OK Sheriffs miffed at being kicked out for OCing

skidmark · Mar 16, 2014

It seems that one (as-yet un-named) OK Senator is a little bit afraid of guns in the Capitol. http://www.ktul.com/story/24972637/s...at-the-capitol

OK's top cops show up for their yeatly lobbying event. Some Senator gets all worried about there being "armed men" [who are not the OK State POlice assigned to guard the Capitol and passed the cops through whatever security checkpoint there might be] roaming around asking to talk with legislators.

It's a building of dignity and honor, but what happened at the state capitol recently has law enforcement crying shame.

"Everybody in that building knew who we were," said Wagoner county sheriff Bob Colbert, who, along with 40 other sheriffs from around the state, converged on the capitol as they do every year to meet and greet and lobby. Until...

"One of the senators, who they wouldn't tell us, complained because we were armed in the building," he said.

They were then given a choice, disarm or there's the door.

"So we all packed up and left," he said.

Geese, ganders, and such like. I think you know what I mean.

stay safe.

SFCRetired · Mar 16, 2014

Sounds like a politician needs to be replaced. Since they don't know, and probably can't find out, who the politician was, the people need to replace all of them.

Remember the old saying about politicians and babies? They both need to be changed often and usually for the same reason.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 16, 2014

If OK citizens are not allowed then he is wanting special treatment because everyone knows who they are. If that is the case I don't feel bad at all........

WalkingWolf · Mar 16, 2014

This is only a warning to police of what is to come if gun control is successful. First the citizens, and then next the police. The only armed presence will be feds.

color of law · Mar 16, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
This is only a warning to police of what is to come if gun control is successful. First the citizens, and then next the police. The only armed presence will be feds.

Oh, you mean the sheriffs main assignment of providing protection for the well connected political class? Of course until Operation Hummingbird rears its ugly head.

Roverhound · Mar 16, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
If OK citizens are not allowed then he is wanting special treatment because everyone knows who they are. If that is the case I don't feel bad at all........

Exactly. What makes them worthy of carrying where others can't?

deepdiver · Mar 16, 2014

I don't think there is enough info to know if the sheriffs had a "we're miffed because we aren't getting special treatment as LEO" or if they were more broadly miffed at the anti-2A attitude. I think it is an important distinction but I don't know enough about OK LEOs or statute to draw any conclusion.

marshaul · Mar 16, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
This is only a warning to police of what is to come if gun control is successful. First the citizens, and then next the police. The only armed presence will be feds.

Without retreading old ground, it's not as though the Fedgov hasn't bought nearly every local law enforcement agency (including 99% of Sheriff's departments) as extensions of its own will.

Most places, if the state courts don't put their foot down, local LEOs will happily enforce Federal laws (or call in the Feds, either way).

I fail to see the clear-cut distinction between armed agents of local government and armed agents of federal government.

WalkingWolf · Mar 16, 2014

marshaul said:
Without retreading old ground, it's not as though the Fedgov hasn't bought nearly every local law enforcement agency (including 99% of Sheriff's departments) as extensions of its own will.

Most places, if the state courts don't put their foot down, local LEOs will happily enforce Federal laws (or call in the Feds, either way).

I fail to see the clear-cut distinction between armed agents of local government and armed agents of federal government.

I agree and am with you on the above, BUT once the constrictors have what they want, they will want more. And the next people they will disarm will be the police. They have already disarmed the military when they are not at arms. Ft. Hood is a classic example. They do not give a poop or care about their own people. They only kiss the arse of LEA because they need them, for now.

papa bear · Mar 16, 2014

BOO to the politician, i hope he will be plagued with the corruption he is probably guilty of

but hooray, to the uniform not getting the privilege that citizens don't get

who cares if they are miffed. LE should not be armed in the first place

cjohnson44546 · Mar 16, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
This is only a warning to police of what is to come if gun control is successful. First the citizens, and then next the police. The only armed presence will be feds.

the Feds... and all the criminals...

sudden valley gunner · Mar 16, 2014

deepdiver said:
I don't think there is enough info to know if the sheriffs had a "we're miffed because we aren't getting special treatment as LEO" or if they were more broadly miffed at the anti-2A attitude. I think it is an important distinction but I don't know enough about OK LEOs or statute to draw any conclusion.

It appears to me he alleged just that by making the statement that everyone knew who they were.

cirrusly · Mar 17, 2014

papa bear said:
who cares if they are miffed. LE should not be armed in the first place

I don't think we should have to point out the already obvious reasons why this statement is idiotic. Law enforcement officers are already in potentially dangerous and life threatening situations on a regular basis. A good friend of mine is a LEO in the Chicago area. He tells me he breaks leather on almost a regular basis. Take their tools away and there would be many more fatalities in the line of duty.

I share your frustrations and agree that all law abiding citizens should have the rights recognized in the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (LEOSA) that allows them to carry "everywhere."

However, LEOs are not the adversary here. Quite the contrary, a recent poll on PoliceOne identified that over 90% of LEOs support law abiding citizens carrying firearms. Emily Miller referenced this statistic on her new talk show "Shooting Straight."

WalkingWolf · Mar 17, 2014

cirrusly said:
I don't think we should have to point out the already obvious reasons why this statement is idiotic. Law enforcement officers are already in potentially dangerous and life threatening situations on a regular basis. A good friend of mine is a LEO in the Chicago area. He tells me he breaks leather on almost a regular basis. Take their tools away and there would be many more fatalities in the line of duty.

I share your frustrations and agree that all law abiding citizens should have the rights recognized in the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (LEOSA) that allows them to carry "everywhere."

However, LEOs are not the adversary here. Quite the contrary, a recent poll on PoliceOne identified that over 90% of LEOs support law abiding citizens carrying firearms. Emily Miller referenced this statistic on her new talk show "Shooting Straight."

Nope! That is the way it used to be. NOW law abiding citizens are put in potentially dangerous and life threatening situations. The courts have made it very clear, a LEO's life is far more valuable than a private citizens life. Using the excuse of officer safety the people are being shot, injured, beaten, KILLED in the name of officer safety. As a former LEO, I believe that WE were/are getting paid to take those risks NOT the public. The police should be in the same position as the public in whatever jurisdiction they are in. The current state of LE make me want to puke.

OC for ME · Mar 17, 2014

cirrusly said:
I don't think we should have to point out the already obvious reasons why this statement is idiotic. Law enforcement officers are already in potentially dangerous and life threatening situations on a regular basis. A good friend of mine is a LEO in the Chicago area. He tells me he breaks leather on almost a regular basis. Take their tools away and there would be many more fatalities in the line of duty.

I share your frustrations and agree that all law abiding citizens should have the rights recognized in the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (LEOSA) that allows them to carry "everywhere."

However, LEOs are not the adversary here. Quite the contrary, a recent poll on PoliceOne identified that over 90% of LEOs support law abiding citizens carrying firearms. Emily Miller referenced this statistic on her new talk show "Shooting Straight."

How about cops, the top cops to be specific, get on their local TV stations...

ALL citizens of 'X Town' should arm themselves in accordance with the law. We cannot be everywhere. The life you save may be your own or your loved ones!!

Repeat as required until all the folks get it.

When cops, the top cops, do that, then I'll think a wee bit more seriously about your view of LE.....until then, I'm busy trying to find one of those 90% cops you read about on "PoliceOne."

DocWalker · Mar 17, 2014

skidmark said:
It seems that one (as-yet un-named) OK Senator is a little bit afraid of guns in the Capitol. http://www.ktul.com/story/24972637/s...at-the-capitol

OK's top cops show up for their yeatly lobbying event. Some Senator gets all worried about there being "armed men" [who are not the OK State POlice assigned to guard the Capitol and passed the cops through whatever security checkpoint there might be] roaming around asking to talk with legislators.

Geese, ganders, and such like. I think you know what I mean.

stay safe.

Since the building is payed for by taxpayers which the Cops are, does this mean they don't have to pay their taxes???

I know it is stupid. The Senator needs to go asap.

WalkingWolf · Mar 17, 2014

OC for ME said:
How about cops, the top cops to be specific, get on their local TV stations...Repeat as required until all the folks get it.

When cops, the top cops, do that, then I'll think a wee bit more seriously about your view of LE.....until then, I'm busy trying to find one of those 90% cops you read about on "PoliceOne."

IMO after reading police one, the 90 percent is lip service. Because they know and fear their own gun rights may be infringed. It has happened in the past and there are still unarmed police officers in this country. Mostly campus police officers. If they actually are for armed citizens then they would stop enforcing unconstitutional laws. The only time a police officer is forced to make a arrest is when a judge commands him. Otherwise they have the option to ignore bad laws.

OC for ME · Mar 17, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
IMO after reading police one, the 90 percent is lip service. Because they know and fear their own gun rights may be infringed. It has happened in the past and there are still unarmed police officers in this country. Mostly campus police officers. If they actually are for armed citizens then they would stop enforcing unconstitutional laws. The only time a police officer is forced to make a arrest is when a judge commands him. Otherwise they have the option to ignore bad laws.

You may have opened a little can-o-worms with that last statement. Cops should evaluate each perceived "infraction" based on what they know, vs. what they are told. I know a cop, or two, that observe/think, a rare trait to say the least.

Primus · Mar 17, 2014

OC for ME said:
How about cops, the top cops to be specific, get on their local TV stations...Repeat as required until all the folks get it.

When cops, the top cops, do that, then I'll think a wee bit more seriously about your view of LE.....until then, I'm busy trying to find one of those 90% cops you read about on "PoliceOne."

Here I is.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

davidmcbeth · Mar 17, 2014

Most general assemblies have their own police force that takes orders only from the legislature.

Their actually existence is to insure the separation of powers. The can be used to stop an arrest of an assemblyman, etc.

Almost all state constitutions hold the speech and debates of their assemblymen to be above the grasps of the executive and judicial branches...this is why you'll never see an assemblyman waving around a m16 at the floor of their house being arrested ~ they can't be.
Issues with their activities are decided by the house, not by state police or judges.

Don't like this? Change your constitution.

So an assemblyman wanted people disarmed, even policemen in the executive branches, they can likely do this with absolute immunity.

The guys did what they could, and left. That's all that they could have done.

OK Sheriffs miffed at being kicked out for OCing

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned