Share Thread:  
Sheriff vs Police Chief
Very good article detailing why sheriffs seem more 2A friendly while police chiefs are gung ho for gun grabbing:

Quote: This contains some concepts that many folks haven’t considered. We are not siding with or against the police or advancing excuses for them and we hope it does not appear we are picking on them either; we aren’t.

For this work, we interviewed 17 chiefs and sheriffs from around the country. From those conversations (emails and phone) we have some quotes in this work. We were asked not to source the particular quotes and that is fair since this was not an on the record news interview, we just wanted their thoughts and opinions. So, as Joe Friday said, “just the facts ma’am.”

When it comes to various politicians and others speaking against gun ownership (the 2nd Amendment and Constitution by definition) politicians will many times cite city and state police chiefs who allegedly may support the anti-gun movement. These politicians may have police chiefs and their officers appear with them as props or spokesmen in news conferences. So the logical question to ask is why are these top cops so seemingly against firearm ownership?

Chiefs are at the beck and call of their political bosses, mayors and city councils. “We chiefs get our opinion on firearm ownership when it is issued to us.”–A recent quote by a chief.

A sheriff told us “There is an active debate between sheriffs and chiefs that is affected by the big city chief culture because chiefs tend to emulate each other.”

For our purpose here let’s just deal with city police, not state/national officials. If city politicians are against gun ownership (Chicago, Washington D.C, San Francisco, and New York for example) and the chief doesn’t agree he can (and probably will) be fired or demoted by the mayor or possibly by a simple majority of the City Council. In most towns over 50,000 population chiefs generally get paid between $70,000 and $140,000 a year plus benefits and retirement. Large city chiefs get well over $200,000 plus benefits, retirement and every once in a while you run into a chief earning well over $300,000.00 plus benefits. They want to hang onto that “chief” position, title and income.

This is why you see chiefs and their officers in the background when privileged officials posture against citizen firearm ownership and the Constitution by definition. Sure some chiefs may believe in citizen gun control and may be willing as a backdrop for self-serving politicians–especially if they were appointed by those in power at the time. So whenever a mayor, senator, representative or president wants a show of “top cops” showing support, a message is delivered to the particular city where the top officials are anti-2nd Amendment requesting top cops as props. The chiefs and officers are obediently delivered for props or advised to get their resume updated.

Sheriffs are by and large a different breed. They are elected by the people with a larger proportional number of citizens than city officials. The sheriff does not have to please a few city council members, a goofy mayor (or a governor). Sheriffs represent the beliefs and values of the majority of the area of his or her citizens who directly voted them into office. Yes, there will be sheriffs who do not want guns in the hands of citizens, but nothing like the number of police chiefs who have a near immediate career ending gun held to their heads by anti-Constitution politicians or the chief culture.

And most sheriffs take their Oath supporting the Constitution very seriously. And while they currently follow and enforce Constitutional applicable federal, state and county laws they reserve the power invested in their oath and position as elected officers of their county to resist or not to enforce Constitutional infringing law if or when that might come. If that were to occur, the state police and/or federal government may be ordered to step into that particular sheriff’s county to enforce those particular unconstitutional laws. The ramifications of those legal incursions might be very interesting to watch, especially, we were told, if that particular sheriff is actively supported by the citizens of that county.

The bottom line is city, state and even federal chiefs will almost always bend to the will of their political masters—”He who has the gold makes the rules.” Then this might be something to bring up in various press conferences with officers in the background.

There does seem to be a tendency for urban law enforcement to be in favor of gun control while rural LEOs have no problems with an armed citizenship.

While I have no doubts that it boils down to politics, I can’t help but think that in cities, police see a lot more bad things happening with guns, while in the country, sheriffs see a lot of good things happening with guns.

I’m not trying to oversimplify the issue; just wondering aloud if exposure isn’t a big part of it, too.

The post ‘Why police chiefs favor gun control when sheriffs don’t’ appeared first on

Feel free to use this as you wish–it is yours copy right free as a service of:Shults Media Relations, LLC A PR firm that seriously supports the outdoor and firearms industry and our Constitution.
[Image: incubi+INK.jpg]. ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN no diff
This is an interesting read, especially considering that the Lackawanna County Commissioner's office has voiced a desire to change the office of the Sheriff of Lackawanna County from an elected position to an appointed one. Scrantonyism at work, as usual.
Unbanned since September 2012.
jahwarrior72;79207 Wrote:This is an interesting read, especially considering that the Lackawanna County Commissioner's office has voiced a desire to change the office of the Sheriff of Lackawanna County from an elected position to an appointed one. Scrantonyism at work, as usual.

On a national scale, Joe Biden's son Attorney General Beau Biden has been actively seeking to make sheriff departments around the country redundant and eliminated. He follows an effort started by FDR and then by the county commissioners in California to eliminate the office of sheriff.
Quote:”We do have some sheriffs with the courage to tell the federal government to stay out of their counties and not enter unless they clear with the sheriff first. The sheriff is not a part of the federal judicial system. He holds executive powers.”

Sheriff Jeff Christopher of Sussex County, Delaware, when he was elected to the office in 2010, thought he was handpicked by the people to represent them as the highest-ranking law officer in the county. Instead, he has found himself in the middle of a fight for the future of American law enforcement as a result of a nationwide effort to abolish the sheriff’s office altogether.

It is one more example of federal and state governments ignoring the will of the people as well state laws. In the case of Delaware, the state’s own constitution stipulates that the office of the sheriff is a constitutionally created position just like the secretary of state and the attorney general. Delaware’s Constitution states: “The sheriffs shall be conservators of the peace within the counties . . . in which they reside.”

This time it is Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, son of Vice President Joe Biden, sending out mandates to commissioners informing them that their sheriffs no longer have arrest powers. In an opinion released Feb. 24, State Solicitor L.W. Lewis said that neither the state nor the common law grants arrest powers to the county sheriffs.

It would appear that Lewis is a little confused. The office of sheriff was created more than a century before the official founding of the United States. Delaware’s first sheriff took office in 1669.

“Now my deputies and I have been relieved of all arrest powers and can’t even make a traffic stop,” he said. “Delaware has only three counties. . . The other two sheriffs . . . will not stand up with me” to prevent the elimination of county law enforcement, he said.

Beau Biden’s questionable ruling against the longtime tradition of the sheriff being the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the county because of election by the people means the state’s usurpation of the office appears to be a forthcoming fact.

County spokesman Chip Guy announced, “The opinion from the attorney general’s office reinforces what has long been the position of the county [that] Delaware sheriffs and their deputies do not have arrest powers and are not in the same vein as state police or municipal officers.”

This is very alarming news....this is the Vice Presidents son who is doing this. He may well be a useful idiot to run up a test balloon for the present administration to do away with the last man standing between us and the federal government.

This is one ruling that must be stopped. I hope everyone is paying attention to this. If it is not stopped in Delaware it may well spread across the US.

Additional coverage of the effort to eliminate sheriffs:
Quote:Attorney General Beau Biden

The mainstream media has not reported the story, but the son of Vice President Joe Biden, who serves as Attorney General for the state of Delaware, has issued a mandate to county commissioners informing them that sheriffs in the state’s three counties no longer have arrest powers.

When the information reached this reporter late yesterday evening, further investigation revealed that there is a nationwide effort to strip local sheriffs of most of their enumerated powers that are mandated in the state constitutions of the various states. Such a move would have the net effect of abolishing local sheriffs departments and strengthening the power of federal law enforcement agencies.

And this is not the first time such an effort has been launched.

In the 1970s an initiative was launched by county supervisors in California to eliminate the office of sheriff, but one supervisor instead was able to persuade two state legislators to get a question placed on the California ballot as to whether or not the office of the sheriff should be an elected office. The measure passed overwhelmingly, and the mandate for elected sheriffs was placed in the state constitution.

And in 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt was set to eliminate all of the 48 states in order to implement nine regional governments that would operate as extensions of the federal government. All local law enforcement would be eliminated. The plan failed, but the fact that it was attempted points to an ever present, insidious stealth plan on the part of some within the federal government to take away the right of the people and the states to elect their own local law enforcement and to vastly strengthen the hand of the numerous federal law enforcement agencies that currently operate throughout America.

Proponents of such unconstitutional measures desire to forge a world government of sorts under the control of the United Nations. Various methods are used to expedite this plan,

including the infamous ‘Agenda 21′ that has raised the alarm among some citizens.

The key to the success of the implementation of such plans is enforcement. How would the federal government insure compliance among the states and their citizens?

Dozens of federal agencies have their own law enforcement divisions, and those divisions are growing quickly under the Obama Administration.

Homeland Security is purchasing 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets. The IRS will need roughly 16,500 new employees to implement ObamaCare. The White House has just sent $500 million to the IRS to enforce the new healthcare law. The EPA’s recent penchant for using heavy handed tactics outside the authority given to it by Congress has placed businesses under the gun and stymied economic recovery. Citizens complain that the agency regularly violates private property rights.

And then there are such agencies as the FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE, and others that are under suspicion for widespread corruption in the Fast and Furious scandal, a fact that has not hampered Congressional Democrats from calling for massive new funding and expanded powers for these agencies.

The move to weaken and dismantle sheriffs offices around the country is viewed by Constitutional watchdogs as an ominous signal in a broader attempt to usurp the rights of citizens on the local level in lieu of an expanded nationalized police force under the control of a federal bureaucracy.
[Image: incubi+INK.jpg]. ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN no diff
Does it surprise anyone that a Biden would try to usurp power. The only way that this can be beaten back is by taking it to the people and that would require getting the press on board. Since the LSM in this area is a defacto arm of the Democrat party...Dodgy
[Image: member955.png]
USAF (1976 -1986) NRA, GOA Anim_sniper2
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living." Dan Cofall

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Detroit Police Chief Tells People They Can Reduce Crime Carrying Concealed Firearms middlefinger 7 1,753 01-04-2014, 10:18 AM
Last Post: halftrack
  SAFE Act stance helps Howard win 3rd term as Erie County sheriff middlefinger 0 665 11-15-2013, 11:54 AM
Last Post: middlefinger
  Cops: Bomb sent to 'Sheriff Joe'... Pocketprotector 0 671 04-12-2013, 07:53 AM
Last Post: Pocketprotector
  Chicago Chief: Palin, gun lobby behind Chicago violence Pocketprotector 5 1,246 02-19-2013, 11:08 AM
Last Post: Pocketprotector
  NRA Chief Warns On White House’s Gun Control Push: “Don’t Trust These People”… middlefinger 4 899 02-04-2013, 09:37 AM
Last Post: rmagill

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.