Utah Sheriff's Association Writes Letter to the President - Page 2

Utah Sheriff's Association Writes Letter to the President

This is a discussion on Utah Sheriff's Association Writes Letter to the President within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; As originally posted by Hopyard If it is real, even from the pens of a small minority of that state's sheriffs, the Governor of Utah ...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 61
Like Tree131Likes

Thread: Utah Sheriff's Association Writes Letter to the President

  1. #16
    New Member Array Sera63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    14
    As originally posted by Hopyard

    If it is real, even from the pens of a small minority of that state's sheriffs, the Governor of Utah needs to repudiate it
    and take whatever punitive action his office enables him to take.
    Why would Utah's governor need to repudiate the lawful and constitutional statements of county sheriffs? They are simply stating that they will not follow Un-Constitutional executive orders or laws. The Supreme Court has ruled on the legality and constitutionality of individuals keeping and bearing arms for personal self-defense. The 2nd Amendment secures that right on the federal level; Utah's Constitution secures that right on the state level. Therefore, any actions taken by the President or Congress to infringe on that right is, by definition, illegal. Any sheriff in Utah, being the highest law enforcement officer in their county, has the legal and moral responsibility to uphold and defend both Constitutions. Writing a letter stating their position is neither a veiled nor open threat. Rather, it is a public statement of fact: each sheriff would be violating both Constitutions and the last two Supreme Court decisions by following those orders/laws or by allowing federal officers to do the same.

    Doesn't hurt that it looks very good to the public when elections roll around either...

    But let's change it to the 14th...Let's say "President Romney's" Secretary of Labor (Donald Trump) states that the American economy needs a boost. In order to facilitate that boost, and insure the safety and prosperity of Americans, that businesses can now discriminate in their hiring for color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. That people do not possess the inalienable right of equality...that's just a quaint and archaic viewpoint of 150 years ago. The President then directs the DOJ, NLRB, and EEOC to stop prosecuting all cases pertaining to such discrimination. California, New York, Maine, Oregon, and other states disagree with the viewpoint, and any accompanying Executive Orders. Sheriffs and legislators state that not only will they not comply with such orders, they will prosecute, under state laws and their constitutions, any federal officers/agents trying to enforce said orders. Would you say they were wrong in making such statements? Would you say they were going in the wrong direction? I wouldn't. I would state that they are clearly upholding the Constitutional rights of their citizens.

    The 2nd Amendment is a "done" argument. The Supreme Court has stated that a clear interpretation of the text grants law-abiding citizens the right (not privilege) of keeping and bearing arms for self-protection. Therefore, those local and state authorities who support and defend that position are not only standing on firm legal ground; they are the ones moving in the right direction regarding the US Constitution. Just my .02...
    Ghost1958, TN_Mike and SpringerXD like this.


  2. #17
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,952
    As far as the letter's legitimacy, it is also right on their association's front page with official letter head as a pdf: USA-Home

    While I don't want to speak for him and won't try, based upon previous posts I suspect that Hopyard is objecting to the notion of states not accepting unilateral federal authority and doing so in a publicly defiant matter. I believe that his position would be that if the states disagree that it needs to be taken up through the court system and until such time as it has been resolved through the courts that they should not interfere and enforce the federal mandates on the assumption that they are legal and binding. As the saying goes, a law is a law until it is not.

    I, myself, also see such letters sending a message to the courts saying that we also reject you as an authority. In essence, it is stalling the process of checks and balances. As a society, we have two options, abide by the words and recognize certain peoples' words as binding, or a physical altercation. These letters serve as an ultimatum to the Office of the President saying either admit admit fault or there will be conflict. If the Office of the President admits fault and backs down, it will lose it's position of dominant authority forever more; assuming it ever had it which is part of the question. If it doesn't back down and attempts to use force, it could plunge the nation into war.

    Unfortunately, the courts have not weighed in on the matter and I don't believe that they are allowed to until such time as their is an issue with an actual law. I wonder if there needs to be some sort of exception made in this case and that we as a nation need them to weigh in on the legality of the Obama's proposals in an attempt to diffuse the situation that is heading into succession territory.
    Hopyard and Doghandler like this.

