardless if it’s politically motivated or not. Even if it is, he’s playing the right game in this environment.

You could always send a donation to his campaign.
https://sheriffdeeds.com/

 

[BigBore44]

You could always send a donation to his campaign.
https://sheriffdeeds.com/

I think I just might.

 

[Tommygunn]

While I like the sheriff's attitude, when it comes to federal gun laws, they will be enforced by federal law enforcement (ie., BATFE and U. S. Marshals). If the feds can't get local help in some matter they will likely just send more feds in .... sorta like Waco.

 

[Poper]

While I like the sheriff's attitude, when it comes to federal gun laws, they will be enforced by federal law enforcement (ie., BATFE and U. S. Marshals). If the feds can't get local help in some matter they will likely just send more feds in .... sorta like Waco.

This is from a few years back, but this is the idea that seems to be where Sheriff Deeds may be coming from:
Excerpt from a letter to President Obama 2013: "We respect the office of the President of the United States," the letter says. "But make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal officials will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular Amendment II — has given them." The letter concludes: "We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation."
Emphasis mine.
From:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/29/sheriffs-gun-ban-enforce/1873885/

The USA can use more patriots of this flavor. Me? I would happily donate to such a man's campaign!

 

[Tommygunn]

This is from a few years back, but this is the idea that seems to be where Sheriff Deeds may be coming from:
Excerpt from a letter to President Obama 2013: "We respect the office of the President of the United States," the letter says. "But make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal officials will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular Amendment II — has given them." The letter concludes: "We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation."
Emphasis mine.
From:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/29/sheriffs-gun-ban-enforce/1873885/

The USA can use more patriots of this flavor. Me? I would happily donate to such a man's campaign!

That seems to suggest that the sheriff may actually be willing to take some form of action against federal leos if it is believed the feds are attempting an unconstitutional action against civilians. I guess I could learn to like a sheriff like him.
Hmmmm. Interesting.

I will with-hold further comment.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

I am not sure how I feel about cities/counties disregarding state and fed laws.

It really puts citizens in bad place. we are then at the mercy of the officers discretion. Especially if we step outside that county/city. I would think that this would cause confusion and never knowing where/how you stand with law enforcement/prosecution.

These laws are bad and I am super stoked to see a Sheriff calling it like it is.

I am just not sure about the precedent that at city/county can ignore state/fed law.

 

[1911 guy]

I'll tell you how I feel about states and counties disregarding federal laws.
It begins with a commonly repeated and completely erroneous statement: "We are a nation of laws".
Utterly and patently Bovine Excrement.
We are a nation of a Constitution.
Any law that is contradictory to a plain reading of the Constitution is of no effect. Marbury v. Madison and Plain Meaning rule.
It matters not one bit whether I like or dislike a law. The Constitution is the arbiter.
So when a state or local official stands up to federal malfeasance, they are, in fact, serving you, the citizen, far more than the federal government you are so afraid of offending.

 

[Poper]

I am not sure how I feel about cities/counties disregarding state and fed laws.

It really puts citizens in bad place. we are then at the mercy of the officers discretion. Especially if we step outside that county/city. I would think that this would cause confusion and never knowing where/how you stand with law enforcement/prosecution.

These laws are bad and I am super stoked to see a Sheriff calling it like it is.

I am just not sure about the precedent that at city/county can ignore state/fed law.

I don't see a lot of difference between this and Sanctuary cities/counties/states. Except for one thing: Our right to own and use firearms is expressly guaranteed in the constitution. A right to invade our country is not.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

I don't see a lot of difference between this and Sanctuary cities/counties/states. Except for one thing: Our right to own and use firearms is expressly guaranteed in the constitution. A right to invade our country is not.

I don't disagree with you.

I think sanctuary cities are... Bad

I just think the position it puts us in is... Perilous. And the precedent it sets is even murkier.

 

[roscoe]

I'll tell you how I feel about states and counties disregarding federal laws.
It begins with a commonly repeated and completely erroneous statement: "We are a nation of laws".
Utterly and patently Bovine Excrement.
We are a nation of a Constitution.
Any law that is contradictory to a plain reading of the Constitution is of no effect. Marbury v. Madison and Plain Meaning rule.
It matters not one bit whether I like or dislike a law. The Constitution is the arbiter.
So when a state or local official stands up to federal malfeasance, they are, in fact, serving you, the citizen, far more than the federal government you are so afraid of offending.

This sheriff is posturing (bless his heart); case law is established here. And the arbiter is the courts, not any document. We all wish we could just secede now and again, but we know how that ended. If, god forbid, SCOTUS decides against us, and we can only have slingshots and airguns, that is it, short of armed insurrection, until those justices die and are replaced. You can always move somewhere else - you know, Thomas Hobbes and all that. The fact is, we are a nation of laws, although those laws have to be consistent with the constitution, as interpreted by whomever is on the bench at that time. If it were purely up to the words in the Constitution, previous decisions would never be overturned, as the meaning would have been so obvious the first time. So we would never have had Brown v. Board, Lawrrence v. Texas, or DC vs. Heller.

The key to keeping our rights, unfortunately, is our ability to move the needle in DC using the normal methods (votes and money). That sheriff just makes us look kooky.

 

[1911 guy]

Sorry, I strongly disagree. The courts (and the lawyers who populate them) have usurped the position. They are merely interpreters of what was written. Our founders were quite clear where the authority was and what would happen if that was altered. Look around you, sigh of despair and thank a lawyer. Go back and actually read the Constitution. America at its birth did not live up to its own ideals. The cases you cite brought us closer to a plain meaning. If you remove plain meaning from interpretation, you lose the basis for all of classical literature, all of our founding documents, the lynchpins of Western Civilization. "Living document" crap is just that. Crap to justify bastardization of the text.

 

[roscoe]

Sorry, I strongly disagree. The courts (and the lawyers who populate them) have usurped the position. They are merely interpreters of what was written. Our founders were quite clear where the authority was and what would happen if that was altered. Look around you, sigh of despair and thank a lawyer. Go back and actually read the Constitution. America at its birth did not live up to its own ideals. The cases you cite brought us closer to a plain meaning. If you remove plain meaning from interpretation, you lose the basis for all of classical literature, all of our founding documents, the lynchpins of Western Civilization. "Living document" crap is just that. Crap to justify bastardization of the text.

Right. We can say that all we want, but it is still the courts that make the decisions, and the government enforces those decisions. The Whisky Rebellion was put down just three years after the US Constitution was ratified. Why would it be better now? And the US Constitution was a flawed document from the get-go (see the 3/5 compromise). Yes, we have more rights than most other countries, but everything is subject to change (we are up to 33 amendments to the Constitution), and we need to make sure we are the ones on the right side of the curve.

 

[fireside44]

That sheriff just makes us look kooky.

To the mainstream media and to most left leaning people, those of us who love guns and shooting are kooks so why are you concerned with this guy's public image tarnishing your reputation? Look in the mirror because many see you in the same light. Unless you are for common sense gun control you're kinda kooky and extreme to a non-gun owner.

 

[roscoe]

To the mainstream media and to most left leaning people, those of us who love guns and shooting are kooks so why are you concerned with this guy's public image tarnishing your reputation? Look in the mirror because many see you in the same light. Unless you are for common sense gun control you're kinda kooky and extreme to a non-gun owner.

I don't hate the guy. He just isn't the right model for the overall RKBA movement moving forward. In my opinion. We yell 'awesome!' and the antis roll their eyes. OK, great - it gets a lot of press and makes us feel good, but without advancing the ball down the field. My model is the Second Amendment Foundation, in which lawyers are making sure that, far upstream, our rights are protected.

 

[Jammersix]

"Living document" crap is just that. Crap to justify bastardization of the text.

If it weren't a living document, it would be long gone.

P.S. Not to mention that there would be no second amendment to argue about. The second amendment exists precisely because the constitution is a living document and can be changed.

 

[1911 guy]

You completely misunderstand the argument the "living document" crowd makes. They argue that the words themselves can express new meanings. False. it means what it says. However, the document does, as you say, contain a means to amend it. But once again, an amendment says what it says in plain words, not new meanings to suit the cause du jour. It says exactly what it says, if you don't like it, amend it, not make it up as you go along.

 

[Jammersix]

They argue that the words themselves can express new meanings.

I'd like to read their argument. Do you have a citation?

 

[1911 guy]

https://definitions.uslegal.com/l/l...and against the theory of Living Constitution.

 

[fireside44]

He just isn't the right model for the overall RKBA movement moving forward.

I don't think he was trying to be the model. And besides, all of the models for RKBA aren't the right one to the anti-gunners because the guns are the problem not the suit delivering the message. Pick an NRA spokesperson, it doesn't matter, they are all kooks to those on the left. Don't be naive here.

My model is the Second Amendment Foundation, in which lawyers are making sure that, far upstream, our rights are protected.

Except when your model fails a kooky sheriff will be a lot more effective.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

I think if more sherriff's were like this guy the country would be a better place.

What did people expect, what with states ignoring federal law for so long now. Did folks really think this wouldnt trickle down to the local levels?


Anything that goes against the constitution ought to be ignored, on any level. Those willing to acknowledge that are true patriots. And there are more of those out there than folks realize.