Sheriff declares Logan County a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary

[Dumpstick]

I'm not questioning the reasoning of the Logan County Sheriff. I'm stating my reading of what his reason is.

I'm not saying it's a bad reason, or an invalid reason.

 

[RugersGR8]

There are few details but Sheriff John Christian/Bryan County has joined the list of sanctuary counties in Oklahoma.


https://www.durantdemocrat.com/stories/sheriff-declares-bryan-county-second-amendment-sanctuary,8739
Sheriff declares Bryan County Second Amendment sanctuary
Sheriff John Christian said it's important to stand for the right of self defense
Michael Clements
[email protected]
Posted 2/14/20
Bryan County Sheriff John Christian joined at least four other Oklahoma sheriffs in declaring his county a Second Amendment Sanctuary, Friday morning. Christian acknowledged there are no immediate …


This item is available in full to subscribers.

 

[Dumpstick]

I'm not a subscriber. Care to fill us in with the 'few details' ?

 

[chuter]

A list of Oklahoma sanctuary counties?

 

[BobbyV]

It’s just more pandering. Guarantee the sheriff don’t truly support the 2A. Is he gonna not arrest a felon for carrying or owning a gun? Guarantee the sheriff would arrest them and then say it’s “the law”. And I guarantee they have done it already. These people always talk big bit don’t ever back it up. It’s all or nothing. Either you support the 2A for EVERYONE that is a citizen regardless if they are felon or not, or you don’t really support it. The term shall not be infringed was a directive to the government to not touch the 2A. Police officers that claim they support the 2A are liars. They wouldn’t be a cop if they did. I see it all the time on live pd, lone star law, north woods law, Alaska pd, etc., where the cops infringe on citizens 2A rights all the time. They don’t even bat an eye lash when they do it. It’s all about “enforcing the law”. Regardless if the law is unconstitutional.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[druryj]

It’s just more pandering. Guarantee the sheriff don’t truly support the 2A. Is he gonna not arrest a felon for carrying or owning a gun? Guarantee the sheriff would arrest them and then say it’s “the law”. And I guarantee they have done it already. These people always talk big bit don’t ever back it up. It’s all or nothing. Either you support the 2A for EVERYONE that is a citizen regardless if they are felon or not, or you don’t really support it. The term shall not be infringed was a directive to the government to not touch the 2A. Police officers that claim they support the 2A are liars. They wouldn’t be a cop if they did. I see it all the time on live pd, lone star law, north woods law, Alaska pd, etc., where the cops infringe on citizens 2A rights all the time. They don’t even bat an eye lash when they do it. It’s all about “enforcing the law”. Regardless if the law is unconstitutional.

I disagree with this. I DO support the 2A, but felons give up their rights by virtue of their actions. Do you seriously think some clown who has committed a felony like bank robbery, armed robbery, or murder should be allowed to carry a gun? I sure don't. Rights go along with responsibilities. Here's how it works: Law abiding citizens have the right to firearms. Those who choose to break certain laws, forfeit certain rights.
Don't want to give up your rights? Then obey the law.

When you say something like what you said in bold above, understand it is just your uniformed opinion; not a fact, as you seem to think it is.

 

[RugersGR8]

I'm not a subscriber. Care to fill us in with the 'few details' ?

A list of Oklahoma sanctuary counties?

I’m not a subscriber either, this is all I know or could find at this point.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

I disagree with this. I DO support the 2A, but felons give up their rights by virtue of their actions. Do you seriously think some clown who has committed a felony like bank robbery, armed robbery, or murder should be allowed to carry a gun? I sure don't. Rights go along with responsibilities. Here's how it works: Law abiding citizens have the right to firearms. Those who choose to break certain laws, forfeit certain rights.
Don't want to give up your rights? Then obey the law.

When you say something like what you said in bold above, understand it is just your uniformed opinion; not a fact, as you seem to think it is.

