Home | Real Estate Search | Classifieds | Place an Ad | Public Notices | Galleries | Obituaries | Subscriber Services | Kingman Digital | Contact Us
Kingman Daily Miner | Kingman, Arizona

home : opinion : columns April 30, 2016


2/3/2013 6:00:00 AM
Editorial Column: I'll trust the sheriff on this one

Rich Thurlow
Editor


When this president starts hinting around that a law ought to be changed and that he just might be the man to do it, there are obvious questions that need to be asked if you happen to be a reporter.

It's the type of hypothetical question many sheriffs probably hope they don't get asked. There is no right answer because there is no telling what the president might do on his own, or what Congress might do - though the consensus seems to be Congress won't do much of anything.

But our sheriff, Tom Sheahan, made the right call as it regards the 2nd Amendment.

"If I feel the law is unconstitutional, I probably wouldn't enforce it," Sheahan said last month.

And since then the sheriff has been alternately praised and ridiculed at the Miner's online comment board.

Those critical of the sheriff suggest it's a matter of picking and choosing to enforce laws, that it's not his job to decide if a law is constitutional. There is, however, the matter of the oath and Sheahan swearing to uphold the Constitution.

So let me make it easy for you and the sheriff by brazenly putting words in his mouth.

If Congress renews the ban on manufacturing new "assault weapons," Sheahan won't care from a law enforcement perspective because he won't have anything to enforce.

On the other hand, if the president issues an executive order requiring everyone to turn in all firearms, I can safely predict Tom Sheahan won't try to enforce it. I can also safely predict President Obama won't issue that executive order any time soon.

That leaves a big gray area in between regarding what may happen in Washington and what our sheriff might do in response.

I suspect those of us who understand the 2nd Amendment are going to support the sheriff's action (or inaction) if Congress goes Feinstein on us.

•••

Ron Walker no longer sits in the county manager's office, and in certain circles the passion to parade around with his head on the end of a spear has dissipated somewhat.

There appears to be an eagerness now to undo much of what Walker did, short of revisiting the time before he was manager when the county was on the verge of going broke. I've got this feeling Walker did a lot more good than people give him credit for, especially early in his tenure.

The supervisors need to make sure we don't get rid of some of the good in the haste to dump other reminders.


    Most Viewed     Recently Commented
•   20-year sentence possible for murder in Yucca (2227 views)

•   ATV rider the focus of a complicated rescue effort (1987 views)

•   Missing Kingman woman connected to man arrested for identity theft (1931 views)

•   MCSO: Man linked to missing woman is arrested (1603 views)

•   McCain fundraiser arrested following drug raid (1429 views)



Reader Comments

Posted: Sunday, February 10, 2013
Article comment by: Nice Chuckle

@Jimi

"A tyrannical government would be the only government logically to fight against, so although the term “tyrannical” is not stated, common sense dictates its implication."

Ok, using your logic, the word musket is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but using common sense, since no other guns were available at the time, that is what they meant.

See the logic there?


Posted: Friday, February 8, 2013
Article comment by: Jimi Lightfoot

A tyrannical government would be the only government logically to fight against, so although the term “tyrannical” is not stated, common sense dictates its implication.

Of course when engaged in discourse with liberals you have to remember common sense, fact and truth will be irrelevant with them and a turn of phrase or even a typo will give the liberal their only grasp at a counter argument and a complete dismissal of facts.


Posted: Thursday, February 7, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

Ms Athens

“Their intent was to have whatever was necessary to fight back against a tyrannical government.”

One again you cite the “intent” of the founding fathers. Where did you deign such intent? And of course you have never provided where the term “tyrannical government” appears in the Second Amendment.


Posted: Thursday, February 7, 2013
Article comment by: Nice Chuckle

@Linda

"Their intent was to have whatever was necessary to fight back against a tyrannical government"

We have been over this before....that statement is not in the Constitution, and you know it.


Posted: Thursday, February 7, 2013
Article comment by: Linda Athens

Lori:

Where did the Founders say we have the right to bear muskets? They did not. They said we have the right to bear ARMS, those just happened to be the arms at the time.

Their intent was to have whatever was necessary to fight back against a tyrannical government. So today our arms are very different as are those of the government.

It also does not put a limit on the amount of arms we can have nor say we have to register them.

It also says that right cannot be infringed upon. That means IT STANDS PERIOD.

Your musket argument is just plain silly.


Posted: Thursday, February 7, 2013
Article comment by: Jimi Lightfoot

“No one is asking them to do so.”

No government ever asks the People to give up their rights. They just take them slowly and one by one.

They never miss the opportunity of using the excuse of “public safety,” “good order,” and always capitalizing on the death of innocents and children.

What seems like a small concession and a bend of rule or law always leads to another and another.

History shows us this again and again.

If you think this would never happen in America it’s only because you’ve been made complaisant by the charmed existence America has lived so far.

These rights you so ready are willing to give up and you take for granted are rights given to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our leaders are, and will be no less corruptible than any other past leader that has turned their country and its citizen’s conditions into a living nightmare.

When the government wants to take away rights and liberty and it tells you “It’s all about the children,”
It is never about the children. It’s always about manipulating adults into thinking and reasoning like children.

They don’t know you or your children. Do you really think they care that much for them? If so, ask them to donate bone marrow to a dying child. I think you might be shocked by their response…the rest of us…not so much.


Posted: Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Article comment by: np .....

@an....all right, Americans aren't being ASKED to do anything. In fact, they're being TOLD to give up their absolute rights regarding gun possession in New York state, and under Senator Diane Feinstein's proposed legislation, they will be TOLD (from the synopsis I have read) that 90% of the guns Americans currently have will be outlawed. Even if a watered-down version were passed, simply requiring registration of guns and ammo purchases (or more stringently, punitive taxation and storage of guns at Government warehouses), Americans will be TOLD, not asked. As a corollary commentary here, President Obama will experience more difficulty trying to hide behind murky shooting incidents in pursuing his agenda, than - say - those gnomes in Basel whose deft Mark-to-Market move netted the world's biggest fish (America) into their global financial scam. It's so frustrating to watch these ghostly (or should I say 'ghastly'?) characters win, but on the count of gun possession, I think they will lose - for now.

Posted: Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

“A huge swath of constitutionally-literate Americans have no intention of giving up rights.”

No one is asking them to do so.


Posted: Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Article comment by: Linda Athens

For those of you that missed it, the agency Janet Napolitano heads, Homeland Security put out a video on what to do and how to react if you have an intruder.

If you need a laugh today, this is a good one. At first, I thought it was a joke. It isn't apparently.


It shows a middle aged white man, dumb looking and overweight, first running to a drawer and getting out a pair of scissors to fight back with. Yeah, that certainly will beat a gun any day. Most of my scissors, I have a problem getting them to even cut thread.

But first, we are advised to push something heavy against the door so the intruder can't come in. So he pushes an end table or something similar there. Anything he can push there, they can push back from the other side of course.

All I can think of is, it was either put out for the low information voters or they honest to God think we are this stupid out here.

I prefer the really good advice from the Wisconsin or MN Sheriff who said, it takes too long for them to get to residences due to not enough officers. His advice, get the training, get a gun.


Posted: Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Article comment by: np ...

@AN....OK, well it looks like we're parsing words, just like Obama. He says that we need to arrive at a consensus about guns. What sort of consensus would that be? A huge swath of constitutionally-literate Americans have no intention of giving up rights. Conversely, you have a portion of the people who are willing to not only give up their own rights which people fought and died to protect, but OUR rights, as well. Do you seriously believe that Obama will achieve a mystical consensus here? What is far more likely - witness New York's recently passed legislation, and Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation - are steps falling a bit short of door-to-door seizures, but still devastating to an absolute right to guns for self-defense against crimes and tyranny. Beware when Government speaks about consensus (It sounds more like we're being presented with a plea bargain - while you are asked by His Honor if you understand your rights, he and the prosecutors have all the options......I mean, rights). Unless Americans can be duped by incremental despotism under cover of lies, it looks like a formula for very serious civil unrest to me.

Posted: Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Article comment by: Jimi Lightfoot

Lori, Thanks for the response. You made me aware of a typo on my part. I actually meant to write “I don’t believe any part of our Constitution SHOULD be up for interpretation or manipulation.” But we all know the 2nd Amendment has been re-interrupted to the point of ridiculousness. As for the muskets, I have one. I’m waiting on the government and the criminals to get rid of their weapons and switch over to muskets. And the government to reduce their spending, pay, benefits and numbers to the same as it was in the musket era, say, late 1800’s. I also expect women to go back to their homes, clean and cook, raise children and stop using their maiden names.

Posted: Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Article comment by: Origional Kingman Resident

@Anson

You're right, Obama has not said one thing about changing the Second Amendment. In fact, I don't think that he will attempt to change the second amendment.

He will accomplish his objectives via executive fiat and ignore the Constitution as usual, or through regulation. (See, he won't even have to change the gun laws that way. Changing laws would involve the Congress).


Posted: Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

“@Anson's Nephew.....how can you say that Obama doesn't want to change the nation's gun laws?”

Simple enough, I have never said Obama does not want to change our laws. I have said he will not take away anyone’s weapons and that changes are coing with laws put forth by the Congress. does not a – he has not proposed any bills that would take away guns from anyone nor has he said anything about altering the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

All of the hyperbolic nonsense about the president is being spread by two factions 1) one that wants to sell weapons and ammo and 2) one that want to see Obama fail no matter the cost to our nation.


Posted: Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Article comment by: Lori Gabriel-Dane

To Jimi Lightfoot:

You wrote, "I don’t believe ANY part of our Constitution is up for interpretation or manipulation."

I agree. So guess it's time for everyone to turn in their semi-automatic assault rifles and replace them with those good ol' muskets that the Founders said citizens had the right to bear and could not be infringed upon. GOOD! I'm all for that!


Posted: Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Article comment by: np .....

@Anson's Nephew.....how can you say that Obama doesn't want to change the nation's gun laws? If that were true, there would have been no mention of upcoming Executive Orders, nor wishful statements by Obama as to what Congress should do about guns.

Posted: Monday, February 4, 2013
Article comment by: N A

Law enforcements across the country have sworn to uphold the constitution that what the sheriff is trying to do.
Some like senator Charles Schumer have the argument that even the first amendment has some limitation so therefore the second amendment should have limitations also, he said you can't go into a movie theatre and yell "FIRE" that's true, and with the second amendment you also can't go in to a movie theatre and start shooting, but if obama and his gang try to tell me that I can only have 7 ammunition in my gun, it's just like telling me that I can use only three words for every sentence that I speak.


Posted: Monday, February 4, 2013
Article comment by: Doing Research

@Rick

Lynched? wow, poor choice of words. But politically every Democrat outside of Northern California would feel the same effects that Republicans did in 2008 with a full gun ban. Maybe a real life example would be better to use next time.

@Capt. Nice

You're wrong. Let me show you just how wrong you are.

Obama was a state and later federal senator. Chicago's violence problem - and since overturned gun ban, which you seem to be implying had something to do with that - are city matters. Obama never once held a position on the city council or as mayor.

Chicago had a HANDGUN ban which was initiated in 1982. It was overturned in 2010. It has been legal to own a lot of guns in the city of Chicago since the city was founded - just not a handgun.

Chicago's violence problems are thanks to a lot of reasons, mainly institutionalized segregation that persists on the South and West sides of the city, gangs who make a TON of money thanks to the drug trade, and their competition over the market.

Don't believe me?
http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/
Notice how many of these deaths are titled "__year old black male"?

Also look at this map:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C7JzkiK0Clw/T-uso8SwY4I/AAAAAAAAAXE/T-C1_k0v4Ug/s1600/chicago-gang-map.jpg

Gang territory strongly correlates with deaths of.... young males and kids caught in the crossfire!

Please understand Chicago's violence first... now has Mayor Daley told you how to deal with gangs in Kingman? Nope. Has Obama pushed urban policy on you? Nope. So you're 100% wrong.

260 Words


Posted: Monday, February 4, 2013
Article comment by: Oh C'mon

@ The Fox Hound

It' called doing the right thing. I for one am glad that our Sheriff (and others elsewhere) is standing up for what is right! I'm sorry but smoking weed is NOT a Constitutional right, but the right to bare arms IS!!! Also, I've got some othe news for you as well. The Sheriff's stand IS the majority view of the people. No President has the right to overstep the Constituion of the Bill of Rights in this great Nation.


Posted: Monday, February 4, 2013
Article comment by: BOBO CLOWN

On the other hand, if the president issues an executive order requiring everyone to turn in all firearms, I can safely predict Tom Sheahan won't try to enforce it. I can also safely predict President Obama won't issue that executive order any time soon.
WHERE DID YOU GET THIS CRAP FROM .....FOX NEWS ????????


Posted: Monday, February 4, 2013
Article comment by: Barney 1 bullet Fife

Our Wonderful sheriff lol. is spin doctoring his own position. It is his DUTY to uphold the constitution! but by putting in the words "If I feel the law is unconstitutional, I probably wouldn't enforce it," It should be , I wouldn't enforce it. or he might say, I probably will break my oath. And how many of us know how many times he's done that!

Posted: Monday, February 4, 2013
Article comment by: Jimi Lightfoot

“And the right to grow and smoke hemp shall not be infringed.” I must have missed that one in the Constitution. Or maybe that wacky John Adams accidently cut that part off when he was Xeroxing the Constitution. Although I believe the will of the people should prevail in voting and legislation, I don’t believe ANY part of our Constitution is up for interpretation or manipulation. I don’t agree with or like every part of the Constitution but I don’t advocate changing it for any reason. The slippery slope of a re-write would eventually turn us into a tyrant ran 3rd world country. Smoking weed, burning flags, marrying your brother or being a reality TV star is not covered specifically in the Constitution. The Constitution only guarantees your right to petition and speak out to the government. So if you wanted to marry your brother while burning the flag and smoking a joint while being filmed on reality TV…and the government didn’t want you to, you could use rights guaranteed by the Constitution to do so. If you didn’t have those protections the government could tell you to shut up, search and seize your home and lock you up for the rest of your life, with no formal charges. Now does the Constitution sound like a document you really want the government to “modify?” If smoking hemp was a specific guaranteed right in the constitution the Sheriff would be the first one preventing the feds from violating your right to. But thanks to that great document you have the right to petition Arizona to follow the will of the people and not the feds. I encourage it. I’ll even sign it.

Posted: Sunday, February 3, 2013
Article comment by: David Gaither

@ The Fox Hound wrote:

"....I hope that the next election people will remember our sheriffs stand which is certainly political and not in the majority view."

I think you might be surprised at how many votes the sheriff picked up with that statement and how many people, in this county, feel he is absolutely correct!

Just look at the example our top law officer in the nation, Attorney General Holder has set with several similar orders to his department!


Posted: Sunday, February 3, 2013
Article comment by: anonymous anonymous

Must be sad to be so angry at having a non-white fellow in the white house to realize you will never be even allowed to run a shoe shine stand in the hallway let alone rise to the highest office in America as Obama has! I find it amusing a decade or two from now those ranting their hatred, bitterness about him will be at best maybe a lonely grave marker in some cemetry and he will be in the history books, have a presidential library and it must be a terrible thing to be so jealous,angry!

Posted: Sunday, February 3, 2013
Article comment by: Frank Lee Speaking

@The Fox Hound

All a county sheriff anywhere has to do is inform the feds, "Sorry, can't help you guys. Were busy enforcing local and state laws."

Judging from the really large number of Sheriffs across the country who are refusing to enforce gun laws they consider unConsitutional, the feds are going to havre a tough time with it. Hey, wait a minute, maybe they can get enough local Quislings to volunteer to work with them, against their friends, family, and neighbors for a pat on the head. Make sure you are at the head of the line to sign up.


Posted: Sunday, February 3, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

“The funny part is that our potus wants to change the gun laws.”

Blatantly untrue. The President has said we need to come together as a nation and arraive at a consensus to stop the gun violence. He has never proposed nor advocated any change to the Second Amendment.

“Four more years...an eternity when you have to see this guys mug everywhere by drooling fans on every liberal rag put out.”

Yes, we will see the President for the next four years – just as we have seen every other President during their terms of office. It is actually beyond pathetic to see the whining going on about Obama being re-elected by a majority of Americans. He won, deal with it.

Of course the big laughs come from remembering all of the usual suspects here last year claiming the “liberals will be crying when Obama loses.” NOW that is really side-splittingly funny!



  - Page 1 -  Page 2



Article Comment Submission Form
Comments are not posted immediately. Submissions must adhere to our Use of Service Terms of Use agreement. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comments are limited to Facebook character limits. In order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit excessive comment entries.
Submit an Article Comment
First Name:
Required
Last Name:
Required
Telephone:
Required
Email:
Required
Comment:
Required
Passcode:
Required
Anti-SPAM Passcode Click here to see a new mix of characters.
This is an anti-SPAM device. It is not case sensitive.
   


Advanced Search

Find more about Weather in Kingman, AZ
Click for weather forecast



Find it Features Blogs Milestones Extras Submit Other Publications Local Listings
Real Estate Search | Classifieds | Place an Ad | Find Kingman Jobs | Kingman Chamber | e-News | Contact Us | RSS | Site Map
© Copyright 2016 Western News&Info, Inc.® The Kingman Daily Miner is the information source for Kingman and surrounding area communities in Northern Arizona. Original content may not be reprinted or distributed without the written permission of Western News&Info, Inc.® Kingman Daily Miner Online is a service of WNI. By using the Site, kdminer.com ®, you agree to abide and be bound by the Site's terms of use and Privacy Policy, which prohibit commercial use of any information on the Site. Click here to email your questions, comments or suggestions. Kingman Daily Miner Online is a proud publication of Western News&Info, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.


Software © 1998-2016 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved