Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Tag Archives: sheriffs

Did “Something Happen” that Ghastly day at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School?

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, February 26, 2018: 

Location within Broward and the state of Florida

Location within Broward and the state of Florida

When President Trump learned that a Broward County (Florida) sheriff could have ended the shooting spree almost immediately but didn’t, he told a reporter: “He [Scot Peterson] trained his whole life. When it came time to get in there and do something, he didn’t have the courage or something happened, but he certainly did a poor job – there’s no question about that.”

If the reporter asked Trump what he meant by “something happened” it was not recorded. But the president, who knows more than he is allowed to say about such incidents, might have given away the scam.

Keep Reading…

Pro-gun Victory: D.C. Decides Not to Appeal Concealed Carry Ruling to Supreme Court

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, October 5, 2017:

Effective Thursday, residents of the nation’s capital seeking a concealed carry permit won’t have to show a “good or proper reason” to obtain it. That’s because anti-gun politicians on Washington, D.C.’s council think it’s too risky for them to take their case to the Supreme Court, considering the current political climate there. If they appeal the ruling handed down in July and the Supremes sustain it, it would likely apply not only to their district, but also to other states that have imposed similar restrictions on their citizens.

D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine noted the risks of an appeal going against it:

Keep Reading…

Trump’s Pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio Sends a Message: There’s a New Sheriff in Town

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, August 28, 2017:

English: cropped from File:Maricopa County She...

Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

There’s little doubt that sheriffs in counties on or near the country’s southern border have been watching, and waiting, for a signal from the Trump administration about its views on enforcing immigration laws. Those would especially include those who consider themselves “constitutional” sheriffs.

That signal arrived late Friday with President Trump’s pardon of Maricopa County Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Before Friday, all those sheriffs had to go on was hope – hope that they wouldn’t be targeted for enforcing the law the way Arpaio was. Now they can rest easier knowing they have a friend in the White House and not an enemy. And the net effect will be stronger enforcement of the country’s immigration laws.

For Arpaio it was a long-awaited victory over the Obama administration. For the citizens of the United States it is also a victory over illegals committing crimes without consequences.

Said Trump:

Keep Reading…

Trump’s Pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio Sends a Strong Message

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Saturday, August 26, 2017:

speaking in Phoenix, Arizona on February 26, 2011.

President Trump pardoned former Maricopa County (Arizona) sheriff Joe Arpaio (shown), the White House announced Friday evening: “Throughout his time as Sheriff, Arpaio continued his life’s work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration,″ the statement said. “Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now eighty-five years old, and after more than fifty years of admirable service to our Nation, he is worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon.”

For his part, the veteran sheriff was grateful but called his conviction the result of unceasing efforts by the Obama administration to silence him. In one tweet, Arpaio said:

Thank you @realdonaldtrump for seeing my conviction for what it is: a political witch hunt by holdovers in the Obama justice department!

And in another:

I am humbled and incredibly grateful to President Trump. I look fwd to putting this chapter behind me and helping to #MAGA

Arizona Senator John McCain was ambivalent about the presidential pardon:

Keep Reading…

Supreme Court Urged to Overturn Maryland’s “Assault Weapons” Ban

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, August 23, 2017:

English: Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of ...

Antonin Scalia, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Cato Institute, along with the National Sheriffs’ Association and the Independence Institute, filed a “friend of the court” brief on Monday urging the Supreme Court to take under review a lower court’s decision upholding Maryland’s nearly total ban on so-called assault weapons.

Prior to passage of the Firearms Safety Act (FSA) in 2013, Maryland’s gun controls were bad enough: The law permitted those citizens “in good standing” to possess semi-automatic rifles, but only after passing an extensive (and costly) background check along with meeting various other requirements. Starting October 1, 2013, those controls became positively onerous: Any firearm designated as an “assault weapon” was banned from private possession altogether. The law included “assault long rifles,” “assault pistols,” and “copycat weapons.” That automatically included the semi-automatic (one squeeze of the trigger fires a single round) rifles that are most popular among Americans, including Marylanders, including the AR-15 and AK-47 models and knockoffs.

The new law allowed exceptions for “active law enforcement officers.”

Stephen Kolbe, a life-long resident of Maryland living in Towson, owned a “full-size semi-automatic handgun” but wanted, for self-protection purposes, to purchase one of those now-banned semi-automatic rifles. Under the new law he couldn’t, and so he, with the help of the SAF, filed suit claiming Maryland’s new law violated his Second Amendment-protected rights. He also claimed that by giving LEOs an exception, the law also violated his rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

His suit was rebuffed, and he kept appealing until

Keep Reading…

Anti-gunners’ Victory Celebration in Peruta v. San Diego Likely to be Short-lived

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, June 28, 2017:

In one of the more inane and nonsensical effusions of rejoicing over the Supreme Courts decision on Monday to let stand a lower courts anti-gun decision, Californias Attorney General Xavier Becerra sullied his credibility and those of similar view with this:

[Its] welcome news for California and gun safety everywhere. It leaves in place an important and common-sense firearm regulation, one that promotes public safety, respects 2nd Amendment rights and values the judgments of sheriffs and police chiefs throughout the state on what works best for their communities.

This packs more misstatements, half-truths and just plain damnable lies into one paragraph than has been seen in recent years. By disarming its citizens, California has virtually guaranteed an increase in violent crime, especially gun violence. The onerous restrictions on the Second Amendment applied to law-abiding citizens fail to respect it but instead do serious if not fatal damage to it. And as far as judgments by local sheriffs and police officers as to the applicability of the Second Amendment to its citizens, one needs only to bring to mind the history of tyrants operating without restraint.

Keep Reading…

Will Mainers Make the Same Mistake as Coloradans?

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Thursday, October 6, 2016:  

Question 3 on the November ballot for Mainers, if passed, would require a gun buyer and seller to meet at a licensed gun dealer and go through a background check. That requirement would also apply to a resident of Maine who loans a firearm to a friend.

The similarities to Colorado’s experience are beyond coincidence:

Keep Reading…

Maine Sheriffs Oppose Universal Background Check Ballot Initiative

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, October 6, 2016:  

On the ballot in November in Maine will appear Question 3, requiring for the first time that a gun buyer and seller meet at a licensed gun dealer and go through a background check before transferring a firearm. If approved by Mainers, the requirement also will apply to those just lending a firearm to a friend.

On Tuesday, 12 of Maine’s 16 county sheriffs announced their formal opposition to the ballot initiative:

Keep Reading…

9th Circuit: Second Amendment Doesn’t Guarantee Right to Carry Concealed

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, June 10, 2016:  

English: Book cover for Gun Fight.

Thursday’s decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco was highlighted by nearly every media outlet with some rejoicing and some lamenting. The majority decision in the 7-4 ruling, which decided two nearly identical cases, was written by Judge William A. Fletcher , a Clinton appointee:

Keep Reading…

$3.6 Million for Baby Bou Bou; Nothing for the Fourth Amendment

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, March 2, 2016: 

Last Friday a federal judge signed off on settlements totaling $3.6 million to be paid to the family of Bou Bou, an infant who was blown up in his crib during a no-knock raid in May, 2014. Said the family’s attorney:

Keep Reading…

Family Gets $3.6M; Deputy Gets Off; 4th Amendment Gets Trashed

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, March 1, 2016:  

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014, nine sheriff’s deputies from Rabun, Stephen, and Habersham Counties in Georgia enforced a “no-knock” warrant at 2:25 a.m. by battering down the door where Alecia and Bounkham Phonesavanh and their four children were staying. To stun and incapacitate them a deputy launched a “flash-bang” grenade, which inadvertently landed in the crib where 19-month-old “Bou Bou” was sleeping, nearly killing him.

According to Jacob Sullum at Reason magazine, baby Bou Bou suffered

Keep Reading…

Second Amendment Momentum Builds; More Law Officers Urge Gun Ownership

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, January 18, 2016:  

An increasing number of law enforcement officials are publicly encouraging citizens to take personal responsibility for their own safety.

Florida Sheriff Grady Judd was blunt in speaking to criminals considering invading any citizen’s home in Polk County: “If you are foolish enough to break into someone’s home, you can expect to be shot.”

In speaking to his constituents, he was equally blunt:

Keep Reading…

“Ferguson Effect” Blamed for Increase in Violent Crime

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 28, 2015:  

James Comey

James Comey

In late October FBI Director James Comey said in a speech: “Most of America’s 50 largest cities have seen an increase in homicides and shootings this year, and many of them have seen a huge increase.”

Speaking at the University of Chicago Law School, Comey posed a couple of rhetorical questions for his audience:

Keep Reading…

Revolutionary Rhetoric and the Murder of Officer Darren Goforth

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, August 31, 2015:  

Following the self-defense shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in 2013, three vicious Marxists formed a seething pot of revolutionary extremism called Black Lives Matter (BLM). They are Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi.

Garza genuflects at the memory of Assata Shakur, a member of the Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation Army and the murderer in 1973 of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster:

Keep Reading…

Lawsuit Filed in Homeschool Pepper Spray Incident

This article first appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, December 3, 2014:

Logo of the Home School Legal Defense Association.

Logo of the Home School Legal Defense Association.

In September 2011, a social services bureaucrat in Nodaway County, Missouri, responding to an anonymous complaint that the home belonging to Jason and Laura Hagan was “messy,” arrived at their front door to do an investigation into the complaint. Initially unaware that the  bureaucrat needed to provide them a search warrant beforehand, the Hagans let her in to inspect their home.

Following the visit, the Hagans, who homeschool their three children, asked the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) for some advice. The Hagans were advised that if anyone from social services showed up in the future, or anyone else for that matter, they should demand a

Keep Reading…

Blowback Against Washington State’s Anti-gun Initiative Just Beginning

This article first appeared at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, November 21, 2014:

Despite opposition from individual gun owners, Washington State sheriffs, the state’s Republican Party, and the National Rifle Association, Initiative 594 passed easily on Tuesday, November 4, by 59 percent to 41 percent, with Bloomberg’s money promoting myths about it.

This makes Washington the seventh state (along with the District of Columbia) to require universal background checks not only on all sales of firearms but on “transfers” as well, even between friends. Washington is the first state to pass such restrictions through a citizen-driven initiative.

Largely unknown to voters, the complex 18-page initiative also greatly expands the state’s handgun registration program, with every sale or transfer of a handgun resulting in

Keep Reading…

Constitutional Sheriffs making NBC Nervous

This article first appeared at the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, August 27, 2014:

Wicomico County, MD sheriff's deputy patrol car

Wicomico County, MD sheriff’s deputy patrol car

In just the last five years, both Oath Keepers and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) have reported increased numbers of members and influence. For instance, in February CSPOA announced that more than 480 of the country’s 3080 county sheriffs have signed up and enlisted in their campaign, promising to uphold their oaths to defend the constitutions of their states and the federal government. This has made NBC News nervous and, in their latest report, Gun Laws, four writers investigated the growing constitutional Sheriff movement.

Franklin Shook, a member of the board of Oath Keepers, explained that “What Oath Keepers is saying is:

Keep Reading…

Sheriff Mack: “We’re Taking Back America One County at a Time”

This article first appeared at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, August 27, 2014: 

English: Sheriff Richard Mack at the Nullify N...

Sheriff Richard Mack

In an exclusive interview with The New American, retired Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), highlighted the successes that members of his organization are having in resisting unconstitutional challenges by the federal government and declared that with these successes, “We are taking back America one county at a time!”

