Colorado Sheriffs have banded together in opposition to gun-control legislation introduced in their state. Their vocal objection to strict anti-second amendment laws could come at a cost: their own salaries, which are controlled by the legislature. It is a sticky situation for these elected sheriffs, who are standing by their oath to the Constitution.
All over the country, Sheriffs "are reacting with promises to protect individuals from new laws passed by federal and state politicians," as reported by the Gazette. It is no different in Colorado, where some of the gun-control legislation has passed, but the sheriffs represented by the County Sheriffs of Colorado (CSOC) have made their position clear, and have vowed not to enforce the new laws.
The sheriffs, who have not received a pay raise since 2007, according to a Facebook post by Sheriff Terry Maketa, as reported by Sheriff Justin Smith, have been hearing plenty of buzz that their opposition to the gun-control laws may result in the legislature holding off on a salary adjustment bill for the sheriffs.
Imagine if the issue was legislation that would not allow peaceful protests, for example. One would think that the sheriffs would be hailed for their defiance. Regarding gun-control laws, the mainstream media is not so keen to report on these heroes, who are standing by the Constitution.
Earlier this month, Maketa called the legislation "emotionally driven" and stated that it has "no backing" during a radio interview on the Jeff Crank show. He discusses an email received by the offices of the County Sheriffs of Colorado, which threatened to halt or slow raises in salaries to the sheriffs if they fail to support the gun control legislation.
Listen to the interview here (around the 6:30 minute mark):
Although it is not confirmed, Maketa's post reports, "I can tell you that Senate President Morse has made it quite apparent that he wants the introduction of a salary adjustment bill very, very difficult. I think you can draw your own conclusion on that." Although the action is not overt, the message is clear: Sit down and shut up.
Maketa continues,
"I can say definitively, when that matter was raised in the room of Sheriffs I was with, we unanimously agreed we would NOT compromise our principles -period. We won't sell our citizens out for a pay raise."
Senate President Morse has been dealing with plenty of backlash in addition to the Colorado Sheriffs, as "the Basic Freedom Defense Fund (BFDF) formed a local committee for recalling Morse," as reported by KOAA. The author of that piece, Tony Spehar, explained that Morse was "specifically targeted" because of his support of a proposal that would "hold owners of 'assault weapons' liable for damages caused by their guns." Hopefully, the citizens of Colorado will pay attention to the rights that may be whisked out from under them and show support for those taking a stand.
Photo Source: El Paso County Sheriff's Office Website
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 23 ( 1 removed by Renee Nal )
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither.
--Thomas Jefferson.
The fact is that the government needs local law enforcement in order to enforce these unconstitutional laws, if they don't, who will? The military?
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
--Thomas Jefferson.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
--Thomas Jefferson.
"The fact is that the government needs local law enforcement in order to enforce these unconstitutional laws, if they don't, who will? The military? "
It is somewhat unsettling that so many military leaders have been pushed out or replaced...
(OH, I mean) Jo Jo is dismayed that local sheriffs don't know their place and refuse to kow tow to a bunch of liberal knee jerk legislators...
In Florida, any decent sheriff can live on clean bribes...that is where the money is, anyway...
TEE FREAKIN' HEE...
The Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting.
It is a powerful political right. An acknowledgement that we have a right to defend ourselves as we see fit and a right and responsibility to protect the government and ourselves from a tyrant...*
By its very nature, the Second Amendment envisions that we be armed adequately for those purposes.
In short, if the bad guys have assault rifles with 30 round clips...so should we.
And...the "liberals" don't care about the occasional school shooting (which, BTW, are statistically insignificant**). They want to disarm us so that we will be easier to control when their "new world order" takes over...they use the tragedies for their own political purposes.
They do it by small increments...the salami game...frog boiling...a small slice...no problem...one degree...no problem...soon, no salami...boiled frog.
Consequently, they need to be fought at every barricade...
If you think it is dangerous now (which, it is not if you stay out of the South side of Chicago) wait until the gov't has disarmed all the law abiding citizens...
The back ground check (if you look closely) is really the creation of a registry for the purpose of eventual confiscation...we already have back ground checks that are perfectly adequate for the purpose.
And, here's the capper, there are enough guns out there for every person in the US to have one. All the bans and restrictions in the world aren't going to solve the problem...the crazies and criminals will still get one if they want...when that happens, don't you think I might want one, too???
*Suppose, as an example, George Bush had refused to turn the gov't over to Obama...an armed citizenry may be the only remedy...
**In round numbers, there are 30,000 gun deaths in the US every year...
20,000 suicides...
8-10,000 garden variety homicides...Gang and drug violence accounts for most of these...mostly with hand guns...
350 homicides by rifle...
Just so you know, I wasn't commenting to you per say, but to the blog itself. I am not in disagreement with you. These new gun laws will not stop anything. What it's doing is allowing citizens to take advantage of the constitution and their 2nd Amendment rights. This is not what the founding fathers anticipated when they put this amendment into law. I agree we should be able to protect ourselves. These criminals will get their weapons at any cost. Are we now going to follow in their footsteps? All I was saying in the beginning is it is really not a violation of the 2nd Amendment nor will it change anything. It's a double edged sword. Either way, it sucks.
The only thing it would change is criminalizing law-abiding citizens. One cannot legislate the the margins, Melissa - laws and gun free zones did nothing to stop mass shooters. If we really care about reducing violent crime, the focus should be on gangs, urban areas where most of the crime occurs and the culture, in my opinion. And I thank you for your comment ;-)
Renee, I appreciate being able to have a voice here. I am not slamming your blog, I respect everything you said and the police standing up, I just don't agree that it's a violation of the constitution. I hope you understand me and thank you as well.