Sponsored by

Comments on

Some sheriffs protest gun restrictions; others refuse to enforce laws

With more states passing stronger gun control laws, rural sheriffs across the country are taking the meaning of their age-old role as defenders of the Constitution to a new level by protesting such restrictions, News21 found.... Read more»

have your say   

8 comments on this story

Sep 11, 2014, 6:29 pm
-4 +1

IT is time to get rid of this outdated and idiotic system of electing sheriffs who in effect are the chiefs of police in large counties. They were not elected to interpret the law…just enforce it and by refusing to enforce gun laws they are not only endangering the citizenry but they are violating state and federal constitutions. Arizona should lead the way.

Sep 14, 2014, 1:52 pm
-1 +0

“They can cite the Second Amendment, but they couldn’t explain why this violates it. And the simple fact is it does not. There is a provision of our Constitution that gives people rights with respect to firearms, but it’s not as expansive as many of these people think.”

Senator Frosh, it is you who is ignorant of the Constitution and case law.

According to a 75-year-old precedent (U.S. v. Miller, 1939), arms in common use that have some reasonable relationship to the efficiency of a militia are guaranteed to the people under the Second Amendment.

That means your so-called “assault weapons” ban is unconstitutional.

The problem with many state legislatures and governors (and Congress and the president, too) is that they pass laws without really caring if they truly violate the Constitution or not, because of their progressive ideology. Progressivism deems the Constitution as malleable, subject to contemporary societal whims without having to follow the Article V process to change it.

That view is patently flawed; it is counterfeit.

The Constitution is a stable datum of legal and societal structure, and can no more mean different things at different times than can a ruler be 12 inches one year and 14 inches the next.

It is a standard that is designed to be stable and static, with the Article V amendment process as the only means to change its meaning.

What the Second Amendment means is that the people have a right to common arms that are also suitable for militia purposes, and the Fourteenth Amendment binds the states to the Bill of Rights.

Sep 14, 2014, 4:58 pm
-0 +1

Teabonicus…your comment is Bullcrap. There is no guaranteed rights to the public to own any kind of weapon they want and as to the militia.. it refers to govt organized militias and not the criminal private militias who have been terrorizing people in border areas.
And the founding fathers deliberately made the constitution somewhat vague because they knew our society would chg…the only people who support strict constructionism are the racists who constitute most of the membership of the tea party

Sep 14, 2014, 7:35 pm
-1 +0

Dave, you are woefully ignorant of the history of the amendment and the contemporary statements surrounding it.

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.” George Mason

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.  - Tenche Coxe, under the pseudonym A Pennsylvanian in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

Those are just a couple of ‘em. So we see that you are all wet, Dave

Add to that the Miller precedent as to what types of arms the people are guaranteed as well as the Heller and McDonald holdings, and it becomes obvious that the Court did its homework..

Unlike YOU.

Go buy a towel.

Sep 15, 2014, 11:05 am
-0 +1

Teabonicus to call you and the other right wing loons who want to have private armies that have done so much to destroy true freedom and democracy in the middle east ignorant would be to insult ignorant people. You represent a threat to public safety

Sep 15, 2014, 2:30 pm
-0 +2

Dave, your reading comprehension skills are a bit lacking.

My points were and are that the whole of the American people are the “militia”, and that the Second Amendment guarantees that they have the right to acquire, own, possess and bear arms that are already in common use, and that have characteristics that make them applicable to militia use, per the Supreme Court’s U.S. v. Miller precedent.

I said nothing about “private armies”. That wasn’t the subject of the discussion. The subject of the discussion was that so-called “assault weapons” bans are unconstitutional for the reasons I stated.

And they are. And there’s nothing you can do about it.

Sep 15, 2014, 3:12 pm
-3 +2

Actually yours are. Anyone who would brag about being part of the “tea party” is someone who is poorly educated. And the type of militias you describe certainly are private armies.
  BTW I have actually done coursework in constitutional law. And not Fox News. And the second amendment refers to govt sponsored militias which were superceded by the National Guard and the military reserves not crackpots psychopaths like yourself who like to play army and talk about overthrowing our elected government

Sep 15, 2014, 6:33 pm
-0 +2

The Second Amendment deals with an armed populace from which a militia can be drawn. That’s why it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” instead of “the right of the states to form militias”. Grammatically, it places NO conditions on the right, at all. The introductory clause announces the reason for enumerating the guarantee, and the independent clause declares the right OF THE PEOPLE.

It’s obvious that your coursework in constitutional law was taught by a liberal professor (most of them are, BTW), however, progressives’ core ethics are in enmity with the nations First Principles, so that doesn’t surprise me.

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment

Click to enlarge

Emilie Eaton/News21

Amelio has to complete a lot of paperwork after responding to a call, he said. Normally he only deals with guns when issuing an order of protection in which a judge orders someones firearm confiscated.


news, politics & government, crime & safety, family/life, nation/world, breaking

Read more about

election, gun control, guns, senate,
Sponsored by

Top Commenters

  • Bret Linden: 1767
  • Dylan Smith: 553
  • Cactus Dave: 339
  • buddhaboy: 316
  • Roberto De Vido: 270
  • EllieMae: 197
  • Brittanicus: 176
  • Quietwoman2: 172
  • TucsonGirl: 116
  • janamg: 88
Sponsored by


I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!

We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.

Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:

$10/mo. Cub Reporter
$15/mo. Printer's Devil
$20/mo. Stringer
$40/mo. Correspondent
$50/mo. Senior Correspondent
Enter your own monthly amount (number only)

Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:

$5,000 Newshound
$2,500 Trusted Source
$1,000 Copy Desk Chief
$500 Correspondent
$250 Stringer
$100 Printer's Devil
$50 Cub reporter
$25 Informed Source
$10 Dear Reader
Enter your own amount (below)

TucsonSentinel.com is an Arizona nonprofit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible.

User Guidelines

Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.

We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.

We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.

Comments are open to registered users of TucsonSentinel.com.

Keep in mind:

  • A conversation involves sharing and respect. Support your viewpoint with facts, not attacks.
  • Ask questions. Search out answers.
  • Remember that being part of a community requires tolerance for differing views.
  • We can't ensure that all comments are based in truth. The only comments we endorse are those we write ourselves.

TucsonSentinel.com does not allow:

  • Hate speech. Blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic slurs or calls for violence against a particular type of person, etc. will be removed.
  • Obscenity & excessive cursing. Sometimes a well-placed curse word - if you're creative enough to get it past our auto-censor - can express your point in just the right way. But we say '%*$& no' to cursing for cursing's sake. And lose the explicit sexually-descriptive language. It doesn't contribute to the debate and there are plenty of other places on the Internet to find it.
  • Flaming. During a heated discussion, unkind words may be spoken. We can live with a certain amount of rudeness in the name of provocative conversation, but a pattern of personal attacks (name-calling, mocking, or baiting) is not acceptable nor are threatening or harassing comments. Show some respect, please.
  • Explicit political endorsements. As a nonprofit we can't allow electioneering. Analysis and explanation of political issues and candidates are encouraged, but specific calls to vote for or against a measure or politician should be done elsewhere.
  • Spam. Solicitation of products or services isn't allowed; contact us about advertising, we'd love to talk to you. Links to off-topic sites may be deleted.
  • Copyright or IP infringement. Lengthy quotes and violations of 'Fair Use' aren't allowed. Anything you post should be your own work.
  • Overposting. Don't bore people and waste electrons with identical comments on multiple stories or repetitive comments that don't advance a conversation.
  • Trolling, sockpuppetry, and other abusive behavior. Please don't feed the trolls and don't pretend to be someone you're not.
  • Gossip. Don't bring up others who can't defend themselves. We don't give out personal information; you shouldn't either.

Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.


Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on TucsonSentinel.com.

Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.

What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.

We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.

We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.

Bottom line, don't be a jerk.

Sponsored by

Sign up for TucsonSentinel.com email newsletters!

Sponsored by
find us on facebook
Sponsored by
Sponsored by
Sponsored by