if you watch the news there are a lot of deputies and offiers across this Great nation doing this EXACT same thing! Good job Garrison

you are so right. there are thousands more sherriffs out there. They should speak up. NOW is the time to do so. Sheriff Mack won a Supreme Court challenge about the authority of sheriffs. Maybe seven sheriffs jjoined him. Pitiful. WHERE are our sheriffs? We want to know.

The comments in Sheriff Garrison's press release this past week at first seem extremely irresponsible and reckless for someone who's supposed to be in charge of public safety for the County. That is, until you understand that Republican Sheriffs across the country were asked by the NRA this week to pledge their allegiance to the NRA, the Second Amendment and resistance to any changes in gun regulations. Nearly word for word press releases floated out from Republican Sheriffs across the country from those who felt they were in no danger of being voted out of office or chastised for their comments.

That's the only way one can understand why on peacemaker Martin Luther King's birthday, this useless diatribe and mockery of our justice system floated out. Our Sheriff chose defiance of safety instead of highlighting those things that would help his department do their job.

I appreciate Rodger Garrison taking the stand on the laws of Georgia and the Second amendment. I have read many post below and am surprised at the lack of knowledge. I can only guess that a lot of the negative responses come from some other places. 1) From a person very young and with no Knowledge of history and the lessons that it is supposed to teach us. (2) From a person not raised in this country ( a lot like our president ) that is not used to the idea that we fought with red blood to make this the United States of America. You say that will never happen here, you need to pay attention to the rest of the world. (3) From a paid lobbyist like the guy below.

I hope n.c. takes this stand,God bless him...

When a Sheriff's office or one of his officers accuses someone of a crime without a victim, harm, nor any evidence of intent to do harm, they are infringing upon that individual's constitutional rights. I applaud Roger Garrison's words, and I hope to see them result in a HUGE reduction of accusations against Cherokee County citizens.
I am certain that if I am ever pulled over in a traffic stop in this county, I will show the arresting agent this very letter when they ask to see my license.

THANK YOU, Chief Ball! THANK YOU, THANK YOU THANK YOU!

Mark Walters
National Syndicated Radio Host-Armed American Radio
Co-Author-Lessons from Armed America
Co-Author-Lessons from Unarmed America
Concealed Carry Magazine Columnist
Cherokee County Resident

Maybe every single County Sheriff in GA would end up like how the Utah Sheriffs did. Where they all say they would give their lives to defend their citizens right(s) granted to them by the Constitution.

Phil, most--if not all--news agencies write such disclaimers as folks will often assume an opinion piece written by someone not on our staff reflect the company's opinions.

Thanks for the media ethics tip, Phil. And please feel free to continue posting your comments in regards to Sheriff Garrison's opinion--and on any other story that interests you!

Phil, for a law to be deemed unconstitutional, it would have had to go through judicial review of some sort, first. NO sheriff can choose to ignore a law they don't like, or they put themselves forth as judge, jury and executioner.

Ga. Moderate - The Sheriff's statement is an explanation of the oath he took when he assumed office and the limits of power, plus his personal opinion supporting the 2nd Amendment. The 1st Amendment allows him to express his opinion on the 2nd Amendment, but his oath bounds him to the laws of Georgia. Georgia Sheriffs are NOT Federals Marshals and are not given Federal jurisdiction to enforce Federal laws. In fact, the Holder DOJ is making that very argument regarding arresting of illegal immigrants by Georgia sheriffs.

The premise of the article started with falsely stating the Sheriff opposed President Executive Orders. The White House has NOT issued an Executive Order, but something new called an "Executive Action". Again, understand there is a difference between a Presidential Executive Order and the newly created term "Executive Action" which has now morphed into 3 memorandums "on advice of counsel". The "Executive Actions" have never been tested in court. Executive Orders have with the courts ruling the President may give direction to the FEDERAL departments reporting to the President as long as the Executive Orders do not trample the laws. History is full of Executive Orders being overturned in Federal Courts because the EO was contrary to the laws. To me it is interesting that this President has chosen NOT to issue Executive Orders.

I apologize, my reply was meant for "Georgia Moderate"...NOT "Phil McCall" and should have read as follows:

Georgia Moderate you are incorrect. The sheriff is within his legal bounds to threaten and to follow through with the arrest of any federal officer attempting to enforce any unconstitutional action within the sheriff's jurisdiction. Check your math pal. The county sheriff is THE rule of law in the county he was elected. Do your homework before you make false statements about the federal government and it's authorities. I'll give you a place to start. Mack/Printz v. USA. It states in part, that the states or their political subdivisions, "are not subject to federal direction." Here's the deal, the sheriff is the oldest elected office in America and the only elected law enforcement officer in the nation. YES, Sheriff Roger Garrison can and thank God, will, defend the citizens of this county from an over reaching federal Government. You have powerful research tools at your disposal (your computer) ...use it before you comment.

Mark Walters
National Syndicated Radio Host-Armed American Radio
Co-Author-Lessons from Armed America
Co-Author-Lessons from Unarmed America
Concealed Carry Magazine Columnist
Cherokee County Resident

Mark...While you attempt to make a valid argument, it is flawed. The foundation of your argument is that the law is unconstitutional. The only problem with that is that Sheriff Garrison cannot make that determination. Judges and ultimately, the Supreme Court makes that determination. Until that time, until a law, executive order, or executive action is ruled unconstitutional, it is law of the land.

Sheriff Garrison is merely an elected official who is bound to follow and enforce the law. He has discretion which laws to enforce, but that's it!

Unfortunately, Sheriff Garrison seems to be more interested in appeasing his political base--the anti-government, don't take my gun, tea-party, red-necks.

Kristal - There are times common sense over rides automatic thinking. Step back and ask your self - do you support the laws of Georgia and the promises of our Constitution? If you do, why place a disclaimer that states; "It does not in any way reflect the views and opinions of Patch."

The real issue here for all of us is that Cherokee County's Sheriff has joined other elected law enforcement officials stating they will follow the law, and not exceed their authority.

What the heck does this mean Bobby. The only mirror that needs to be looked in, and the only BS, is that Obama does not understand the Consitution. Thank God we have Leaders like the Sheriff who do and are willing to take a strong stand to uphold it.

So when Bobby looks in the mirrior he sees a problem. Maybe he needs to be checked out . Is this a cry for help Bobby?

backwoods? really? that's pretty strong words to describe a Sheriff that is simply stating his rights and standing up to the monarchy we call a president.

Yep...backwoods...

I doubt he's ever so much as glanced at an actual copy of the consitution.

Move then

You guys are wasting your time with this ignorant, closed minded lib. Change for Canton, Delta is ready when you are with plenty of one way non-stops to the safe cities of New York & Chicago.

Let me guess Change for Canton- you didnt grow up around here, did you? You miss the point entirely. The original framing of the constitution is full of checks and balances, and for good reason. One of those checks and balances is that the Sheriff of the county is the supreme law of the land and is beholden to an election of the people in that county. The purpose is to ensure that people's rights are not trampled on by people that aren't accountable to them as the governed. Also, on your other comment, my favorite analogy on why you NEED a 20 round clip or "assault rifle" (which by the way, doesnt really exist and is simply a term used to describe a semi automatic rifle) thing is Ted Nugent's answer: "I dont NEED a Corvette to go get my groceries, but I LIKE it!". This is, after all, the land of the free. I personally have never owned a gun, but I feel a lot safer living in an area where criminals have to wonder if I'm armed (with a high probability of me being so) than not. Some of Garrisons comments are politically based, of course, but some of it is to educate the public of the legalities of the system and to send a message to the executive branch that there is a due process for amending the constitution and that ignoring that process will be met with very effective resistance.

What's worse, Bill Bryan, a closed minded ignorant liberal or your closed minded radical Tea Party agenda?

and please tell me why...(not something you've heard)...tell me why you think a citizen shouldnt be able to own an AR-15? and what exactly is an "assualt rifle"?

JC

No one needs a gun that can fire more than 10 shots...sorry. The practical use of a firearm is for hunting. Those type guns are not used for hunting....Tell me...why does anyone need an assault weapon?

the 2nd amendment was not created so that people could go hunting. It's not about that. it's so that "the people" could protect themselves from a tyrannical government...like the one we fought to separate from right before those Bill of Rights were created. Thomas Jefferson was quoted saying "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"... How do you argue with that?

You also said that "no citizen should be able to carry an assualt rifle"...i assume you are referring to law abiding citizens. Where is the concern of a law abiding citizen owning a gun with a magazine with more than 10 rounds? The guns exist and criminals do not care what laws are passed...they are criminals. It's not ME that you have to worry about. I am sure we'll have to agree to disagree but I urge you to fully read the constitution and bill of rights...dont just listen to the media...do your own research. You might be surprised what you'll learn.

Every gun is an assault weapon when in the wrong hands. All these gun free zones are really gun free killing zones. Study mass killings like I have before you make your position.

@ Change For Canton, So you now want to make double stack handgun magazines illegal because they hold more than 10? They just did that in NY & you know what, now the police officers cannot carry 15 round magazines.
elected officials in such a rush to push new laws through, that they are not thought out and properly debated. I am sure all criminals will turn in their weapons that were already illegally owned yet I, as a legal owner am being told to turn my weapons in or not carry a full mag? another great law. The government needs to enforce current laws on the books, not restrict legal owners rights.

Why should no citizen be able to carry an assault rifle? Is it a scarey sight, are you afraid they are going to do something bad? I don't have or desire one, but I'm not sure why someone who wants to should be forbidden to? I will say I've never been shot by someone walking down the street with one either, maybe that would change my views...enlighten me please..

it says "right of the people"...not right of the state armies... read it and try again.

If what Chief Justice Burger said is true then the National Guard (state army), made up of Citizen Soldiers, should be maintained. What about the second part of the Second Amendment, the part Burger ignored, that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. During the Revolutionary War it was the common American Citizen who was the Militia. This is the militia that the Second Amendment was speaking about, not the National Guard. The Guard was formed after the Amendment was written. This is why the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be INFRINGED.

If you know and understand history, in the 1770's the American Colonists were not considered by the crown to be English citizens. Many had fresh on their minds the English revolution of 1688 (read up on that one). The American colonists were ready to revolt to protect their rights which they felt they should have had as English Citizens. On April 19, 1775, British regulars marched on Lexington and Concord to seize the guns of American colonists that had been stockpiled in case of revolution.

It may be an abstract concept for us. It may be distant. But when the 1st Congress of the United States met in 1789, the memory of 1775 was fresh. More so, what they saw as an abridgment of their freedoms in 1775, they viewed as an abridgment of their freedoms going back to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Their wishes were to secure a free state against a tyrannous government - not to secure hunting and sporting rights. In that day no one would think twice about possessing firearms for self preservation - it was the right to secure a free state that motivated them to write in their second to most important right (second only to freedom of press, speech and assembly). Regardless of your quote from Chief Justice Warren Burger, the language used in the Declaration of Independence and the facts of their recent history tell the real tale. Unless you believe what the government wants you to believe. Personally I don't trust them. Neither did my founding fathers.

The people who voted for Obama were the intelligent and educated. Just look at the areas that voted for him and the statistics. More college educated, well informed, well read people. AKA the not Fox News brain washed. Gun control is needed and in fact...most people are in favor of it.

more college educated? well informed? well read people? can you prove that with some factual statistics or are you just talking? Please back that up; I'd like to see where you get your information.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/nov/05/larry-sabato/education-level-tied-voting-tendencies/ You are obviously on a computer..google some more!

Agreed!

I would be more pleased to have a Sheriff that cared more about safety than politics. The Sheriff should be advocating for training, for families locking up their weapons and gear, and for taking care of those who may have issues - I would imagine that one of the top uses for the Sheriff's staff is around domestic violence and abuse. This is a volatile environment for all with the economy, jobs and home foreclosures.Remember the rest of the Constitution.

@Patrick Thompson. The Police and Sheriffs Departments cannot stop crime unless the are already at the scene when the crime is being committed. A locked up weapon is of no use while you are being attacked by a person with a gun.

About domestic violence. What does this have to do with gun control. Not all cases of domestic violent involves a gun. Most injuries are made by fists, bats, hammers and clubs. and law enforcement can only respond after injuries are inflicted.

And the rest of the Constitution. What about the 4th amendment on search and seizure. The NDAA allows for the military to indefinitely detain any American citizen on the suspicion of terrorism. what about the proposed UN small arms treaty that will allow the president to declare a state of emergency and allow UN troop onto American soil to search and seize all weapons.

I suggest that you read the constitution, the bill of rights and the proposed new laws and treaties proposed or passed by congress and other branches of the government.

No one is trying to disarm citizens...Come on people! Get real!

This would be about the most armed citizenry in history and this Sheriff's already said he's not coming to take anything away - and he's government. The rest of our government is not coming in their red dawn black helicopters to a town near you either.

Ajourney of a thousand mile begins with just one step.

@Patrick Thompson. According the NDAA The Government can come in their black SUVs and indefinitely detain you on "suspicion" of terrorism.

According the Websters Dictionary suspicion is defined as, and I copy and past:

Definition of SUSPICION

1

a : the act or an instance of suspecting something wrong without proof or on slight evidence : mistrust

Without proof. It is already the law. Look it up. But then, you don't have to worry. You believe everything the government and the media tells you.

JC Smith...you asked me to provide proof of my claims and I did..you can't get past the facts can you? Also, I have posted positive things when positive credit was due. But, we need to make Cherokee a better place for everyone to live! It starts with getting the old out and ushering the new in!

@change for canton. Get the old out?? The constitution and the bill of rights are over 200 years old. Do we throw them out?? What new do you propose to replace them with when you usher in the new.

Interesting question Stephanie W.....I would like to see some answers to that..

@ canton for change, Here is your answer, copied and pasted from the Second Amendment:

Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Wonder if Garrison would support a "right" to own a rocket propelled grenade launcher, machine gun, or nuclear device? Those are federal laws prohibiting ownership of those items. Or how about Civil Rights laws? What if Cherokee decided that minorities couldn't vote? Would he stand up for that federal law? Or perhaps counterfeiting? Isn't that federal? What a joke this county has become--and everyone knows it.

Kellum
Have you read the two bans? They are not even close to the same restrictions. If this ban is enforced every police officer and most security guards will be felons!
I HAVE NO INTENTIONS TO "ASSAULT" THEY ARE "DEFENSE" WEAPONS!

Wow, a threat!

@Georgia Moderate. A threat? I say MOLON LABE to those who would demand that I give up any of my Constitutional Rights and the Amendments thereof, all 27 of them.. Molon Labe is Greek for "Come and Take". When I enlisted in the Armed Forces of The United States I took an oath to protect and defend the constitution, not the president or any other elected official, and that oath has no time limit. So yes, MOLON LABE!!

Agreed!

The policies and regulations that President Obama is trying to put in place (and that this sheriff has pledged not to enforce) are only to keep the guns out the hands of the mentally unstable and criminals. And as a side note, please don't pull your gun and try and help me. You would most likely just end up getting me killed or shooting me yourself.

@Frank Jones. Your right, the Second Amendment is not under attack; The Fourth Amendment is. According to the National Defense Authorization Act(NDAA), Homeland Security can determine that the possession of a gun puts you under suspicion of being a terrorist and can have you detained by the Military indefinitely. What if your local FBI office decides that because of NDAA, protesting against County Ordinances in front of the Court House puts you under suspicion of terrorism. That is an attack against the First Amendment. Where Does It Stop? When the Constitution and the Bill of Rights no longer exist. Read the NDAA and then look in you Dictionary for the definition of "suspicion".