It’s not an uninformed opinion. It’s a fact. Show me where in the constitution it’s says shall not be infringed “unless you’re a felon”. The fact is you can’t. Because it doesn’t say. Much the same as it doesn’t say anything about registering our firearms just because it has a stock and the barrel is less than 16 inches. Or that suppressors have to be registered. Our founders had just finished fighting a war against a tyrannical king who was trying to take their right to keep and bear arms away. Do you really think when they drafted the 2A they included the phrase “shall not be infringed” to mean unless, or if , or but? I can assure you they didn’t. My father in law is a felon. He was in prison for almost 10 years. He is so different from back when I was a kid. Yes I’ve known him that long. Long before I married his daughter. But, because of an unconstitutional “law” he is unable to defend himself because of something that happened in the early 80’s. It was for selling dope. But I don’t care what the person did they should still have the right to keep and bear arm. The 2A isn’t conditional upon being good. That is being uninformed.

I read a story or a person just the other day that he their son murdered just a few weeks ago. Even though this person lost their son, they still defended the killers right to keep and bear arms if they ever get out of prison. That is incredible. I guess we should take away all their other constitutionally protected rights too. The felons that are always gonna be bad will get a gun no matter what. Because we all know that criminals don’t follow the law. We can all agree that gun laws are NOT meant to keep us safe. They are made to control us. Making it where felons can’t have guns disarms a bunch of citizens. That is why that “law” was created.

This is the exact attitude the government wants us to have. Even within the 2A community we are divided. And that’s why we will fall. I came really close to being a felon myself several years ago because of drugs. I’m a Christian too. People that are felons aren’t all and people. They just made a big mistake. Which we all do. Now I agree murdering someone is very bad. But the fact of the matter is that according to our constitution, that person is still guaranteed ALL their rights afforded by the bill of rights and the constitution. It’s really sad how you can have this view. But I know your not the only one. But I stand by what I said in my first post.

 

[jakeman]

I disagree with this. I DO support the 2A, but felons give up their rights by virtue of their actions. Do you seriously think some clown who has committed a felony like bank robbery, armed robbery, or murder should be allowed to carry a gun? I sure don't. Rights go along with responsibilities. Here's how it works: Law abiding citizens have the right to firearms. Those who choose to break certain laws, forfeit certain rights.
Don't want to give up your rights? Then obey the law.

When you say something like what you said in bold above, understand it is just your uniformed opinion; not a fact, as you seem to think it is.

You're wasting your breath/time.

You know that, right?

 

[druryj]

You're wasting your breath/time.

You know that, right?

^^^And ours. Choices have conquences. Choosing to commit a felony demonstrates that you have no regard for the concepts of the Constitution, and you know what the conquences are. A felon has chosen to relinquish certain rights. We must have laws because we, as a society, have problems with self control.

Sigh. I had hoped I wasn't, (wasting my breath/time) but yeah; you're both right...it does look like I totally did waste them both. But what you say in the post immediately above is true.

Some uniformed or otherwise recalcitrant people choose to determine for themselves whether a law is constitutional or not. But the power to decide whether a law is constitutional or not does not rest with the individual, but with the Courts, as laid out in the right of judicial review, which was first established by the case "Marbury versus Madison". It might behoove many to read that, so they know exactly who really can decide if something is constitutional or not.

Some of these same people are very slow learners, and will continue to ignore or break laws upon their release and will commit additional felony offenses. And when they get arrested and convicted again, if they are in possession of a firearm, it will add to their sentence.

In a civilized society, most would agree, I think, that one does not have to always like or agree with whatever law they choose to not be in favor of, but they have to obey it. Otherwise, a nation without laws will rapidly deteriorate to anarchy, with the strong preying on the weak. Laws, like locks, often keep otherwise good men honest.

Again...I waste my breath I fear. I can only offer the information in the links below as definitive proof of my assertions as to who determines if a law is constitutional or not.

https://constitutionus.com/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx