Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: A sheriff speaks out.

  1. #1
    Regular Member sparkman2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia
    Posts
    132

    A sheriff speaks out.

    http://www.wyff4.com/r/29638219/detail.html

    I know that this doesn't have anything to do with what we have here in Virginia, but I thought it was very interesting that this sheriff was encouraging his citizens to arm themselves. If South Carolina was an open carry state, maybe this crime could have been avoided before it happened.

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    It's about CC (remember, this is a South Carolina article), but check out the poll... well over 10,000 votes!

    TFred

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892
    Yeah, should have gone in the "News and Political Events" section.

    Semper Fi.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sparkman2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by T Dubya View Post
    Yeah, should have gone in the "News and Political Events" section.

    Semper Fi.
    Oops! Sorry new guy here!

    Semper Fi

  5. #5
    Regular Member Felix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    186
    Sheriff Wright on his gun control views: "Gun control is when you can get your barrel back on the target quick."

    My kind of sheriff. :-)

    Along with Arizona's Sheriff Dupnik.
    Daily carry: SIG P229 .40 S&W

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715
    Don't forget Sheriff Joe Arpaio! My personal favorite is the uniforms: pink undies and widely striped pants and shirts.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=sheri...2&ved=0CFoQsAQ

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    My sense of ethics says humiliation is not an acceptable form of punishment.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    My sense of ethics says humiliation is not an acceptable form of punishment.
    Then what is an acceptable form of punishment?
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    The results of the attached poll is interesting in that 63% say they already carry a weapon. I realize that this is a very unscientific poll but 63% of the SC population does not have a CWP. That means either a select few are voting in the poll, people are lying about it or lots of people in SC are carrying without a CWP. The sheriff of a neighboring county of Spartanburg once told me that he estimated that at least 50% of all the men over 60 in his county carried a gun and very few had a CWP. He also said that as long as they "behaved" themselves with it he did not care. Just something to think about.

  10. #10
    Activist Member carsontech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Anderson, SC
    Posts
    531
    I may or may not know highly respected individuals that carried, in the past, without being granted the special privilege of carrying a firearm. I may or may not have said I would never get a permit to carry a firearm because permits are unconstitutional. I may or may not have finally decided to get the unconstitutional permit so I could stay legal (Ok, I did get a permit, and it really gets me heated to think I have to have one to be able to carry). I may or may not consider myself a sell out.

    I don't condone breaking the law, but, you gotta do what you gotta do" to protect your loved ones.

    As I said, don't take this as condoning breaking he law... I strive to do things within the law, now-a-days, so I can say I fight the "good fight" with honor. I wouldn't hold it against anybody to see it differently. If SC had the option of open carrying without a permit, like so many the states do, then there would be less people breaking the law.
    Last edited by carsontech; 11-03-2011 at 11:18 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by carsontech View Post
    If SC had the option of open carrying without a permit, like so many the states do, then there would be less people breaking the law.
    I am not sure that there would be less people breaking the law or that it can be proven one way or the other. The numbers may not go down or up but the types of people breaking the law and the types of laws broken would probably change. It would be nice to find out and do a study on it to see what actually would happen. I will agree totally that if the ladies jogging in the park were carrying a gun openly on their side as they jogged the likelyhood of them being attacked would drop to near zero.

    When one gets a gun and carries it they need to know several things. They need to know how to use the gun which is the part that everyone seems to focus on. Also they need to know when to use the gun and unfortunately that part seems to be lost or ignored by too many people. Along with that right to carry a gun comes the responsibility to know how and when to use it. Too many people seem to concentrate on the right without worrying about the responsibility.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    My sense of ethics says humiliation is not an acceptable form of punishment.
    Punishment is generally not accepted as ethical. I would be curious to know what you consider ethical punishment.

    To get back on topic; the sheriff seems to have a good idea.

  13. #13
    Activist Member carsontech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Anderson, SC
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    I am not sure that there would be less people breaking the law or that it can be proven one way or the other. The numbers may not go down or up but the types of people breaking the law and the types of laws broken would probably change. It would be nice to find out and do a study on it to see what actually would happen. I will agree totally that if the ladies jogging in the park were carrying a gun openly on their side as they jogged the likelyhood of them being attacked would drop to near zero.
    When I said there would be less people breaking the law if SC had unlicensed open carry, I meant there would be less people breaking the law because they no longer have to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, which is illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by PT111
    When one gets a gun and carries it they need to know several things. They need to know how to use the gun which is the part that everyone seems to focus on. Also they need to know when to use the gun and unfortunately that part seems to be lost or ignored by too many people. Along with that right to carry a gun comes the responsibility to know how and when to use it. Too many people seem to concentrate on the right without worrying about the responsibility.
    I agree that training is good, but a right is a right. We should recommend people get training, but shouldn't force them to.

    I disagree with "Too many people seem to concentrate on the right without worrying about the responsibility." The amount of people open carrying without a permit, legally, seem to have there ducks in a row on how to use a firearm safely and when to use a firearm.

    I can hear the Brady Bunch coming now, "...but, but, but... BLOOD WILL RUN THROUGH THE STREETS!"
    Last edited by carsontech; 11-04-2011 at 02:51 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    Whenever the idea of training is brought up different concepts of what training is enters peoples mind. Some consider training to be a formal Front Sight 4-day deal and others not so much. My idea of training that anyone needs before carrying a gun is the very basic concepts and knowlege. For instance unless you can fire a gun without closing your eyes and looking the other way you shouldn't carry a gun. Unless you know how to load one and which end of the barrel the bullet comes out of you shouldn't carry one. I don't care if you can put 5 in the 10 ring and 25 yards but you should be able to hit your assaliant at 5 feet without hitting a bystander 50% of the time. You should also know where it is legal to carry and were it is not and what is self-defense and what is excessive force. When I mention required training I am talking about the very basics of using a gun, and is what everyone should know. Unfortunately I have seen people wanting to carry a gun that could not do any of the above requirements. Yes it is their right but it is also their repsonsibility. It is your right to have free speech but it is also your responsibility to speak truth and know the difference.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by carsontech View Post
    ...
    I agree that training is good, but a right is a right. We should recommend people get training, but shouldn't force them to.

    I disagree with "Too many people seem to concentrate on the right without worrying about the responsibility." The amount of people open carrying without a permit, legally, seem to have there ducks in a row on how to use a firearm safely and when to use a firearm. ...
    Wrong. Society should compel people to be trained in the use of arms. Such is legal, constitutional, protective of peoples rights and simply prudent; it was even once federal law. However, I will agree that people should not have to get a license with training requirements to own, carry or conceal firearms.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Wrong. Society should compel people to be trained in the use of arms. Such is legal, constitutional, protective of peoples rights and simply prudent; it was even once federal law. However, I will agree that people should not have to get a license with training requirements to own, carry or conceal firearms.
    Requiring someone to be trained in something is different than requiring them to be trained before they can exercise a right. By requiring training for everyone it doesn't discriminate against anyone and isn't directly tied to the exercise of one's rights. As such that is a different subject than requiring training before one can exercise their right.

    One should be encouraged to take weapons training, but it should not be required. Much like how it would be wise for one to be able to speak proper English before exercising their first amendment in a public setting, but it isn't required.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Requiring someone to be trained in something is different than requiring them to be trained before they can exercise a right. By requiring training for everyone it doesn't discriminate against anyone and isn't directly tied to the exercise of one's rights. As such that is a different subject than requiring training before one can exercise their right.

    One should be encouraged to take weapons training, but it should not be required. Much like how it would be wise for one to be able to speak proper English before exercising their first amendment in a public setting, but it isn't required.
    Maybe I'm just a bit dense right now but are you agreeing or disagreeing?
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  18. #18
    Activist Member carsontech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Anderson, SC
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Wrong. Society should compel people to be trained in the use of arms. Such is legal, constitutional, protective of peoples rights and simply prudent; it was even once federal law. However, I will agree that people should not have to get a license with training requirements to own, carry or conceal firearms.
    Wrong.

