President Obama better not rely on the Madison County Sheriff to enforce any new over-reaching gun laws he gets passed (Congress will stop him)…
A sweeping set of gun control proposals laid out by President Obama on Wednesday is adding more fuel to a growing national debate, and one local lawman is raising concerns that the proposed legislation is unconstitutional.
Madison County Sheriff Blake Dorning told WHNT News 19 that his office will not enforce new gun control legislation if he feels those laws violate the Second Amendment. Dorning said he has serious doubts about President Obama’s latest proposals, stating that any gun laws which do pass would have to be in line with the U.S. Constitution and Alabama state law in order to be enforceable.
“The federal authorities can try to enforce it,” said Dorning. “I’m the Sheriff of Madison County. I took a constitutional oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, to defend the Constitution of the State of Alabama, even if it takes my life. That is my position.”
Sheriff Dorning is the latest in a chorus of lawmen from across America who are saying they may not enforce new gun control legislation. President Obama’s call for a new assault weapons ban and ten-round magazine limit were the headlines in what some say are the most stringent gun control measures ever. The President cannot get the two major revisions unless Congress signs off, but Sheriff Dorning said even if they do, Washington is not his final authority.
“As long as you are a law abiding citizen, then I don’t see a problem with law-abiding citizens being able to arm themselves however they so choose,” said Dorning, who pledged to ignore any law that would call for the confiscation of assault weapons or any other firearm. “Our people in our communities and homes need not fear that the Sheriff of Madison County or his deputies would come to their homes and make an attempt to disarm them. It will not happen under my watch.”
Sheriff Dorning joins a long list of Sheriff’s saying the same thing…
Sheriffs in Kentucky, Minnesota, Oregon and Texas have also spoken out against President Obama’s gun control measures, but how the final legislation will actually be worded remains to be seen. Dorning said his office has received roughly four times the normal daily amount of concealed carry permit applications since December.
Filed under: Uncategorized
It’s awesome when people stand up for the U.S. Constitution!! What’s happening in NY is astounding…I cannot believe the hypocrisy and idiotic behavior there!! When they start banning large soft drinks you know it’s something’s not right. This country needs to WAKE UP, GROW UP, and START TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELVES AND CHILDREN (sorry for the all-caps folks)!!! Government has it’s role but it’s NOT taking care of you or thinking for you!!
Should read the citizens of Madison County, Alabama better not rely on the Madison County Sheriff to enforce any “over reaching gun laws” that might be passed by Congress. It’s not about President Obama, he’s going to have all the protection he needs. I guess we “law abiding citizens” better arm up. If the Chief law enforcement officer says he’s not going to enforce the law if it passess, I can only imagine what the criminals are thinking….
Protect yourself, that is the entire point.
Congrats, you accidentally got it right.
Yep, don’t count on those who are paid to protect and serve us to actually protect and serve us.
I would prefer to see federal troops enforcing federal laws anyway.
Then Dorning can stick to cooking, the man makes a nice bird.
I HOPE and PRAY Sheriff Dorning doesn’t pick and choose which citizens his department will protect and serve.
Good thing he never said that. Are you functionally illiterate?
Good think I never said he said that. And you ask if I am functionally illiterate? LOL!
That isn’t what he’s saying at all. He’s just saying he will not enforce an assualt weapons ban if the federal government institutes one. It’s a stupid statement to make. Federal law is, well, law, and he should be saying something like he will resign before enforcing laws he considers unconstitutional. What he’s saying now is that he won’t do his job when he dissagrees with what it entails. That’s not his call to make.
However, the absurd notion that he’s going to serve and protect the general populace based on picking and choosing is quite a jump from what he’s talking about. Which specific groups do you think he will refuse to serve and protect, and what makes you think that?
If he can pick and choose which federal laws he will not enforce what is to stop him from picking and choosing which citizens to protect and serve?
Which groups and why? again…..
Who know which groups and why?
Once again you make an implication and refuse to say what’s on your mind. Why would you suggest something like that if you didn’t have some idea of who and why. Your argument is the sheriff might not enforce the law equally among the people because he made a stupid remark about gun control. You suggest he might do this although his entire career he has done nothing to warrant this suspicion. You seem to think it’s a possibillity. Yet you are scared to come out and say what you think. you are content to make a veiled accusation and claim that you totally didn’t mean anything by it.
This is just yet another example of why you don’t matter.
“Our people in our communities and homes need not fear that the Sheriff of Madison County or his deputies would come to their homes and make an attempt to disarm them. It will not happen under my watch.”
In any event, local police wouldn’t be responsible for enforcing federal gun laws, CNN Legal Analyst Paul Callan said.
“The FBI will be enforcing them, treasury agents will enforce them. It won’t be local police who would be out making sure federal gun regulations are enforced,” he said.
Dorning would best advised to take his own advice, and stay in the kitchen.
A study for the Combatting Terrorism Center, a think tank associated with the United States Military Academy at West Point, warns of the threat posed by rightwing extremists. It identifies the potential for violence in groups defined a “far-right,” and provides a “[C]onceptual foundation for understanding different far-right groups and then presents the empirical analysis of violent incidents to identify those perpetrating attacks.”
“In the last few years, and especially since 2007, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of attacks and violent plots originating from individuals and groups who self-identify with the far-right of American politics,” the report’s executive summary reads. “These incidents cause many to wonder whether these are isolated attacks, an increasing trend, part of increasing societal violence, or attributable to some other condition.”
The report warns of three categories of rightwing extremists that represent terroristic threats: “[T]he Racist/White Supremacy Movement, the Anti-Federalist Movement, and the Christian Fundamentalist Movement.”
The report notes that it focuses only on those groups that have perpetrated violence and not political causes which are deemed extremist but have no violent incidents attributed to them.
Where are these acts? Where is the violence?
These are the people who are arming up.
… Arming up legally.
The question is why are they arming up legally?
Because the idiots you support are playing up a gun ban that is not going to happen.