It’s not just rhetoric. CSPOA members have pledged to

Keep Reading…

Colorado Gun Laws Constitutional, Says U.S. District Judge

This article was first published at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, June 27, 2014:

In Search of the Second Amendment

On Thursday, a federal judge upheld Colorado’s new gun-control laws that mandate background checks for all gun sales and limit magazine capacity to 15 rounds. U.S. District Chief Judge Marcia Krieger issued her 50-page ruling on the 2013 laws after a two-week civil trial in late March and early April in Denver.

The lawsuit was originally filed by plaintiffs including sheriffs, gun shops, outfitters, and shooting ranges. Krieger ruled last year that the sheriffs could not sue the state in their official capacities but they could join the lawsuit as private citizens.

In her ruling, Judge Krieger (who was appointed to the position in 2001 by then-President George W. Bush) made clear from the beginning that she wasn’t going to rule on whether or not the new laws made sense:

A court does not act as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom or workability of legislation. Instead, it determines only whether legislation is constitutionally permissible….

The judge just only compares the public policy adopted by the legislature against the constitutional minimums that protect individual rights….

This Court will not express a qualitative opinion as to whether a law is “good” or “bad,” “wise” or “unwise,” “sound policy” or a “hastily-considered overreaction.”

After determining that most of the plaintiffs had standing to sue, she focused her attention on the impact that limiting magazine capacities would have on both criminal shooters and law-abiding citizens:

Plaintiffs argue that by limiting magazines to 15 rounds or less, this statute impairs an individual’s Second Amendment “right of self-defense.” Colorado reflexively responds that because people can still defend themselves, no Second Amendment right is impaired.

She then notes that the offending laws do not directly regulate firearms at all, but only the size of the magazines that feed them:

Because [the magazine limit law] regulates only the number of rounds in a magazine, it does not affect whether the semiautomatic firearm can be used, or even whether it can be used in a semiautomatic mode. It only affects how often it must be reloaded.

She said the scope of the law is universal but its impact is not severe enough to render it unconstitutional:

This ban applies to every person in Colorado, in every venue, and for every use, including self-defense inside and outside of the home.

It impacts a large number of semiautomatic firearms, both handguns and rifles. Viewed in this light, the scope of the statute is broad, and it touches the core of an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

But because its impact on that right is so minor, the judge said, she overlooked it as any kind of impediment to the government’s overriding interest in “public safety”:

Despite such broad scope, however, the statute’s impact on a person’s ability to keep and bear (use) firearms for the purpose of self-defense is not severe….

Thus, this statute does not prevent the people of Colorado from possessing semiautomatic weapons for self-defense, or from using those weapons as they are designed to function. The only limitation imposed is how frequently they must reload their weapons.

She decided that the “pause” (when a criminal shooter runs out of ammunition during an attack in order to reload gives his victims time to run away and hide while giving more time for armed officials to intervene) was a distinct advantage of the new law. She failed to mention that the alleged invented shooter in her scenario wasn’t likely to limit himself under the new law. Instead, she concentrated on how limiting magazines to 15 rounds would scarcely impact an honest citizen’s ability to defend himself: “No evidence presented here suggests that the general ability of a person to defend him or herself is seriously diminished if magazines are limited to 15 rounds.”

Besides, she wrote, most “incidents” involved criminals intending mayhem are resolved without any shots being fired:

First, the defensive purpose of firearms is often achieved without shots being fired whatsoever. Mr. [Massad] Ayoob [an expert witness called for the plaintiffs in the case] testified that, often, merely the defensive display of a firearm is sufficient to defuse the threat….

In these types of circumstances, a restriction on a magazine size in no way diminishes the ability of the firearm user to defend him or herself.

Therefore, wrote the judge, the modest infringement of a Second Amendment right is acceptable:

The Court finds that although [the law limiting magazines to 15 rounds] burdens the operation of semiautomatic weapons, the burden is not severe because it does not materially reduce the ability of a person to use a semiautomatic firearm for self-defense, not does it reduce the effectiveness of self-defensive efforts.

One wonders if our nation’s Founders would be impressed with the argument that infringements of the Second Amendment are allowed because they are modest.

Krieger made short work of another complaint, that background checks required in all private transactions are unconstitutional. She noted that the plaintiffs didn’t really make that argument at all, but instead focused on temporary transfers being hampered unnecessarily:

Plaintiffs do not argue that requiring background checks for the private sale of firearms is unconstitutional. Rather, they focus their challenge on the effect of the statute on temporary transfers [i.e., loans] when ownership of the firearm does not change.

But since the Second Amendment and other court rulings have failed to address the issue of such temporary transfers of a firearm from an owner to a borrower, therefore it doesn’t count:

It is not at all clear that the Second Amendment prevents the government from restricting the ability of persons to acquire firearms via temporary loans from others….

Logically, if the government can lawfully regulate the ability of persons to obtain firearms from commercial dealers, the same power to regulate should extend to non-commercial [private] transactions, lest the loophole swallow the regulatory purpose.

Upon learning of the decision, the plaintiffs had plenty to say about it. The Colorado State Shooting Association, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, called it “disappointing on many levels” and asserted that the ruling missed the whole point concerning the Second Amendment:

The significance of the Second Amendment as a core portion of the Bill of Rights and its importance has virtually no reference in the decision. Most noteworthy was the court’s focus on the important government interest at hand while ignoring the complete absence of support for [it] in the legislative record.

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, a leader among the plaintiffs, added:

While we respect the judge’s ruling today, we believe that it is plainly wrong on the law and on the facts….

[The laws] are still unenforceable. And that is borne out in that there has not been one arrest on these two laws to date.

The ruling was not without its supporters, however. State Senator Mary Hodge, a Democrat from Thornton and a sponsor of the bills, remarked:

This is public safety. Having people have to pause to reload [during a mass shooting] saves lives. These school shooters, for the most part, did not know how to reload their weapons, so this limit on large-capacity magazines is good.

Eileen McCarron, head of the anti-gun Colorado Ceasefire Capitol Fund, said the lawsuit was a waste of time and money:

This was a politically motivated lawsuit that has been grasping at straws from day one. These laws are reasonable protections against gun violence that many states have adopted and have repeatedly passed the test of constitutionality.

And Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, whose office defended the laws, said he was just doing his job:

Like Judge Krieger, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office has never asserted that the laws in question are good, wise or sound policy. As it does in all cases, the AG’s Office has fulfilled its responsibility to defend the constitutionality of the Colorado law[s] in question. The Attorney General’s Office fully expects the case to be appealed and looks forward to final resolution of the issues as soon as possible.

If left to stand upon appeal, Judge Krieger’s ruling illustrates just how our fundamental rights given by God and guaranteed by the Constitution are lost: an inch at a time. Krieger, in her ruling, failed to address the word “infringe,” which could have shed more light on the rights she was allowing to be compromised. “Infringe” means to violate, transgress, encroach, or trespass. The Latin root infringere means “to break” or “weaken.” In that light, the laws just ruled constitutional by her court remain unconstitutional after all.

One awaits the appeal with eager anticipation.

Please Log In To Comment

Keep Reading…

Playground Photo Reignites gun Control Debate

Official logo of Oconomowoc Lake, Wisconsin

Official logo of Oconomowoc Lake, Wisconsin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When Heather Karenz of Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, posted a photo of her son on a playground slide on Facebook and complained that the father in the background was carrying a sidearm, Police Chief David Beguhn responded by saying that a local ordinance prohibited openly carrying firearms at the Imagination Station children’s playground.

That sparked a call to the chief from Nik Clark, president of Wisconsin Carry, a gun rights group, who informed the chief that a state law prohibited any local township from enacting gun laws more strict than the state’s.

Beguhn consulted with the city’s attorney, read the state law, realized his error and retracted his warning that the local ordinance would be enforced. In fact, he now wants the city’s Common Council to

Keep Reading…

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2018 Bob Adelmann