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array Kilowatt3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SW Louisiana
    Posts
    3,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Rcher View Post
    Sheriffs: Feds can't take away Utahns' 2nd Amendment rights | ksl.com

    The Honorable Barack Obama
    President of the United States of America
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20500

    Dear President Obama:

    ...As you deliberate, please remember the Founders of this great nation created the Constitution, and its accompanying Bill of Rights, in an effort to protect citizens from all forms of tyrannical subjugation.

    We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. 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 official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights—in particular Amendment II—has given them. 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.

    The Utah Sheriffs’ Association


    **Taken from the Cache County Sheriff's Facebook page**
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    And right there in that part in bold they made a huge mistake. The sentence may as well have read, "no federal official
    is going to descend on (name the state) and take away... whatever. That is an open letter of defiance against
    Federal authority, a veiled threat to use force against Agents of The United States, and a sad thing to come from
    people who pretend to be law abiding upholders of law. The complex issues we are dealing with are political and
    need to be sorted out by the legislatures and by the courts. Sending veiled threats of resistance to The President
    is once again how we gun owners get a reputation for being thoroughly nuts.

    Added a moment later--- Is there any way to know if the letter is even authentic?
    Agreed, they made a huge mistake right there in that part in bold - but not the mistake you're claiming.

    Their mistake is in suggesting that the Bill of Rights "has given" anyone any rights. The Bill of Rights was a guarantee and a mandate that Government would recognize, preserve, protect, and defend the inalienable rights with which we were endowed by our creator (sound familiar?). A piece of paper can no more grant or rescind those rights than it can regulate gravity.

    The Sheriffs' declaration is nothing more (and nothing less) than their commitment to uphold their constitutional duties, and to honor the oath of office they took. What's the problem with that?

    Would a German prison guard in Nazi-occupied Austria who refused to exterminate innocent civilians be "in the wrong", since he was acting "outside of the law" such as it existed? Wake up.
    Last edited by Kilowatt3; January 19th, 2013 at 08:11 PM.
    Regards,
    Jim
    NRA Life Member
    Charter Member (#00002) of the DC .41 LC Society - "Get Heeled! No, really!"
    He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave. - Andrew Carnegie

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array GraySkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Yes it does, and the wrong message. It is the kind of message that will make things worse, not better.
    I agree that it will probably make things worse with the federal government, but once again I have to disagree with you that it's not the way to go. I am less concerned about going the wrong way with the federal government than I am about going the right way with the American people. The only way for change to occur is for the culture of voters to change and become more clearly defined. I am all for getting Americans to wake up before their rights start going down the toilet.

    Things like this may poke the federal hornets nest, but they will also force many more Americans to quit lounging in apathy and to go ahead and decide for sure what their opinion is on these issues. We should have an open and honest public discourse about that, and decide with our eyes open. I don't want us to decide on emotion alone what regulation of the second amendment we will tolerate. It's time to have real conversation about what RIGHTS really mean. If it ends with amending the Constitution to remove the 2nd amendment, I will abide by that just like everyone else should. If we don't have the consensus to do that, we as a people need to err on the side of freedom until we DO have the consensus to do it. This is not just about what laws are passed. This is about defining the culture of freedom for the next generation.

    This is not the time to be Neville Chamberlain. IF this letter is real, these Sheriffs are simply expressing that with their 1st amendment rights. No threats, just plain statement of truth for them. If any kind of speech is protected by the 1st amendment, then political speech is at the top of the list.

  5. #20
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Yes it does, and the wrong message. It is the kind of message that will make things worse, not better.
    The message is that local law enforcement is not going to support federal violations of the US Constitution, and that state law enforcement is not required to enforce federal laws. A "wake up" call.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  6. #21
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Rcher View Post
    Sheriffs: Feds can't take away Utahns' 2nd Amendment rights | ksl.com



    The Honorable Barack Obama
    President of the United States of America
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20500

    Dear President Obama:

    We, the elected sheriffs of Utah, like so many of our fellow Americans, are literally heartbroken for the loved ones of the murdered victims in Connecticut. As Utahans, we are not strangers to this kind of carnage—one of the latest being the 2007 Trolley Square murders wherein nine innocents were gunned down—five losing their lives.

    We also recognize the scores of other recent domestic massacres, which have decimated countless honorable lives. As Americans, we value the sanctity of life. Furthermore, similar to our inspired Founders, we acknowledge our subservience to a higher power.

    With the number of mass shootings America has endured, it is easy to demonize firearms; it is also foolish and prejudiced. Firearms are nothing more than instruments, valuable and potentially dangerous, but instruments nonetheless. Malevolent souls, like the criminals who commit mass murders, will always exploit valuable instruments in the pursuit of evil. As professional peace officers, if we understand nothing else, we understand this: lawful violence must sometimes be employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality.

    As your administration and Congress continue to grapple with the complex issue of firearm regulations, we pray that the Almighty will guide the People’s Representatives collectively. For that reason, it is imperative this discussion be had in Congress, not silenced unilaterally by executive orders. As you deliberate, please remember the Founders of this great nation created the Constitution, and its accompanying Bill of Rights, in an effort to protect citizens from all forms of tyrannical subjugation.

    We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. 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 official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights—in particular Amendment II—has given them. 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.

    The Utah Sheriffs’ Association


    **Taken from the Cache County Sheriff's Facebook page**
    I was liking this right up to the parts I highlighted in bold.

    Rights are not granted to us by the Constitution.

    The Bill of Rights does not give us our Rights.

    Our Rights are inherent and unalienable and are merely listed in the documents our Founding Father's wrote.
    SpringerXD likes this.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  7. #22
    Member Array SLS075's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    135
    The Utah sheriffs aren't the only ones who feel this way. At least two Colorado sheriffs have openly stated their opposition to the President's proposals. I wouldn't be surprised if there are many others.

    http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20...-gun-proposals

    Weld County sheriff defiant against President Obama's plan to address gun violence - The Denver Post

  8. #23
    Member Array Naufragia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Black Hills, South Dakota
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    The message is that local law enforcement is not going to support federal violations of the US Constitution, and that state law enforcement is not required to enforce federal laws. A "wake up" call.
    Exactly. Neither the sheriffs nor we have any "Patriotic Duty" to knuckle under to tyranny. Go Utah!
    Ghost1958, CVarner and SpringerXD like this.

  9. #24
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,118
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    As far as the letter's legitimacy, it is also right on their association's front page with official letter head as a pdf: USA-Home

    While I don't want to speak for him and won't try, based upon previous posts I suspect that Hopyard is objecting to the notion of states not accepting unilateral federal authority and doing so in a publicly defiant matter. I believe that his position would be that if the states disagree that it needs to be taken up through the court system and until such time as it has been resolved through the courts that they should not interfere and enforce the federal mandates on the assumption that they are legal and binding. As the saying goes, a law is a law until it is not.

    I, myself, also see such letters sending a message to the courts saying that we also reject you as an authority. In essence, it is stalling the process of checks and balances. As a society, we have two options, abide by the words and recognize certain peoples' words as binding, or a physical altercation. These letters serve as an ultimatum to the Office of the President saying either admit admit fault or there will be conflict. If the Office of the President admits fault and backs down, it will lose it's position of dominant authority forever more; assuming it ever had it which is part of the question. If it doesn't back down and attempts to use force, it could plunge the nation into war.

    Unfortunately, the courts have not weighed in on the matter and I don't believe that they are allowed to until such time as their is an issue with an actual law. I wonder if there needs to be some sort of exception made in this case and that we as a nation need them to weigh in on the legality of the Obama's proposals in an attempt to diffuse the situation that is heading into succession territory.
    Very well put, and as for the last paragraph, the courts can take nothing up unless litigants go to them with a complaint.
    Laws passed by Congress are presumptively constitutional until such time as they are found otherwise.

    Threatening to interfere with Federal authorities is a gravely foolish move. That is why I stated that the Governor of that
    state needs to repudiate the letter-- if it is authentic.

    Thank you Noway. You really got to the essence of the issue and my concern and stated it far better than I did.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  10. #25
    Member Array G26Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by scout706 View Post
    Hop,

    What EXACTLY is your problem with people standing up for what they believe in? What EXACTLY is your problem with people in positions of Authority announcing that they will not allow UNLAWFUL orders to be used against their constituents? There was no veiled threat of violence in that letter, just a statement that they were going to follow the Constitution of the United States, you know the document this country was founded on. The document that gives states sovereignty.... I, and every other soldier, sailor, marine, and LEO took an oath to uphold the Constitution and to defend this country against ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN and DOMESTIC And not allow the Federal Government to run over their citizens...

    Using your logic, we would all still be speaking the Queen's english, driving on the wrong side of the road, and paying 65% of our income to the government and having to wait 3 years for a chest X-ray...
    I've never been in the military or law enforcement, but my understanding is that in these positions, you have a legal and moral obligation to disobey unlawful orders. Is that not correct?

  11. #26
    Member Array jhogan2424's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    219
    If the Federal government is always right and only their laws and ideas "count", then why do we have seperate states? Should we be a unistate with no individual laws? Should all of the state lines be disolved into one United State? I think the Sheriffs are in the right. The federal government can and should be challenged when wrong. It happens all the time in courts for a number or reasons. People can not simply be submissive and that includes local governments standing up to the federal government. Of course, these are my personal opinions and I am just one man in a country of 300 million so take it for what it is. Jason
    Ghost1958 likes this.

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,930
    They only messed up when saying the BoR grants anything. The debate is over and SCOTUS is more two political groups deciding matters than anything else. People have talked for decades resulting in only a slow dissolving of our rights. We are leaning farther and farther to the point where the only message that will be heard is action and physical resistance.
    Ghost1958 likes this.

  13. #28
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,743
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    As far as the letter's legitimacy, it is also right on their association's front page with official letter head as a pdf: USA-Home

    While I don't want to speak for him and won't try, based upon previous posts I suspect that Hopyard is objecting to the notion of states not accepting unilateral federal authority and doing so in a publicly defiant matter. I believe that his position would be that if the states disagree that it needs to be taken up through the court system and until such time as it has been resolved through the courts that they should not interfere and enforce the federal mandates on the assumption that they are legal and binding. As the saying goes, a law is a law until it is not.

    ^^YEP^^^^^
    That is how I view his position as well.

    Much like a father telling his kids that for the good of the family they must jump over Niagra Falls in a barrel, unless of course their mother intercedes in time.
    I would rather die with good men than hide with cowards
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

    M&Pc .357sig, 2340Sigpro .357sig

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array multistage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NW Iowa
    Posts
    2,503
    Quote Originally Posted by ppkheat View Post
    Good letter, I agree with Utah sheriff's.
    As do I.

    It's real simple guys: you only get my stuff when I have proven unworthy and unsafe enough to justify confiscation. Until then, pound sand.
    Ghost1958, CVarner and SpringerXD like this.

  15. #30
    New Member Array Sera63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    14
    origanlly posted by noway2
    While I don't want to speak for him and won't try, based upon previous posts I suspect that Hopyard is objecting to the notion of states not accepting unilateral federal authority and doing so in a publicly defiant matter. I believe that his position would be that if the states disagree that it needs to be taken up through the court system and until such time as it has been resolved through the courts that they should not interfere and enforce the federal mandates on the assumption that they are legal and binding. As the saying goes, a law is a law until it is not.
    I respectfully disagree...in at least two areas. First, how many states/cities have faced federal penalties for being "Sanctuary" for illegal immigrants? How many cities/states have petitioned the courts to overthrow federal immigration laws? Are they enforcing those laws until a case makes it way to the Supreme Court? Or, are they continually ignoring those laws? It seems to me that a certain political/ideological bias rests behind this action, and that a compliant President's agreement with the ideology is why there have been no federal actions. (Unless a state desires to actually enforce laws similar to the federal laws of course.)

    Second, onerous laws restricting an individual's right to keep and bear arms for personal protection have been resolved through the court system. Up to, and including, the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has even ordered two governing entities (D.C. and Illinois) to change their local laws to be compliant with the Supreme Court ruling. The interpretation is clear. The rulings have been handed down. Therefore, a President or Congress passing Executive Orders or legislation in direct conflict with those Supreme Court rulings is, on its face, unlawful.

    Truly, which is scarier? State and local authorities saying publicly they will abide by the rule of law...including Supreme Court decisions. Or the executive and legislative branches of the federal government handing down edicts that defy the Supreme Court, and the Constitution? Where do you possess the most control and influence? The White House and Congress? Or, your local sheriff's office? Pretty easy answers for me....just my .02

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

national sheriffs organization letter to the president
,
statement from utah sheriff's association
,
the letter to president oboma from the state of utah
,
utah sheriff 2 amendment letter
,
utah sheriff letter
,
utah sheriff's association letter
,
utah sheriff's vs. obama
,

utah sheriffs association

,
utah sheriffs association letter
,
utah sheriffs association obama letter
,
utah sheriffs association statement
,
utah sherriff's send message to obama
Click on a term to search for related topics.