Editor's note: the following is an opinion written by Cherokee County Sheriff Roger Garrison. It does not in any way reflect the views and opinions of Patch.
In the aftermath of the recent criminal events, the president, vice-president and many members of Congress are attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims by attempting to enact laws, restrictions; and, even through use of executive orders, prevent law-abiding American citizens from possessing certain firearms and ammunition magazines.
As the duly-elected sheriff of Cherokee County, I want you to know and understand my position on this issue. I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.
In Georgia, as in most states, sheriffs are elected constitutional officers. Duly elected sheriffs are held accountable by no one other than the electorate of their respective counties.
There is only one exception, in those extreme emergencies during which the governor of the state of Georgia issues a written declaration of emergency.
With this in mind, no one other than the governor in a declared state of emergency can tell the county sheriff what to do or command their deputies and personnel into action.
We are empowered to enforce all state laws and have NO authority or duty to enforce any federal law or mandate.
The President and/or any other federal official has no authority to order the County Sheriff to do anything. This interpretation is not new. It has been the law of the land since these United States of America came into existence.
On December 27, 2012, my oath of office was administered by our Probate Judge (Keith Wood), with the final sentence stating, ". . . and that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, so help me God."
Therefore, I will fully exercise the power of the Office of Sheriff to protect and defend the Constitutional rights of the citizens of Cherokee County. My position is best stated by fellow Sheriff Tim Muller of Linn County, Oregon in his letter to the President. "We are Americans. We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws."
Along with Sheriff Muller, other sheriffs throughout the country (including Georgia) and I, will not enforce any laws or regulations that negate the constitutional rights of the citizens of Cherokee County.
Nor shall those laws and regulations be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Cherokee County, Georgia.
We live in a society and culture that embraces guns. The President cannot ban guns--he isn't a monarch. Neither the House nor Senate will ban all guns, and even if they did, the president probably wouldn't sign the ban. The only thing that is up for discussion is whether there should be unlimited access to unlimited fire power. Reasonable people would agree to discuss this after 20+ people, mainly children were gunned down by a high-power, military-style, assault weapon. But no, any discussion is a threat to the constitution. You're not reasonable. Reasonable people would look at the extent of gun violence and ask questions such as, "Are there too many guns?", "Are the laws for buying guns too loose?", Are there reasonable safe-guard that could be implemented?", and more...But no, the NRA is up in arms. I'll grant you that guns do kill people and people kill people. However, killing with a gun is much easier than doing so with a knife, hammer, or fist. And with a knife, hammer or fist, there is greater opportunity for a victim or bystander to defend themselves. Magazine size does matter! With a smaller magazine, a kiler would have to re-load more often and provide a small window of opportunity for people to defend themselves. Garrison is embarrassment.
As a member of GeorgiaCarry.org we are working very hard to amend the Georgia Constitution to not allow the Governor to confiscate weapons during an emergency. That is precisely the time where citizens should have weapons to defend themselves.
who won't understand the importance of standing with the Sheriff. I guess we're all necessary for the mix however, it's unfortunate they don't appreciate who they have in that office. We could all be so much stronger if we were less like sheep and more like the Shepard ( or guard dog).
Our rule of law in this country is based upon checks and balances. Congress may pass a bill and the President can check their authority by either signing the bill into law or vetoing it. If the President and Congress implement a law, the Supreme Court checks their authority by determining if it is constitutional. Likewise, if the President issues an Executive Order both Congress and the Supreme Court can check his authority. As such, we are far, far away from have a dictator seize power in the USA. Political expediency isn't anything new and isn't a Democrat or Republican tactic. Both parties have embraced it and continue to do so. What we need is a sensible debate on whether there is a legitimate reason to have high power, military style, semi-automatic & automatic weapons. There should also be a debate on whether there should be reasonable restrictions on the purchase of firearms such as -- all transactions must be registered (gun shows, gun shops, private party, etc) - afterall cars are. A greater fear is that Sheriff Garrison has declared that he won't enforce any law he deems unconstitutional. Now he's acting like a King.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
There are other examples are the 2nd Amendment being "trampled": The right to bear arms by minors (not prohibited by the Constitution) The right to purchase arms by minors (not prohibited by the Constitution) The right to purchase ammunition by minors (not prohibited by the Constitution) The right to bear arms on airplanes and airports. (not prohibited by the Constitutio and maybe if passengers were packing heat on 9/11, things would have been different.) The right to bear arms in courthouses (not prohibited by the Constitution). If the state can bear arms in courthouses, should we the people be able to bear arms to prevent injustices? (Sheriff Garrison's dept enforces this violation of the 2nd Amendment.) The right to bear arms by the insane (not prohibited by the Constitution and the last I checked, insane citizens are guaranteed equal rights under the Constitution.)
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.
Seems a lot of you fell for this grandstanding as fact.
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
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.