  19. #19
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by carsontech View Post

    I agree that training is good, but a right is a right. We should recommend people get training, but shouldn't force them to.

    The amount of people open carrying without a permit, legally, seem to have there ducks in a row on how to use a firearm safely and when to use a firearm.
    Two very insightful contributions to this thread.

    Thanks.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Then what is an acceptable form of punishment?
    Incarceration, preferably short and intense, including hard labor, so as to make the prisoners wish they were anywhere but in prison.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    In response, an ignorant judge rules against Arpaio:


    ""Local law enforcement agencies, such as MCSO, may not enforce civil federal immigration law," Snow said in his written opinion."


    Hmm... Ok. If this is true, then local law enforcement agencies shouldn't enforce any federal laws. Heck, even cooperating with federal authorities might be seen as "enforcement," so perhaps that should be frowned upon, as well.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  22. #22
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    In response, an ignorant judge rules against Arpaio:


    ""Local law enforcement agencies, such as MCSO, may not enforce civil federal immigration law," Snow said in his written opinion."


    Hmm... Ok. If this is true, then local law enforcement agencies shouldn't enforce any federal laws. Heck, even cooperating with federal authorities might be seen as "enforcement," so perhaps that should be frowned upon, as well.
    Actually, the judge is correct. Under normal circumstances, Local and State law enforcement do not have the jurisdictional authority to enforce federal law, just like the feds, under normal circumstances cannot enforce state or local law

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Another SC Sheriff tells women to Get You a Gun

    This is one of those stories that make you sick. One sheriff in this article says to women (and men) to get a CWP (he has to say that as he can't say what he really thinks ). This is one story that if the lady had only had a gun in her console, which is perfectly legal in SC with or without a CWP, then the ending would have been different.

    http://www2.scnow.com/news/pee-dee/2...-k-ar-2936268/

  24. #24
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    In response, an ignorant judge rules against Arpaio:


    ""Local law enforcement agencies, such as MCSO, may not enforce civil federal immigration law," Snow said in his written opinion."


    Hmm... Ok. If this is true, then local law enforcement agencies shouldn't enforce any federal laws. Heck, even cooperating with federal authorities might be seen as "enforcement," so perhaps that should be frowned upon, as well.
    That's how it used to be, many many years ago. Local law enforcers would only cooperate with feds at the direct command to do so. There's an article about New Mexico somewhere where the sherrifs and mayors are doing just that.

    People wanted to cut trees to make a fire break on their property to save their home in case of wildfire. EPA said they would arrest anyone who did so, local Sherriff said he'd arrest anyone cooperating with the EPA for false arrest if the EPA tried to do so.

    The trees got cut, noone got arrested.

    A mayor there hasn't filed tax forms with the IRS for about ten years. He pays his taxes directly to the treasury. They keep threatening him but he told them if they could find a judge to enforce it, he'd do it.

    Nothing has happened because of his refusal to file to date.


    It goes on like this. Not saying we should all follow suit, but I was all "Hellz yeah" when I read the article.



    Sent using tapatalk
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    Actually, the judge is correct. Under normal circumstances, Local and State law enforcement do not have the jurisdictional authority to enforce federal law...
    Wanna bet?

    I, along with every other citizen in the United States, have the authority to enforce federal law. I can detain, and even arrest someone for violating certain federal laws. Step two is calling the feds (FBI, DEA, ICE, etc.) to proceed from there, as only they have jurisdiction to proceed further. Only they can make the decision to book them, incarcerate them, or release them.

    ...just like the feds, under normal circumstances cannot enforce state or local law
    Like all U.S. citizens, the feds can similarly detain or arrest someone for violating a state, county, or local law. They, too, are responsible for calling the law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction to take charge of the suspect and proceed from there.

    Read more about Citizen's Arrest, here, keeping in mine that all federal, state, county, and local law enforcement officers are themselves U.S. Citizens.

    Read more about Detention, including detention by a citizen, here.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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