[Masthead] Overcast ~ 55°F  
High: 58°F ~ Low: 50°F
Monday, May 2, 2016

Sheriff reassures residents: 2nd Amendment will be upheld (Updated 1/31 3:17 p.m.)

Thursday, January 31, 2013

(Photo)
Sheriff Wally George
Saline County Sheriff Wally George wrote a letter to a county couple who is concerned with the recent talks of federal gun regulation laws. In his letter, George promised to defend the rights of his constituents to own guns even if that meant being arrested himself.

"I will assure you, as I have many other Saline County folks, that I will defend our 2nd amendment in Saline County literally to the point of being locked up in my own county jail if it ever came to that extreme," George said in the letter, dated Jan. 30.

The response came after the sheriff received a letter from Jeffrey and LynnRose Johnson, residents of Nelson, urging the sheriff to respond whether or not he would uphold his oath to protect the county and the constitution "against all enemies foreign or domestic."

"We have always respected you and have believed you to be a man of integrity and honor, but the current climate in this country has made people nervous and scared of an overreaching federal government, and as citizens of Saline County we need answers from our Sheriff," the Johnsons wrote in their letter to the sheriff.

The Johnsons said they wrote on behalf of themselves and Oath Keepers, a national organization which asks current and former military, police and firefighters to defend the oath to protect the constitution.

"Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial," states the mission of the Oath Keeper's website. "We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not 'just follow orders.' "

LynnRose Johnson said that sheriffs across the state and country have pledged to protect the Second Amendment and she and her husband want to know where Sheriff George stands.

"He is our first line of defense," LynnRose Johnson said. "A lot of people are very concerned about a far-reaching federal government infringing on our Second Amendment.

LynnRose Johnson said she didn't believe there was an imminent threat of the federal government taking away people's guns, but added that there was a trend toward that goal.

"When you see the president issuing his executive orders on gun regulation, he is very fond of a big government," LynnRose Johnson said. "If you disarm the people you can do a lot more harm to them. History has shown it to happen. If it happened in other places, I am sure those people didn't see it coming either."

George said that in his years serving in law enforcement he had never received so many inquiries from citizens concerned about a particular issue as he has recently in regards to his stance on the second amendment.

"Folks are either calling me, writing me letters, coming by the office, stopping me on the streets," George said. "There is a lot of unrest and uncertainty because they have this mindset that I'm going to create some kind of martial law to come and take their guns. That's just not going to happen."

George said he would favor a state law requiring people to go to the sheriff's office to do a background check to obtain a firearm permit.

"They (sheriffs) know their people more than anybody else in the government knows," he said.

In the meantime, he urged citizens not to be afraid of anyone coming to take their guns.

"It is not going to happen," George said. "There is no way that people are going to come in for their guns. For starters, I am going to be standing myself in front of that person who is going to come in and take that citizen's arms."

LynnRose Johnson thanked the sheriff for taking the time to reply to her letter.

"When somebody takes the time to write it down on paper and sign it, it means something," LynnRose Johnson said. "These are uneasy times and people are worried. People need to talk to their representatives and find out where they stand on this important issue."

Contact Carlos Restrepo at crestrepo@marshallnews.com

Online:
www.oathkeepers.org/oath/about/


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on marshallnews.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

That makes 59 comments....errr 60

-- Posted by Interested Too on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 9:42 PM

Fifty eight comments about a concept that is the figment of paranoid imaginations. Guns will never be collected, we will never have a scenario such as is described in the many Armageddon type movies. They are made to simply pull frenzied folk into theatre seats (after loading up on caffienated, sugar loaded soft drinks for that extra buzz, and fat loaded pop corn).

Much ado about nothing, a smokescreen to distract dolts while the plutocrats steal our material wealth right from under our distracted eyes, erode our civil rights right under our noses, and corrupt congress to the point that they never hear a word that comes from our mouths. Far too many of us have become deprived of our senses because we did not, or forgot how to use them.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 7:49 PM

Smug liberals, no surprise there.

-- Posted by theJIDF on Mon, Feb 4, 2013, at 4:33 PM

One word, one voice, for you to contemplate JDIF,

Gandhi. :)

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Mon, Feb 4, 2013, at 2:09 PM

If history ALWAYS repeats itself;

The dinosaurs will be returning ....soon?

-- Posted by Interested Too on Mon, Feb 4, 2013, at 9:48 AM

Not exactly. Your point was not clear, are you forming an uprising we should be aware of? Although you did tell us something we already know: fighter jets, are not people.

-- Posted by pauldouglas on Mon, Feb 4, 2013, at 8:05 AM

*making fun of my capitalization rather than responding to my argument..because I'm right*

Just proves my point. Thanks guys!

-- Posted by theJIDF on Mon, Feb 4, 2013, at 12:19 AM

Hahahaha. Yes interested, the British are coming!!

-- Posted by pauldouglas on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 9:05 PM

theJIDF,

As long as you only shout it once!

:)

-- Posted by Interested Too on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 4:43 PM

Wally George is not alone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJqG6bB0S...

-- Posted by theJIDF on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 4:14 PM

Sure are a lot of freedom-hating, statists in here.

Two words: Salutary neglect; just because a law is on the books doesn't mean it has to be enforced.

Furthermore, rights DO NOT equate to NEEDS, why you guys feel you need to dictate the rights of others just baffles me.

And for everyone else that thinks the military could dominate the populace through a police state, I'm going to say this once, just once: YOU CANNOT CONTROL AN ENTIRE COUNTRY AND ITS PEOPLE WITH TANKS OR JETS OR BATTLESHIPS OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

A FIGHTER JET CANNOT STAND ON THE STREET-CORNERS AND ENFORCE NO-ASSEMBLY EDICTS. A FIGHTER JET CANNOT KICK DOWN YOUR DOOR AT 3AM TO SEARCH YOUR HOUSE FOR CONTRABAND MATERIALS OR ANTI-SOCIAL PROPAGANDA.

A FIGHTER JET IS USELESS FOR MAINTAINING A POLICE STATE

POLICE ARE NEEDED TO MAINTAIN A POLICE STATE.

AND NO MATTER HOW MANY POLICE YOU HAVE, THEY ARE ALWAYS OUT-NUMBERED BY THE PEOPLE, WHICH IS WHY IT'S VITAL FOR YOUR POLICE TO HAVE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS AND YOUR PEOPLE TO BE DISARMED.

BUT WHEN EVERY RANDOM PEDESTRIAN MIGHT HAVE A GLOCK JAMMED IN HIS WAISTBAND ASKING FOR SOMEONE'S TRAVEL PAPERS CAN RESULT IN A GUT FULL OF LEAD. KICKING DOWN THOSE DOORS BECOMES A LOT RISKIER WHEN A FULL SIZED BATTLE RIFLE CAPABLE OF PUNCHING THROUGH YOUR BODY ARMOR LIKE CARDBOARD MIGHT BE HIDING BEHIND EVERY COUCH.

History ALWAYS repeats itself.

-- Posted by theJIDF on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 4:11 PM

DocHol,

I just love these guarantees.

Where do we go to collect if the rednecks don't come through against the tanks and bombs and well trained soldiers?

I may just have to stick with the Guv'ment on this one.

-- Posted by Interested Too on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 11:59 AM

When what hits the fan? Zombie apocalypse?

-- Posted by tigger2118 on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 10:34 AM

I dont care if any or all agree with me or not ,I can guarantee each and everyone of you will want us saline county rednecks to keep your rear safe when the poo hits the fan

-- Posted by DocHolida2u on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 10:11 AM

Dare you to read this:

http://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/201...

This is a sociologist's analysis of rampage killers vs. gang bangers. The analysis fits secretive rampage murderers from those who are seriously alienated (Norway's Breivik) to those who have serious mental illness such as paranoid schizophrenia (James Holmes, Jared Laughner). That this sociologist wrote his footnoted post before Newtown, Conn. gives even more credibility.

