12/27/21
I hear a lot of our citizens talk about wanting a Sheriff who will be constitutional and protect our 2nd Amendment. That is a very important Amendment for sure! But let’s talk about why you are making a grave mistake if your candidate is a single issue candidate.
Because the 2nd Amendment seems to be the one everyone is wringing their hands over, let’s have a scenario where the Government has now mandated that guns will be seized. Let’s see what happens.
What Amendments are violated BEFORE we get to the 2nd? First, they need to know who has the guns. This is where the press comes in. The government will have to make you register. How about free press? What if the press wants to report this as a violation? They (the government) may want to dictate what is reported by the press (1st Amendment) to keep us calm and unquestioning. Then they will restrict us from meeting to discuss or assembling to protest (1st Amendment). Next there is the right to due process (5th Amendment). Taking our guns without a hearing or warrant. Forcing us to report ourselves as possessors of certain types of firearms is also another right that may be
taken from us. Next we will see the violations of the 4th Amendment (protects us from unreasonable search and seizures) as they could just come and get them. That one will be pretty big if you have very little experience in that one. Maybe the 9th Amendment that was supposed to protect us our rights as delineated in the constitution being denied. Certainly the 10th Amendment. That is the one that gives states the right to govern their citizens. And lastly, the 2nd is violated with the seizures of our weapons. But that one seems to be down the list. Which Amendment is less important? That goes back to deciding what laws are constitutional and need to be enforced. Our forefathers were pretty smart and have set up a Republic that relies on more than one Amendment for us to live free from a tyrannical government.
I am certain my friends who are attorneys can add or detract from this list. This of course is a hypothetical situation. But what this analogy shows us is we need MORE than a constitutional Sheriff who swears to protect the 2nd Amendment. There is not a candidate in this race who has stated they would not uphold the constitutional rights of every citizen. There isn’t a candidate that I am aware of that will enforce a mask or vaccine mandate, gun seizure or any other mandate for that matter. What you should ask yourself is who decides what is unconstitutional? What other laws will that Sheriff decide is unconstitutional? What will be the deciding factor? Whose rights will be violated when he decides not to enforce whatever laws he has deemed unconstitutional? When a candidate makes a statement that they alone will be the arbiter of the law, it should scare every one of us down to the core.
What we need in a Sheriff is one who is not intimidated. I am that Sheriff. We need a Sheriff who will not turn a blind eye to corruption. I am that Sheriff. We need a Sheriff who has experience in a wide variety of areas and not just police work. I am that Sheriff. We need a Sheriff who can be an Administrator as well as a Law Enforcement Officer. I am that Sheriff. We need a Sheriff who will be a good steward of our money and the rights of all, regardless of who you are. I am that Sheriff.
I imagine you want someone who has the experience to recognize when a job is not done properly and has the fortitude to ensure it is done right. I am that Sheriff. I have been told you want a Sheriff who will respond to you and protect your rights as a citizen, criminal and more importantly, as a victim. I am that Sheriff. I believe you want a Sheriff who will make the proper decisions based on the law and best practices accepted by the professionals across the state which will limit our exposure to mistakes and lawsuits. I am that Sheriff. I know you want a Sheriff who is not beholden to anyone in the county except the citizens who live here. I am that Sheriff.
10/10/21
I have heard a lot about constitutional Sheriff’s and have been asked what that means. I frequently get asked about what I would do if the government mandates the seizure of firearms, vaccines or masks. I am asked if I will be a “constitutional Sheriff.” And to that end, the name Sheriff Mack of Arizona is frequently invoked. So, I started to do some research, which is something I suggest those who seek the Office of the Sheriff do as they are required to enforce the laws of the land and protect the constitutional rights of every citizen within our jurisdiction.
Granted, I will be using more plain language than the Supreme Court Decisions or the various legal decisions, but it is important that you understand how this started and what the decision means. Additionally it is important to understand what the terms all mean. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television. This is just what my research shows.
The case of Mack v United States began when the Brady Bill was enacted and required local Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEOs) to perform a number of functions that were the responsibility of the federal government. Additionally it stated that if you as the CLEO did not perform these duties, you could be held CRIMINALLY liable. Sheriff Mack was the Sheriff in a small county with very limited resources. (Much like Macon County) He maintained that he did not have the ability to perform these functions and should not be held criminally liable for not being able to perform them. It was that provision of the Brady Bill that he claimed was unconstitutional. The Brady Bill continues to this day as does the requirements for a background check. In this case, I agree with the actions Sheriff Mack took and would probably have been right there with him in getting that provision tossed out. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Sheriff Mack and severed (removed) that provision from the bill. It didn’t remove the requirements for the background checks or the required paperwork. It only removed the states requirement to perform this federal function which then also removed the financial and criminal ramifications of it.
There are arguments being made that to be a “Constitutional Sheriff” it requires me to pick and choose what laws I deem are constitutional. I submit that is a very slippery slope and if you choose your next Sheriff based on some campaign rhetoric of doing that very same thing, we are destined to be spending a lot of taxpayers money not enforcing laws that are required to be enforced and fighting the subsequent lawsuits that goes along with it. For example, in California there are a number of Sheriff’s and Chiefs of Police who have decided to not enforce ICE detainers because they don’t believe they are required to. They believe it is a federal function so they do not even notify the appropriate agency when they have a criminal immigrant in custody. Result? Letting illegal immigrants, some who are violent offenders, back out on the street to do more mayhem. What about any drug laws that I feel will be eventually legalized anyway? Just ignore them? Is this what you as citizens of our great county want me as the Sheriff to decide? How about if I decided, on my own that I find another law to be unconstitutional? Should I then take it upon myself to create a sanctuary for those who feel it is their constitutional right? I am betting that is not what you are hiring me to do.
So, here is the bottom line, as your next Sheriff, I will protect EVERY one of your constitutional rights regardless of my political and personal beliefs. A mandate (gun seizure or mask/vaccine mandate) is not a law or a constitutional mandate. I will not be enforcing those. I believe we as individuals and parents are capable of making those decisions for ourselves as well as our families. In addition to the requirement to protect your civil rights, I am required statutorily to perform other functions. (I.e. courts, civil process and detention) As your Sheriff, I am also required to manage personnel and assets, ensure my staff does their job and be transparent and responsive. You should know that I am more than qualified to ensure that all of these requirements are met with transparency, efficiency and effectiveness. There is not a Sheriff running in this race that will not stand for the second amendment or have a DESIRE to fight drugs. The question you must ask, do they have the breadth of experience to provide the skillset necessary to address the issues facing Macon county? I do and I will.
05/21/21
