Sheriff says he can’t support Second Amendment sanctuary

M

Madmallard

.223 Rem
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
912
Location
Tioga County
The St. Lawrence County Sheriff says he can’t support a Second Amendment sanctuary. This comes a day after dozens of citizens called for just that.

Several county residents stood up in front of lawmakers Monday night asking them to protect their constitutional rights by becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Sheriff Brooks Bigwarfe and other public officials listened.

On Tuesday, Bigwarfe said he just can’t support the selective enforcement of laws.

www.wwnytv.com

Sheriff says he can’t support Second Amendment sanctuary

The St. Lawrence County Sheriff says he can't support a Second Amendment sanctuary. This comes a day after dozens of citizens called for just that.
www.wwnytv.com www.wwnytv.com
 
libertysnake

libertysnake

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,840
Reaction score
16,378
Location
New York
“The Second Amendment sanctuary is, you know, I don't think it's a practical method. The law is the law,” he said.
Click to expand...

It's not a law if it contradicts the constitution. It's a policy upheld by illegitimate enforcement, and he's too afraid to lose his pension to do the right thing.

The only reason why we obey the safe act is because we're made to do so. He's part of the problem by agreeing to it.

I will say though, if he honestly believes it's the right thing to do, then that's fine -- I just disagree that the Safe act is, indeed, constitutional. On those grounds I find him wrong, but respect his disagreement.
 
Defilade

Defilade

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
26,230
Reaction score
37,813
Location
Elsewhere
libertysnake said:
It's not a law if it contradicts the constitution. It's a policy upheld by illegitimate enforcement, and he's too afraid to lose his pension to do the right thing.

The only reason why we obey the safe act is because we're made to do so. He's part of the problem by agreeing to it.

I will say though, if he honestly believes it's the right thing to do, then that's fine -- I just disagree that the Safe act is, indeed, constitutional. On those grounds I find him wrong, but respect his disagreement.
Click to expand...
I'm sure he is fine with certain amendments.
 
tirwin1

tirwin1

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
16,911
Reaction score
46,866
Location
rochester
I don't know his background so can't tell what his motivation is. Is he a FUDD? Afraid to lose his paycheck if he takes a stand against the governor? Or is it as he claims, he doesn't believe in selective enforcement of the law. Curious to know if he's ever selectively enforced other laws in the past for other offenses. Then again both Potsdam and St. Lawrence universities reside in his county and I am sure they lean left. Do they have a big influence in politics in that county?
 
PutnamCharlie

PutnamCharlie

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
1,796
Reaction score
4,253
Location
10509
It was a complete catch 22 for him. He either gets voted out for going against or yanked out for going with it. If all the counties joined in FUAC couldn't fire all of them.
 
Apeman

Apeman

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
1,830
Reaction score
3,933
Location
Saratoga
vanderblack said:
I bet he will follow sanctuary state policy and not report illegals to ICE as required by Federal law.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The liberal assholes that choose to ignore federal law seem quite willing to pick and choose what laws they want to follow. Fuck him and them
 
BDinPutnam

BDinPutnam

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
14,491
Reaction score
20,858
Location
Someplace else
kev74 said:
Cuomo can't fire Sheriffs. Its an elected position.
Click to expand...

Exactly which is kind of why I'm wondering if this is somewhere we as a group can start pushing back at the ballot box in a more organized way state wide.

I think we need to start small and start winning little, cheap and easy to win elections.

I see the population of this state and I see 2/3 NOT NYC. So much out there that is just ripe for the taking.
 
prambo

prambo

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
18,455
Reaction score
43,580
Location
P
He's an ensconced apparatchik...he'll suck the .GOV tittie until he's physically removed from said tittie.

NYS is a self realized gulag...and, yes I should have left years ago.

I despise this type of sanctimonious shitweasel.

An unconstitutional law is not law...enforcement of unconstitutional "laws" is akin to the "just following orders" defense at Nuremberg - it doesn't mean shit. One more reason why this state is a shithole.
 
H

holdover

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
16,744
Reaction score
24,820
Location
occupied NY
Doing what your told doesn't make you right , It makes you dangerous. Throwing people in prison for exercising their rights , is tyrannical .
Hopefully, one day, the second amendment infringes on him .

  • Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
    For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
    The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.


TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 ​

  • Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
 
Uninformed and Compliant

Uninformed and Compliant

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
12,893
Reaction score
48,260
Location
CNY
If that Sheriff, or any officer, feels they must enforce a false color of law for fear of retribution, that officer has an slam dunk complaint of Felony Coercion that they can roll people up for.

New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 135.65 Coercion in the first degree

A person is guilty of coercion in the first degree when he or she commits the crime of coercion in the third degree, and when:
1. He or she commits such crime by instilling in the victim a fear that he or she will cause physical injury to a person or cause damage to property;  or
2. He or she thereby compels or induces the victim to:

(a) Commit or attempt to commit a felony;  or

(b) Cause or attempt to cause physical injury to a person;  or

(c) Violate his or her duty as a public servant.

Coercion in the first degree is a class D felony.



Merchants, meanwhile, can file complaints for this, since they have a right to sell standard magazines to us, etc, as can anyone who "destroyed" or got rid of something because of Safe Act:

New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 135.60 Coercion in the third degree
A person is guilty of coercion in the third degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he or she has a legal right to engage, or compels or induces a person to join a group, organization or criminal enterprise which such latter person has a right to abstain from joining, by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:
1. Cause physical injury to a person;  or
2. Cause damage to property;  or
3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime;  or
4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him or her;  or
5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;  or
6. Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person's business;  except that such a threat shall not be deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;  or
7. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense;  or
8. Use or abuse his or her position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his or her official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely;  or
9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his or her health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.

Coercion in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.
 
Cooolone

Cooolone

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,286
Reaction score
9,736
Location
NY, USA
Well, i wonder if the POTUS will put his money where his mouth is and really shove it up the collective Left's asses by going after and getting done a Federal 2A Reciprocal Law... Hell, just do it by decree and that silly little thing called Presidential Order! Let the left drag you to court, let them deny 2A rights out in the open and get all the grandstanding behind curtains exposed. Make it an all or nothing fight... The Left has chosen to make it an electable highlight, like bloombucks and his minions... Fuck it! Just go all in! Lmao...

And yeah, just vote this idiot out, or demand that he and his deputy's disarm themselves and lead by example!
 
GOPerfect

GOPerfect

.950 JDJ
U.S. Military
Messages
32,171
Reaction score
74,028
Location
No longer Secret, thanks DR. Evil
kev74 said:
Cuomo can't fire Sheriffs. Its an elected position.
Click to expand...


The governor may remove any elective sheriff, county clerk, district attorney or register within the term for which he or she shall have been elected; but before so doing the governor shall give to such officer a copy of the charges against him or her and an opportunity of being heard in his or her defense.

 
prambo

prambo

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
18,455
Reaction score
43,580
Location
P
GOPerfect said:
The governor may remove any elective sheriff, county clerk, district attorney or register within the term for which he or she shall have been elected; but before so doing the governor shall give to such officer a copy of the charges against him or her and an opportunity of being heard in his or her defense.

Click to expand...

And I thought NYS hadn't reached Max Soviet Union yet...

Boy, was I wrong...it's been a failed banana republic for a long time...
 
Cooolone

Cooolone

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,286
Reaction score
9,736
Location
NY, USA
GOPerfect said:
the governor shall give to such officer a copy of the charges against him or her
Click to expand...


...Charges, ie, accused of committing a crime!

But the arbitrary removal will result in an entirely different response from those who elected the Sheriff. LE discretion in applying charges or rendering an arrest is well established, or shall the Governor profess that any LE must apply strict scrutiny to ANY law observed or suspect being broken?

I don't support blind obedience, and each sheriff, legislator, judge, has their decision to make in regard to enforcing what they think is within the letter of the law, or the Constitution. That is within their control, what is not within their control is the "consequence" of their decision. Let them all suffer and live with their decisions and I hope, Karma play it's role, bringing swift retribution to those who trample upon other's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top