One improvement to which everyone (including young people) can contribute is to become personally more civil and inclusive. The state specific improvement all Missourians can push for is getting the seriously mentally ill on the NICS background check list. Missouri forwards names of felons but, like most states, does a very poor job of listing those with potentially endangering mental illness. Even if background checks were extended to private gun sales, a loophole remains if the tiny percentage of high risk dangerously mentally ill are not listed. We also need to increase institutional options for the families and friends of those with potentially endangering mental illness. This should be a public health issue, not the private insurance issue it has become. For decades we have gone backwards on offering institutional options.

-- Posted by former editor on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 6:15 AM

Experian Marketing released TV survey information last year to guide advertisers about where to place their ads for specific markets. Survey indicated that conservative types like to watch football and Antiques Road Show while liberals like to watch shows that bash conservatives. I see that kind of pattern playing out here. From this new reporter's style, I doubt he is a centrist. Even from a centrist position, it is hard to find the common thread people can agree on. Yet even in this hot button issue, there are elements on which most people could agree. That's obviously not the aim of Carlos, the prize winning new guy.

-- Posted by former editor on Sun, Feb 3, 2013, at 5:54 AM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
Carlos wrote the story, but I assigned it and approved it. If you have any problems with the accuracy or fairness of the story, I would be glad to hear your views. Please call 660-886-2233 or write ecrump@marshallnews.com.

You are welcome, tigger.

-- Posted by Interested Too on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 10:15 PM

Woops. Used the wrong form of "there vs. their" stupid autocorrect. I acknowledged it editor now that should not distract.

-- Posted by pauldouglas on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 10:11 PM

"In his view" is also equal to "whether or not I should enforce cut and dry law or not". Black and white. Wally wants to add grey areas. Former editor, when was the last time your life depended on automatic weapons for hunting? You have the constitutional right to own a GUN, do you own a few automatics?. The constitution was designed to be changed along with the current time because those who wrote it knew the world would evolve. Wally's blinders only see votes and the issues that will get him re-elected to finance his lake home where he spends most of his time. How will he protect you from an hour or two away? I can't remember the last time I had to take up arms and defend myself against red coats. Also when I want to eat meat I go to the store. While I understand that many in Saline County depend on hunting for their livelihood and dinner I highly doubt they are out their with an Uzi knocking down deer. We are dealing with a politician.

-- Posted by pauldouglas on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 10:03 PM

Next someone with background in case law will have to interpret the short phrase "in his view" in the state sheriff duty statute. I am sure it doesn't refer to line of sight. Case law libraries are available on line to the general public on a limited basis and to attorneys by subscription. However, such libraries don't cover everything. Some surpising decisions can be found lurking in old fashioned bound volumes, decisions that have never been challenged.

Yes, Tigger seems friendlier than Tiger, but I would still like to watch "Life of Pi."

-- Posted by former editor on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 6:18 PM

Thanks for your brilliant insight on this topic "interested too"

-- Posted by tigger2118 on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 6:00 PM

Looks like Sheriff George needs to revisit that statute. Thanks for posting. No where does it say he swore to interpret the law. He is charged with upholding the laws interpreted by the courts as constitutional or not. Your points are moot. The informed citizens of Saline County probably all agree, he did a great job at making the county look like a bunch of rednecks.

-- Posted by pauldouglas on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 5:57 PM

This is what state statutes say are the duties of a sheriff:

"Every sheriff is a conservator of the peace within his county, and shall cause all offenders against law, in his view, to enter into recognizance, with security, to keep the peace and to appear at the next term of the circuit court of the county, and to be committed to jail in case of failure to give the recognizance. The sheriff shall certify the recognizance to the clerk of the circuit court.

"Every sheriff shall quell and suppress assaults and batteries, riots, routs, affrays and insurrections; shall apprehend and commit to jail all felons and traitors, and execute all process directed to him by legal authority, including writs of replevin, attachments and final process issued by circuit and associate circuit judges."

In addition a sheriff swears an oath to uphold federal and state constitutions. I have no doubt sheriffs are also aware of case law.

-- Posted by former editor on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM

Tigger is one of my favorite characters!

Tiger is a golfer who is also a lousy human being. Or a big cat.