Thanks Frank, for your sane evaluation of the situation as you see it. Level heads are definitely what your country needs in this situation when passions are running so very high. I hope you get that sensible debate to the satisfaction of all American citizens, both the cool headed and the hot headed [since you are all equal under the law]. I think your closing statement is out of line with the main body of your comment though. As an elected official, Sheriff Garrison is responsible to his electorate and is doing his job to the best of his ability. His decision not to enforce any law he deems to be unconstitutional, is only a "slow down" of the legal process, and as such poses no threat to the civil liberties of the people of your Great Land. Besides, if he has overstepped his authority here, it is a harmless one and can be easily corrected at the polls on next voting day; unlike the executive action of your President, who holds his office on a very narrow majority in public support, and is instigating a very serious amendment to your constitution by a round about way. [which I think can be successfully challenged by your Supreme Court]. But thank you for your comment: it is comforting to know that your democracy is alive and well at a time when it appears to be being tested sorely.

Frank and Robin, I read both you statements with great enthusiasm.

Robin, Sherriff Garrison, as an elected official, has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, just like the President. He has the moral and legal obligation not to obey laws that are not Constitutional or legal.

Frank, I agree that there should be no debate because the rights of the people shall not be infringed. You are totally off-base about Executive Orders. The President issues the orders to help him run the Government and they are based on Acts passed by Congress. The Acts of Congress are the law, not Executive orders. The only thing congress can do about Executive Orders is to pass laws that the negate the order. The only thing the Supreme Court can do is declare the Act of Congress the order is based on is unconstitutional. Sorry my friend, you need to do some reading before spouting.

Kenneth, if the executive order is contrary to the law, contrary to the wishes of Congress, there is recourse by Congress. I understand the law and the Constitution. As to Sheriff Garrison, he is sworn to defend the laws of the nation, the Constitution and Georgia. As such, he is supposed to obey and enforce any LAW whether our not he personally feels it is in violation of the Constitution. If there is a law, it is the law until either Congress and the President act our the Supreme Court declares otherwise.

My issue with Garrison is his statement essentially starting that he determines what the Constitution says. That's not his job. It's above his pay grade.

Mr. Jones

If I understand correctly then Sherriff Garrison must blindly follow any law, even if it is un-constitutional. When I joined the Armed Services I too an Oath but it did not say to protect and defend the laws of the United States. It said the Constitution of the United States. My oath is almost like the one Obama took on the 20th of Jan.

Garrison took almost the same oath as I and the President did in that he also swore to protect and defend the constitution of the State of Georgia also. It is very apparent that you have not served nor taken the oath.

I joined the armed forces shortly after the Mei Lei incident in Vietnam. We were taught that we were under moral obligation not to obey orders that we knew were illegal. How is that any different than the moral obligation to not obey laws that are unconstitutional.

Also Mr. Jones, you may want to www.supremecourt.gov and look up District of Columbia v. Heller where in the court held that, and I copy and paste:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Syllabus
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

Kenneth. The Majority opinion for DC v Heller was much longer than that.
From Section III

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"

"We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Yes Byron, it is. That is why I posted the link and stated the case. My point was about Mr. Jones's statement that Sheriff Garrison was determining what the constitution says when the Supreme Court already had for him.

I agree with the part you posted about unusual weapons, the mentally ill and such. The private citizen sound not be allowed WDA's. What would have Adam Lanza (mentally ill) have done if he had killed his mother to gain access to her nuclear weapon, her nerve gas or other such.

Guy, would you want Sheriff Garrison to enforce a law that prohibits you from posting your opinion on this page, in violation of the First Amendment. That is what you are saying, isn't it, that you want be arrested for speaking what is on your mind if there were such a law against it. After all, it would be the law. Think about it.

Good for you, Bobby. If you are correct then your Sherriff will prohibit the Dept. of Homeland Security from enforcing the NDAA which states that any US Citizen can be indefinitely detained for being a domestic terrorist, IE; Veterans, Constitutionalists, ECT.

Your Sherriff will also prohibit the IRS from confiscating peoples property for non payment of taxes.

Both of these scenarios are examples of Federal laws along with the Federal gun ban laws that this article is about. MOLON LABE

Concerned, you have put this whole thing in the proper prospective. According to FBI statistics there are many more crimes that are stopped by law abiding citizens with guns than crimes completed by criminals. In fact, according to those same statistics you are 300 times more likely to be killed by your own doctor than by a gun.

Let us not forget the real reason for the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

This is from the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.