-- Posted by Interested Too on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 5:43 PM

Former editor. Let's also consider the fact that we live in a government of checks and balances. This means the sheriff has been elected to enforce laws, not interpret them. Sheriff George has decided he was also elected to do the job of a judge in our court system. I personally do not feel comfortable with an elected official in my county who wants to act with absolute power. And before you discuss how our President is "doing the same" you should brush up on the news and steps he is taking to reduce gun violence, not remove guns.

-- Posted by pauldouglas on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 4:15 PM

former editor

Typos are a fact of life mate.

Get used to it.

I guess when you have no argument left, all you have is spelling commentary, eh mate?

-- Posted by news across on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 2:40 PM

Tigger2118 - I almost called you "Tiger." I suppose we all need a secretary with proof reading ability. Yes, first name is spelled incorrectly. Unfortunately first names aren't in Spell Check, and spell check doesn't care if you use the appropriate word anyway. The Missouri Sheriff's Association president's letter to Gov. Nixon on the subject used a wrong word that would pass Spell Check. It's funny that experts on "Glen Beck" posting here don't know his first name is spelled Glenn. In your comment about misspelling the first name of our president, you forgot to put in the apostrophe that indicates possession of the name, i.e. "President's".

It's probably a good thing that the 1st Amendment does not invalidate free speech if someone speaks in a hard to understand regional dialect or spells phonetically instead of properly. The ideas expressed remain. I don't spell perfectly all the time either.

-- Posted by former editor on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 1:27 PM

"Former Editor" I quit reading it when I noticed he failed to even spell the Presidents name right.

-- Posted by tigger2118 on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 8:49 AM

Hundreds of sheriffs around the U.S. have made similar statements about the 2nd Amendment recently. In that respect Sheriff George is not unique. If you seek unique, look at the mustache and his decades of service (longest serving sheriff in MO). Or look at the design of the jail to host Highway Patrol and serve as a law enforcement education and meeting area. See the Johnson County Sheriff's letter to President Obama Jan. 16.

http://jocomosheriff.org/press_view.php?...

-- Posted by former editor on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 6:54 AM

I agree pauldouglas, Saline County should just secede from America. Having a Sheriff make a statement like this is a joke and a complete embarrassment to the community. It's kind of scary our Sheriff can't comprehend the difference between gun CONTROL and gun REMOVAL. Seriously?

-- Posted by tigger2118 on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 11:31 PM

Frankly, Sheriff George just made the citizens and himself look like a bunch of uniformed rednecks, especially himself as an elected official. I can see why industries and businesses are flocking to Saline County with spokesmen like him.

-- Posted by pauldouglas on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 10:15 PM

Actually, it was the Liberal Party under conservative Prime Minister Howard who passed gun-restrictions (equals the the Australian version of the America Republican party).

However, as with most Western Nations, gun use and ownership is still relatively easy in Australia. Hunting is a very popular sport for Aussies. They live in one of the last wildernesses left in the World and the game includes a fairly wide variety.

In addition, gun ownership in the home is lawful provided the guns and ammo are kept separate. There is a license required. Its not difficult to meet the requirements and home-protection is a valid reason to own and maintain a weapon in the home. There are also quite a number of shooting ranges available for training, and most restrictions are fairly limited and not insurmountable for a law abiding citizen.

However, as an American, I worry a lot when I read that 20 little angels in classrooms died at the hands of a madman armed with an easily obtained assault weapon which he simply stole from his Mother. It makes me worry deeply for the well-being of my grandchildren who live in America and all the children in my homeland so far away.

I don't know the solution but I believe there is a reasonable, common-sense middle-ground where we can achieve safety and security without violating anyone's civil-rights.

-- Posted by news across on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 4:31 PM

theJIDF-

The Military has acted against the public several times in our history. As for being outnumbered, whoopdie-doo. The military are better equipped and better trained than any wanna-be Rambo. How many firearms in your gun cabinet will take out an Abrams tanks or an APC, nothing in my cabinet will. That's the definition of outgunned. they have weapons that can take out entire city blocks. I doubt too many civilians do. I have no delusions that any sort of Civil War will result in anything good. Not that I think all this paranoid-fueled bluster will ever come to anything close to that.

As for the founding fathers, the Right to Bear Arms was hotly contested (read both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to get a much more richer idea of where the various founding fathers stood on that and the other issues of the time). Plus, it was written in a time when the King's army had muskets, horses, and sabers and the common man had muskets, horses, and hatchets. They were a deterrent then. Not so in a day when the military has a dramatic technical advantage. Does that mean that we the people should be able to buy fighter jets, tanks, and the armaments to equip them if we can afford them?

As for the crime rates in Australia (a nation where the right to bear arms was never one of their rights and was strictly controlled to certain groups), you should read http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/a...

I'm not in favor of any ban. Maybe you should have read my entire post before responding. I'm all for waiting periods and background checks. After all, what's another week or two to pick up my next shotgun if it ensures that the seller can know that I'm not an ex-con or have a history of paranoid schitzophrenia in my past? I have nothing to hide. It's an inconvience and that's it. I'll still get my gun.

I believe that ending the War on Drugs and rebuilding mental health care (on top of all of us acting like freedom somehow means we can focus solely on ourselves rather than looking out for our communities, as in giving a crap about our neighbors' well-being) would do a LOT more to make this country safer.

-- Posted by thunderson on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 3:04 PM

theJIDF

If you want to argue why you should have no limit to gun ownership, that is fine. Argue away.

But when the Sheriff makes claims that he is above the law and the sole decider of the meaning of the Constitution, he is very close to crossing certain legal lines -- if he crosses those lines, he will have to deal with Federal investigators, Federal prosecutors, and Federal prison.

Those are the facts mate -- plain and simple.

In addition, you may want to have a look at Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution as well as review our own Civil War history. The combined military, air, and naval forces of the United States can, will, and have put down armed rebellions before in America and they won't hesitate to do it again.

We the Majority are the deciders mate.

If the conservative terrorist minority think they can replace democracy and majority rule in America with conservative terrorist minority rule and do it by force of arms then perhaps they should go ahead and give it a shot and see how that works out for them.

But I gotta tell ya mate, after sitting in prison for a few years with many more years to go, those conservative terrorists may not think it was such a red hot idea.

-- Posted by news across on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 2:26 PM

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/conserva...

Stop..Hammer time.

-- Posted by EiEiO on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 2:01 PM

Anyway to find out how much money the NRA has made throughout this fiasco? They must be laughing all the way to the bank.

-- Posted by born-n-raised on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 1:57 PM

JIDF you said; "Why not ban automobiles? They are a 2 ton projectile that can travel 100 mph." Because our society is predicated on the fact that most of us are dependent on automobiles for our personal economic security, as well as that of our country as a whole. Not so with guns. You are comparing oranges with rotten apples. ;)

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 1:55 PM

news across, I can see arguing with you will be a waste of time. It's obvious the brainwashing by MSNBC and NPR have done their job quite effectively. Nice cop out by signing me off as a "conspiracy theorist". Glen Beck? Please, the guy is a shill.

former editor, you are correct, the financial situation in this country is a lot worse than what most American's believe. The de-valuation of the dollar by the Federal Reserve along with the manipulation of interest rates is killing the average American's wallet. A partial audit of the fed a few years ago revealed a 16 trillion dollar giveaway to struggling European banks, and it was printed out of thin air. Not to mention the Libor scandal in which 350 trillion worth of derivatives were being falsely manipulated to increase profits. The fiat system will be what leads to our economic collapse.

thunderson, I can't believe you think the US military would fire on it its own countrymen. That's sick. Even if they did, though, they would be outnumbered and outgunned. But why go after "assault weapons" anyway? Most crimes are committed with handguns, why not ban those? Why not ban automobiles? They are a 2 ton projectile that can travel 100 mph. The point is, the US gov is no Nazi Germany, but the founders were leery of forms of government, and without firearms we'd be drinking tea with our fish and chips right now. They understood that an armed populace is a deterrent to tyranny. Look at what's happened int he UK and Australia, they ban firearms completely and crime has drastically risen every year since.

For those saying Wally is out of line by saying this, look up Printz v United States.

-- Posted by theJIDF on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 1:17 PM

Please, Ruby Ridge was a cluster on the part of the federal agents, sure, but the stockpiling of weapons and the actions taken to draw the attention in the first place are what I was referring to. Talk like this makes us all sound like tin-foil hat wearing loons that think the government is ready to pounce on us. The "points" referring to Hitler are in the same boat. Nothing, and I mean nothing, in the gun control proposals are akin to anything that occurred in Nazi Germany. It's hard to take anyone seriously that would try to equate things going on with the Nazis.

Look, I'm a avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I'm a gun owner, hunter, and recreational shooter. However, I get tired of the paranoia that gun control equals total disarmament. I disagree with the assault weapons ban, but y'know this has happened before and the country continued on without troops taking away any weapons and then the ban was lifted. Plus, it happened without any rather treasonous talk to boot. Really other than more thorough background checks and closing the gun show loophole, I don't agree with the control proposals. Ending the war on drugs and rebuilding our dismantled and woefully inadequate mental health system in this country would go a lot farther in lessening the gun violence in this country than any control measure.

That said, I take issue with any sherriff or elected official that thinks they know the Constitution so well that they think they can choose what laws to uphold and which ones not to. We are a nation of laws. Advocating standing up to the government with armed resistance is treason. Pure and simple. It didn't work out well in the Civil War when the populace was armed comparably with the military, so I doubt it would work very well at all with populace carrying shotguns and AR-15's against Abrams tanks and A-10 warthogs and ground troops in Kevlar armor carrying M-16's. If you have an issue with the laws, make sure your elected officals know and make sure they fight them properly through our legal system.

-- Posted by thunderson on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 10:24 AM

Former Editor I agree with the essence of your comment. There is a perhaps subconcious awareness of the real threats to our citizenry among those who get their news from Fox. I say subconscious because they do not watch "Sixty Minutes", and the other sources you cited.

Thus they focus on the red herrings that Fox provides them, and do things like demand their Sheriff protect them from the things that Fox says is a danger to the chicken house. Much cluck, cluck about nothing. ;)

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 9:29 AM

As a citizen this actually concerns me and I actually regret voting for him. Gun CONTROL is not gun REMOVAL. It actually bothers me that a Sheriff would not uphold the law because he doesn't agree with it. Do you think the police that protect the Westboro church protesters actually like what they're doing? It's obvious we elected a politician and not a Sheriff.

-- Posted by tigger2118 on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 8:53 AM

Oklahoma Reader - Especially on some financial blogs, lack of consumer confidence is being correlated with rational fear of the government. The idea is that people recognize their financial and freedom potential progressively limited. Although most people have not read high piles of details on financial crisis, gut feeling is there. Only a few mainstream media outlets have reported depth on the crisis. Examples: 60 Minutes featuring Linda Green forgeries in land title documents two years ago April; Frontline a week ago interviewing DOJ's Lanney Breuer favoring no criminal prosecution of banksters. Finally Breuer (also entangled in Fast and Furious) resigns. We have forged signatures and false notorizations on residential land titles in all our courthouses. Office of Comptroller of Currency and Federal Reserve terminated the national review of "fraudclosures" in favor of the usual parking ticket style fine for large financial wreckage. The contracted review whistleblowers were citing overwhelming fraud. Fraud is the "F" word that must be covered up. Real estate fraud is not new in this country, but this one's the biggest. Remember that property tax is basic funding for all our small governments, from schools to ambulance districts. The more one reads about financial crisis, the less one should trust big government cronyism. Parentheically, our county has too many meth heads who steal since they can't hold a job. Jobs are fewer anyway. Protect yourself as best you can.

-- Posted by former editor on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 7:02 AM

theJIDF

Oh...I see... conspiracy theories...uh huh...that's interesting.

Perhaps its something you picked up listening to Glen Beck?

Look mate. You lost the election. Get used to it.

Constitutional matters will be settled by the Courts. Ours is a Nation of laws mate -- a democratic republic, not fascist Germany circa 1934, and we have a fully functioning court system.

I mean, what exactly do the folks who are in the small political minority -- the conservative extremists -- think they are going to do? Launch a civil war? With what army? Really mate, I can't help but wonder, are they serious?

-- Posted by news across on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 3:05 AM

news across

I was making light of the fact that you seem to put the laws of the "state" over the natural rights we have a humans. Hitler disarmed the Jews, rounded them up into boxcars and slaughtered them..and it was all legal.

Are you aware of the current litmus test for high ranking military officials? They are asked if they would be willing to fire on U.S. citizens if given the order to do so. If you say no, then they don't get the job. Wally, being a sheriff, is sworn to enforce the law of the land, mainly the United States Constitution being that it's supreme to all others. It's not going to happen (although many wish it would) but if federal officials decided to come and disarm us, THEY would be breaking the LAW and it would be Wally's responsibility to arrest them. Now, we are talking extremes here, but every little piece of legislation Congress attempts to pass takes a chip out of our individual freedoms towards a more sinister, collectivist goal. It's not being paranoid, it's studying history and understanding that it WILL happen again.

-- Posted by theJIDF on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 1:30 AM

Funniest thing I've read in a long time!

-- Posted by Interested Too on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 12:55 AM

theJIDF

You are factually incorrect in your statement regarding Hitler.

Hitler spent over a year in Landsberg prison for his criminal involvement in the "Beer Hall Putsch."

However, I fail to see what any of that or anything about Hitler has anything to do with the Sheriff's statement.

-- Posted by news across on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 12:23 AM

This is much ado about nothing. Firstly what the paranoiacs, nut jobs, and ignoramuses are clucking so loud about that it raises the roof on the chicken house is never in their life times gonna happen. They have watched too many action movies, and had too many nightmares. There is not, I repeat, not going to be federal troops knocking down houses with tanks to collect their guns.

Irrational fear of the absurd, has replaced rational fear of what the government is actually doing to the common citizens at the direction of its corporate masters. Regrettably, for various reasons, a majority of folks go along with that unconscionable reality.

What difference does it make what the sheriff says in regard to something that will never happen. He says what the simple folk want to hear to assure that he is re-elected. Sheriffs by necessity are politicians first, and sheriffs second. It is a necessary choice if they want to remain sheriffs.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Fri, Feb 1, 2013, at 12:21 AM

news across, everything Hitler did was legal

-- Posted by theJIDF on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 9:41 PM

former editor

There is no higher law the the Federal Constitution within the United States -- no matter how many other state sheriffs signed on to that nonsense.

The Constitution details how authority is distributed. No where does it give the sheriff the authority to interpret the Constitution nor does it make the sheriff the final authority in interpreting the Constitution.

Only the Supreme Court has the Authority to interpret the Constitution and to say what the Constitution means.

"Marbury v. Madison () 100 U.S. 1"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hi...

In addition, you may want to have a good look at Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution which gives the Federal Government the full Authority to carry out Federal law at the local level.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4S...

However, this nonsense of the sheriff attempting to stand in the way of federal authorities has been tried by Southern sheriffs before (see civil rights era for more on that -- and we have plenty of historical and High Court precedent that clearly supports the authority of the federal government to carry out the law -- you may also want to see Texas V White, et all, as well as the American Civil War for more on this authority as well).

I hope the good Sheriff chooses not to violate the very laws he is sworn to uphold, and even more, I hope the Sheriff does not mean he intends to mount an armed rebellion against the US Government because that might be interpreted by the federal government to be sedition and treason and a big violation of a whole slew of other federal and state laws and wow -- that could be a big problem.

However, I feel quite certain that the sheriff didn't mean any of that. It sounds like he simply means he will continue to enforce the law with the same efficiency and effectiveness as he has for all these many years now.

However, if the Sheriff thinks a law is unconstitutional, then let him challenge it in the courts -- like any other responsible, law-abiding citizen.

-- Posted by news across on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 9:25 PM

I have voted for Wally everytime. I'm going to have to rethink about that support. I have been robbed in the country over 15 times on my farm. I don't even call anymore. It does not do any good. I still supported the Sherriff but now I'm wondering about that. Who in the heck does Mr. George think he is. When did he get a law degree. When did he choose to enforce certain laws and ignore other laws. Is that what is happening to us who live in the rural parts of the county. Is Mr. George ignoring the thief laws for folks in the country? He says that he get to choose which laws he enforces. My experience is that too many people think that out in the country anything goes and they think nothing about digging up people's flowers, Stealing over 20K in antiques and tools being stored behind strong locks or even stealing tractors in sheds. Heck they even tried to steal other tractors but they did not get that one done because it was too hard to get the work done.

Mr. George what I want to know is what laws are you enforcing? I would like a list. Thank you for your service but I believe that you have mistakenly open up quite a bucket of worms!

-- Posted by salinemg on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 8:56 PM

This sheriff is not alone in his views. Other Missouri sheriffs have stated much the same. Parse Johnson County Sheriff Chuck Heiss's earlier letter to President Obama. In this, Heiss was addressing the idea of Bill of Rights Constitutional law as a higher level of law than executive orders and later laws.

http://jocomosheriff.org/press_view.php?...

A Google search shows a number of Missouri and Kansas sheriffs announcing similar positions. It is interesting to note that sheriffs are elected, not politically appointed.

-- Posted by former editor on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 8:44 PM

Since when is it the Sheriff's job to interpret the United States Constitution?

Where does it say in the Constitution that the local country sheriff has the authority to interpret the Constitution and gives the sheriff the final word in interpreting said Constitution?

Show me where it says that in the Constitution.

-- Posted by news across on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 7:44 PM

Regarding the reference to Ruby Ridge, read one of the books on the subject or Wikipedia with footnotes. The "gubermint" killed a 14-year-old boy and a mother holding her infant along with killing the family dog. Neither of the people, not even the dog, had criminal histories. Randy Weaver was not found guilty of serious criminal charges. The government paid compensation to remaining family, but that did not bring back the sniper-shot dead. Essentially the government represented by ATF and FBI exhibited paranoia and did not follow their own rules. Some authors say Randy Weaver's preliminary flaw was not trusting the government.

-- Posted by former editor on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 5:37 PM

thunderson: "Ruby Ridge caliber nutjobs." You'd be a little "nutty" too if your wife and son were killed by Federal agents. Concerning the "Supremacy Clause", the intent of that clause is to make it so states can't pass legislation which infringes on Constitutionally protected rights. Look into the act of nullification; any action taken against the 2nd Amendment by the Feds should be instantly deemed invalid by the states.

CWilli: "military style guns and rifles are for the military, not to be in our homes." Not true. What if you face multiple attackers? The Koreans who lived in LA during the riots of the early 90's were the only ones to save their businesses from being burnt to the ground because they were armed with 30 magazines and an AR-15 rifle. Remember, rights =/= needs.

"AK-47, etc are banned from hunting for a round(s) from these guns, destroys it kills. The same what it does to an individual." It's not banned, I know many hunters who use the AK-47 to hunt. It's chambered in the 7.62x39 cartridge which is basically a shortened .308 Winchester; also a very popular caliber for hunting deer and other medium game.

-- Posted by theJIDF on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 5:23 PM

I am please to know Sheriff George will defend the rights of the Constitution. and will I

Gun Control debate to my knowledge is not leaning toward infringing on our 2nd Admendment rights, but behonest, military style guns and rifles are for the military, not to be in our homes. A

AK-47, etc are banned from hunting for a round(s) from these guns, destroys it kills. The same what it does to an individual. These type guns are designed for one thing- To Kill.

It is ironic that a large number of folk who say we should defend the rights of the constitution, are saying we should take away their RIGHT to VOTE.

-- Posted by CWilli on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 3:29 PM

Wally needs to read the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution before he starts talking about defending Saline County against "illegal" actions of the government. I'm as pro-gun as anybody, but this kind of talk gets us nowhere. It makes us sound like a bunch of Ruby Ridge caliber nutjobs.

-- Posted by thunderson on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 2:13 PM

Thank Wally we need to feel safe in our homes and on the street in our community. Our children need to feel safe at schools also.

-- Posted by d-bar-3 on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 1:42 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: