On the eve of President Obama's second inauguration, Collin County Sheriff Terry Box posted a message on his personal Facebook page that was sure to ignite debate amongst the citizens of Collin County.
Box, who has been Collin County Sheriff for 28 years, posted a short message Sunday stating that he and his deputies will not enforce any new federal laws that infringe on a citizen’s constitutional rights, specifically the second amendment which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.
“If the laws passed aren’t constitutional, I won’t support it or enforce it,” Box told TownSquareBuzz.com when reached for comment on Monday. Box said that he was motivated to speak out after seeing other county sheriffs make similar public comments and after more than 100 Collin County citizens contacted him and asked him to make his position public.
Box said he understands that the public nature of his position makes him a powerful voice in the gun control debate that has divided our country since the tragic elementary school shooting Dec. 14 in Newtown, Conn.
“I wanted to go out front and hope that the Congress would see that not everyone is on board," Box said, "and let them know that there are people who believe differently and want to protect the Constitution.”
Less than a week ago, President Obama announced his proposal to curb the gun violence in our country. Among the President’s recommendations is the requirement of background checks for all gun sales, the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban, a 10-round limit for all ammunition magazines, an increase in mental health funding, an increase in police officers and other measures.
These proposals have angered many gun-owners and those who support the constitutional rights of all citizens.
“Right now, the times we live in, there are a lot of folks that are divided on this issue," Box told TSB. "I come down on the side of the second amendment. Those second amendment rights are important and need to be upheld and I felt it was important to show that not everybody in law enforcement is on board with knee-jerk reactions from the government."
Asked what he would do to stem the outbreak of gun violence, Box said he would favor the enforcement of gun laws that are already on the books and “that it’s important to deal with the real problem of mental illness in this country.”
Box said he feels that many of the politicians in the federal government only react after a tragedy and are “trying to legislate morality or human behavior." He also said he feels that more sheriffs will speak out in the coming days as the battle lines are being drawn in one of the most contentious debates in recent memory.
If the federal government passes legislation or enacts an executive order that is proved constitutional, Sheriff Box stated that he and his deputies will support it, but “the government better double check and make sure it doesn’t go against our constitutional rights.”
Sheriff Box's Facebook post from Sunday, Jan. 20:
In light of recent events I feel I need to make a public statement of my views on this subject.
As the Sheriff of Collin County, Texas, I have for the past 28 years served to protect and keep safe all citizens of our county, recognizing the trust placed in me with this profoundly important responsibility.
Unfortunately, the recent surge in the numbers of innocent victims who have died at the hands of unstable criminals has prompted politicians in Washington to seek to pass laws that would seriously erode the constitutional rights of innocent and law abiding citizens.
Neither I, nor any of my deputies, will participate in the enforcement of laws that violate our precious constitutional rights, including our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
As long as I remain Sheriff of Collin County, I will not participate in the actions of misguided politicians who seek to impede our citizen’s right to all of the privileges afforded by our Constitution.
Respectfully,
Terry G. Box
Sheriff, Collin County Texas
Comments
Folks, Sheriff Box took an oath to protect, uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is exactly what he is doing.
You may support Obama in his attempt to change the Constitution but you shouldn't fault the Sheriff or anyone else for upholding it. Here's my problem, I know for a fact that Obama took an oath almost exact as Sheriff Box. The difference is although Obama swore to protect, uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, he is instead attempting to pervert, reject and suspend the Constitution for his personal political ideals. He's bypassed Congress several times already and he's trying it again with the Second Amendment. As a law enforcement officer for nearly 40 years, I, along with probably 95% of police officers in the State, will stand beside Sheriff Box in upholding our sworn oath.
Surely you people realize that suspending your rights to a firearm has NO impact on the criminal or psycho that is going to ignore the law. If you don't know that, I am sure I am wasting my keyboard. If you are not blinded by partisanship just watch these two videos. They tell what happened with Australia's gun ban and in the other there are some crime stats to mull over.
Australia: https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA
Crime Stats: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
Elevenfourteen, this particular debate regarding Sheriff Box is not about gun control. That's another debate. Its the sheriff deciding which laws HE wants to enforce. Sheriff Box's responsibility is to uphold laws in place placed by our Judicial Branch and government. If Sheriff Box doesn't like the laws then he is free to pick a new job. I can't pick and choose what I want to do in my job. Its nothing short of vigilantism if we let law enforcement decide what they want to enforce. If that's the case what if a citizen decides he doesn't like certain laws put in place, can I tell a police officer I don't really like 55mph so I choose 80mph?
BillSpizzirri: Of course it's about gun control. Do you really believe executive orders by Obama are Law. The U.S. Constitution is and the 2nd Amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms. It's been through the supreme court several times and it prevails every time. The Courts have said "shall not be infringed", so what is it about shall not be infringed do you not understand. I tell you what, you give up you guns or magazines and let all bad guys out there keep theirs. Now really, how stupid does that sound now that you see it in print. Here's another option for you; If you don't like the way he's running things, you can vote him out the next election.
Never in my life will I understand the Liberal mindset. Anyone who will allow a crime to be committed against themselves, their wife, children and only depend on the police for their protection are not deserving to live in a free society. The police can't always protect you because they are 10 or 15 minutes away much of the time. That's IF the criminal will allow you to call for help and then he's not going to abide with your "time out until help arrives".
At some point, somebody has got to stand up and say NO. Sheriff Box swore an oath and he is keeping it. Police, Sheriffs and Military personnel all over the Country took the same oath and I believe and hope a majority of them will keep their word. I know I will.
ElevenFourteen, No one is proposing to take away your guns. I have no problem with someone who has a registered handgun, shotgun, rifle in their home to protect themselves. That is not the point. It's proposing background checks on all, limiting the amount of bullets in a magazine and stopping the use of assault weapons which we really shouldn't need. Why must you take take the absolutist approach and not be willing to compromise for the greater good and safety of all of us. The NRA is a money making, fear mongering lobby and our elected leaders (both parties) don't have the stones to step up to them and say...'Hey can we just take a look at this and come to reason' . That is not a Liberal mindset, its a reasonable mindset. One that needs to be used for all walks of life and decisions we make and lessons we teach.
BillSpizzirri, you have me confused with someone else. You must think I am a criminal if you think taking any gun from me would stop crime. If I owned an "assault weapon", which I don't, taking it or it's magazines away from me would not solve crimes in the U.S. In fact, the percentage of crimes where "assault weapons" are actually used is almost infinitesimal. I also don't belong to the NRA but I sure won't fault them for selling their product/service so I am obviously not anti-capitalists. I actually don't think you even understand that you do have a liberal mindset. You believe by making a law, the criminals will just turn in their "assault weapons" along with their high capacity magazines. You demonize the gun and magazine instead of the criminal or psycho. You demonize the NRA because they "make money" and sell a service. The problem has been coming on for years with the removal of God, prayer, morals and decency from all facets of our lives and our children's lives.
Maybe you can understand if the shoe was on the other foot. Put yourself in this scenario: The Federal Government has been taken over by a FAR RIGHT radical sect of people. You are ordered to attend Church twice on Sunday and once on Wednesday, you may only believe in Christ. Everyone will work or starve (no welfare, no food stamps). Your children are to attend a school where they will be indoctrinated into this mindset. If you don't agree with their values or speak out against this Government will will either be imprisoned or killed, just for the greater good of society. You can make up any horrible scenario you want but I'll assume the one I listed is bad enough for you. Remember the 2nd Amendment was put into place so people will not have to live under a tyrannical rule. If you have given up your "assault weapon" you are left with your shotgun, revolver, single shot .22 or whatever target gun that is left for you. Now you may be one of those people who would prefer to live as a slave rather than stand up for yourself. I hope you are not and are willing to stand with me in fighting against that tyrannical rule. AND THAT is what I mean by a liberal mindset. You just don't understand maybe because you are too young to have lived through a war, didn't study history or just don't think anything will ever happen. This world has been around for a long time and there have been some very bad people in power that killed millions of people. A world war might even land on our shores one day. Just because nothing terrible has happened for the last 40 or 50 years does not mean it won't ever.
I just wish people would think about "what if" and do I want to be defenseless regardless of the scenario. Maybe I'm paranoid but I bet the Jews were not, I bet those in Rwanda were not, those under Stallin, were not. The list can go on and on.
Elevenfourteen, I am sorry that you feel that our Government is so tyrannical and that there is this covert plan to take all our liberties. I have tried to get into this thought process and I truly can't. To have that daily distrust of those in charge must be a heavy burden for you. I don't mean that in a sarcastic tone, but rather with sincerity. However, to categorize me with a "liberal mindset" and to further define that as being someone with a polyanna approach to Government, history and law is simply false.
You again miss my point of having people getting together and reason. I believe one of LBJ's famous quotes was "Come and let us reason together". If my history serves me right, that's coming from a Texan. I add a quote here from the Constitution's author, Thomas Jefferson:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
You can see that even the author of this document understands that as times change and people evolve we need to evolve how we do things. The Constitution was written as such so interpretations can be made, laws can be written, so it can grow as we grow. Can you agree with any of that?
A true and unmoving fundamentalist approach to anything we do doesn't allow us to grow.
Of course you were being sarcastic with your comment. Otherwise you wouldn't have said it. You could have just left it off entirely and started with a civil conversation. Again, that is the way a Liberal mindset works but I get it so I'm not worried about it.
Now to the meat of the conversation: That's silly to think there is a covert plan to take all our liberties. What I said was "WHAT IF" in sometime in the future something happens that is against every moral fiber of your soul. EVERYONE would be unarmed to do anything about it. I understand you truly can't "get into this thought process". It appears you are looking at the world through rose colored glasses and do not believe anything will ever happen. There are millions upon millions of people in history that NEVER though something bad would happen to them. Just look at the Jews in WWII. They were led to slaughter by the millions because they didn't believe what was happening to them. It REALLY DID happen to them. That was only 60 or so years ago which is very recent in the overall scheme of things. People are still alive that lived through it. I know and have known several that still bore the identification tattoo. I've talked at length about what happened with them. Go ask the Jews if they could ever be convinced to walk into a slaughter house without putting up a fight. I have studied history and am not so trusting of the worlds inhabitants and do not think we can all sing Kumbaya and share a Coco-Cola. I actually think the world is more violent now than ever before.
I believe we can grow and make new laws all day as long as they are within the bounds of Constitution. Since you failed to address the meat of the discussion, I'll ask more directly. How will it stop a criminal or psycho by prohibiting law abiding citizen/non-criminal and non-psycho of certain weapons? I'll bet even you realize that the criminals are not turning in anything that is illegal. Truly is is like stopping you from buying a car because the alcoholic drives drunk. It just doesn't make good sense even though the analogy is the same.
Elevenfourteen, please stop assuming you understand my mindset and know what I think. In addition I was truly sincere that it really must be a burden to bear that kind of mistrust and paranoia on a daily basis. Please do not use stereotypes as liberal mindset as they are false and irrelevant. Please make sure you read through my post as I stated I am not taking a polyanna approach to this and am truly not looking at this through rose colored glasses. You seem bent on making my point of view for me. You take extreme reaction to my comments. For example when I mention reasoning and compromise you say we all sing Kumbaya. Clearly incorrect and you are misunderstanding. But that is the case with a 'paranoid and untrusting mindset' since you seem to like to pigeonhole commentators with stereotypes.
I'll try to put it as plain as I can make it. I believe we need to look at and have discussion on the following. Please read...look at and have discussion:
-the use of assault weapons by the rank and file population. You mention you were in law enforcement. Do you feel its fair to have any person having the ability to have the same weaponry as our police force who are here to serve and protect? If so Sheriff Box and other police are not needed correct??...or is that more liberal mindset
-background checks for all and make it harder for me to get a gun than it is to get a drivers license. Private gun shows should not have the ability to sell a gun to anyone who walks in and not be accountable.
-limit use of drums and magazines with hundreds of bullets. Why should we need that?...because its our 'right'....please!
-we need to do a better job with our mental health system and get help for those who need it.
All of these items can be discussed. No one is proposing to take away your guns. If your stance is to not even have discussion and come to the table then how does anything ever get done. That approach is no different than taking your ball and running home because you don't like it. Its selfish...plain and simple.
BillSpizzirri you shouldn't deny having a liberal mindset UNLESS you know you’re wrong or ashamed of it. I’m certainly not ashamed of having a conservative mindset. BUT just so you know, I never assumed your mindset was liberal. You put it in black and white on this thread and you can never hide that kind of thinking. Here's just a few of your quotes which illustrates your mindset:
1. “This debate is not about gun control.”
Of course it’s about gun control. If it wasn't, we wouldn't even be talking about this. Deflection to side subjects and avoiding the facts just is not being honest.
2. “Limiting the amount of bullets in a magazine and stopping the use of assault weapons which we really shouldn't need.”
It’s nobody’s business what guns or magazines a law abiding citizen owns and it’s not your place to decide what others own. That’s like limiting drivers to only one kind of car or buying one size drink, like they have done in NY.
3. NRA is “money making”
A legal non-profit organization solicits funds from its members. SO WHAT, every other non-profit organization in the world does the same thing. (We've got to stop global warming, give me money. We've got to stop diabetes, give me money. We've got to stop hunger, give me money. We've got to stop cancer, give me some money. ALL of them are “fear mongering” I believe that is what you called it.) You just don’t like this particular organization because they are trying to keep law abiding citizens rights and you don’t agree with them.
4. “I have tried to get into this thought process and I truly can't.”
What can I say, you are unable to read and understand bad things can happen.
5. “The author of this document (Constitution) understands that as times change and people evolve we need to evolve how we do things.”
The Constitution stands on its own. It was not written to be changed to reach a certain political goal every time a new group of people get into positions of power.
6. “The Constitution was written as such so interpretations can be made, laws can be written, so it can grow as we grow.”
Yes laws can be added or removed but they must remain within the parameters of the Constitution.
7. (The need for a discussion of) “the use of assault weapons by the rank and file population.”
First off, the "rank and file" of the population is not the problem but assault weapons have been banned in the United States since 1934 and very few people own one AND that is not what Obama wants banned. For that matter no assault weapon has been used in ANY mass shootings,,, or do you not know what an assault weapon is?
8. One very obvious indicator of your liberal mindset is your statement; “it really must be a burden to bear that kind of mistrust and paranoia on a daily basis.
It’s almost comical that you made that statement to me yet you are the one that is so paranoid that you want to restrict law abiding citizens to certain firearms. If you have no fear, mistrust or paranoia then why do you want to prohibit those citizens right to certain weapons? This is the typical liberal tactic. You are a certain way but you blame the behavior on me.
9. Most important, you refuse to answer my questions and only want to attack my view.
Another common liberal tactic. You like to ask questions but you won’t answer even the most simple of mine.
Here’s the answer to a few of your questions even though you refuse me the same courtesy:
1. I can agree that buying a gun at a trade day should be no easier than buying a gun at a gun store. See there is some common ground but did you notice I’m the one that had to yield……….. just kidding.
2. Yes, I believe law abiding citizen should have equal right and access to the same weapons I have as a police officer. I have no fear of those who do not want to harm anyone.
3. Regarding your statement “Sheriff Box and other police are not needed...or is that more liberal mindset”. Yes, law enforcement is still needed. Law enforcement does more than shoot people. In answer to your question; “or is that more liberal mindset?” Yes, it is very obvious a liberal mindset and a general lack of knowledge of what police really do. To me it’s absolutely ludicrous that we might not need law enforcement. It appears as though you've been watching too much TV because police officers shooting people is an incident that is encountered fewer times than any other by police officers.
Now for my questions:
1. What will be accomplished by banning any kind of weapon from law abiding citizens and do you really think criminals will turn in anything that is illegal for them to own?
2. What could be the reason for the government to maintain a database for gun owners? The words; “enhanced background investigation” is just another way of saying 'gun registration' because they want to keep the records. Knowing who owns what gun will not prevent a criminal from using a weapon.
3. Isn't banning weapons from law abiding citizens the same as banning a car from you to prevent the drunk from driving. I’m assuming you’re not a drunk but you get the point either way. If it’s not the same, show me the difference.
On a final note: Your statement gives me hope when you say “we need to do a better job with our mental health system and get help for those who need it.” NOW you’re getting it. You actually addressed a genuine problem instead of wanting to do things that make you feel good but in reality does nothing to address the real problem.
I hope Town Square Buzz doesn't mine the debate on their page. I know neither of us will accomplish anything.
I'll try and answer your questions to the best of my ability with my point of view. My point of view doesn't make your unacceptance of it any more right or wrong. The same goes for yours. Your perception or lack of acceptance of my responses doesn't make my point of view incorrect. I can't control that response from you. I have tried to state my point of view in a kind and articulate way. You accuse me of attacking your view and I have not tried to do that. In addition, my brother is a Chicago police officer and served on gang task force and tactical units and he has spoken to me about being outgunned at times and the amount and types of weaponry available is insane . I also have a step brother who is a SWAT team member and trained forces in Afghanistan so while not being an expert I do have some knowledge of guns on the streets from their accounts to me. Believe or not they have stronger viewpoints than mine surrounding this stance. So as you state its not from watching cop shows on TV. Major Chiefs of Police would like to see stricter controls all the way down to handguns.
Yes organizations like American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association do ask for money... for research and looking for cures. I've lost family members to each of those diseases. To lump those in with the NRA really shouldn't be compared. What should be compared is what are they using their money for. I'm sure a percentage is used for training and safety, however my guess is lot is used for lobbying efforts.
That being said I'll respond directly to your 3 questions:
1)What can be accomplished by imposing some sorts of bans on semi automatic (my apologies for confusing assault with semi automatic) is that it has the potential to remove or limit access of these types of weapons to anyone. I'm not saying it will stop all criminals, but it at least moves forward with something. By taking the stance that what the proposal states will not stop all criminals from securing a gun and therefore we shouldn't do it prevents honest discussions of any proposal to address gun violence in this country. If a test for any proposal is that is has to solve the whole problem, then we wouldn't be anywhere with today's or yesterday's problems and issues. Seat belts don't stop all accidents, but they do reduce fatalities. Taking our shoes off and being scanned in an airport doesn't prevent all potential terrorist activities, but it certainly reduces that possibility.
2)Maintaining a database doesn't prevent all criminals from getting a gun. It also doesn't mean that the government would have every gun holders name in America and the militia will be coming to your door to take your guns. Retailers and manufactures and private dealers could maintain a record of all sales and have that available. It doesn't necessarily need a purchasers signature. This way guns could be traced back to the source of sale if they were used in a crime much quicker. It could help track bulk sales of weapons if they were happening in a certain area. Again, this is a a proposal for discussion. Shutting it down by saying the government will have total control goes back to my point in #1.
3)I am not saying banning all weapons from law abiding citizens. I am suggesting limiting to whats available. By making some sacrifice it may help in the long run. I use my airport analogy. Not everyone walking through airport wants to blow up a plane, but we all make a sacrifice by going through extra security to help prevent those who want to do bad things.
At Columbine High School 13 people were killed, VA Tech 56 injured 32 dead, Northern IL University (my home state) 21 injured 6 killed. In Arizona 19 injured 6 died during a rally for Congresswoman Giffords, FT Hood 29 injured, 13 killed, Aurora CO shooting 58 injured 12 killed and of course Sandy Hook where 27 teachers and children were killed.
Even if some legislation were passed, its not to say that all of these deaths would be prevented, but would it help at all if some of these could be stopped? Is that not worth coming to the table and looking at this? Maybe stronger background checks, longer or forced waiting periods, and some bans on certain types of weaponry may have prevented some of the tragic losses. Whether it be a 1,000 lives or 1 life, isn't that worth taking a look at whats in place now?
If your position remains that anything to do with guns is off the table, may I ask what ideas or suggestions you have that could minimize or possibly prevent these types of mass shootings from occurring moving forward.
I'll make some quick observations and then answer your questions with a few ideas and then leave Town Square Buzz to their news and not try and turn this into a social networking site. i appreciate your honesty in your last response although I don't agree.
As I said, I will yield that obtaining a gun at a trade day should not be any easier than at a gun store although I do believe people should be able to pass a gun down to their relatives without background checks as long as it is done in good faith. I don't even mind a waiting period unless there could be some justifiable cause with approval by some law enforcement agency. Records of guns sold at retail establishments are already maintained. Those records are kept by the store along with the background check that was performed, your identification, etc. The Government does not need a database of those records. They don't need to know what gun or how many guns a law abiding citizen owns. You made reference to your brother who is a Chicago Police Officer. Since Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the U.S. why do you suppose it also has the highest crime rate. We both know exactly why but many refuse to acknowledge it. It's because for the most part the law abiding citizen is unarmed and can not fight back against the criminal. Look at a few stats, Chicago a Liberal city with very high crime involving guns. New York, a Liberal city with very high crime involving guns. LA, a Liberal city with very high crime involving guns. Detroit, a Liberal city with very high crime involving guns. Are you starting to see a pattern here? All these areas also have very tough gun laws. They have put their citizens at a disadvantage against criminals. It's not quite to this point but criminals almost have free reign in a gun free zone. If I were a criminal, that's the area I want to commit my crimes. I wouldn't pick Lubbock, Odessa , San Antonio or even McKinney as far as that goes. You have to admit a criminal IS NOT going to pick a victim that is likely armed and willing to protect themselves. I want as much firepower as I can possibly get if I am facing a criminal. The average home invasion is committed with 3 attackers. I have qualified as an expert marksman with a hand gun but I'm not a good enough shot or would be extremely lucky to be able to take out 3 armed men with a six-shooter. This is just a sample of my justification of wanting firepower. And before you start, I'm not paranoid and worry about it and it's not on my mind. Maybe you can think of me as a Boy Scout and I'm prepared or maybe another analogy is like in my home, I have 4 fire extinguishers. I'm not afraid of my home catching on fire, but I still have them and keep them maintained.
As far as what things could be done to minimize these types of shootings. I have a few ideas.
1. First and foremost, rid society of violent repeat offenders. At present, rapists, murderers, child molesters, robbers (stealing at gun point), home invaders, or any other crime where a weapon is involved are put in prison (sometimes) and then released withing just a few months or years. Yes, most murderers get out of prison after just a very few years unless it's a capital felon. How many times have you read the assailant was a repeat offender.
2. Criminals that are released from prison should have strict monitoring and they should be re-incarcerated at the FIRST violation. Slapping them on the wrist and telling them not to violate their parole again is much of the problem with repeat offenders.
3. Parents should start being parents and teach some morals, value of life, courtesy, manners, etc, etc, etc. This I'm OK, you're OK, if it feels good do it, Doctor Spock crap has been tried a proved to fail every time.
4. Mental health is a isolated problem but it should be also be addressed. If someone is truly a danger to anyone, I think it's time for someone to be put away. Right now, basically 3 days is all you can institutionalize these people. If they can't be "cured" within that three days, the courts just say, "oh well, maybe he won't go on a mass killing spree so we let them out just so we won't 'violate their rights'.
5. I assume you have heard of the war on drugs. There has NEVER been a war on drugs but maybe there should be. Drug users are back out on the street before I finish my book-in paperwork. If they are prosecuted, they get probation more times than not. I've personally arrested many people that were on "probation" three times over. What that means is they are caught and placed on probation, they are caught again and placed on probation again and caught a third time and placed on probation again. If they ever get to prison, they are released within a few months. There just isn't a deterrent for many crimes and people with a warped mind believe minor punishments are worth the small risk.
9. Another novel idea would be to enforce the laws we have now. I guess you heard Joe Biden when he said " We Don’t Have Time To Prosecute Everybody Who Lies’ On Background Checks. In other words, lets make new laws because we can't enforce the ones we have now. Everyone knows Biden is a total idiot but he actually told the truth there. They know of thousands of people that lie on their applications but they just let it go. We wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings by putting some meat into enforcement.
10. How about closing the borders and enforcing the immigration laws. Although there are no recent stats, along the border states anywhere from 15% to 25 % of our prison population is illegals.
Those are just a few off the top of my head and most folks just ignore resolutions like these because they address the real issue instead of making laws that restrict law abiding citizen from engaging in lawful activities. My resolutions will not prevent all crimes by any stretch of the imagination but at least it's addressing the real problem and we will stop repeat offenders. Yes, it will cost more to get these heathens away from civilized people but it least it works. There are a lot more ideas that could be developed that do not trample on the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. The liberal mindset wants an easy fix but restricting weapons or certain weapons from someone that will never use them unlawfully is delusional. Removing the weapon used and not the offender is absurd. I know for a fact if someone wants another dead, if a gun is not available, they will find another way. By the way, did you know that the Columbine shooting only involved one weapon that was banned under the "Assault weapons ban of 1994. That was the semi-automatic pistol. It was only banned because it "looked scary" and not because it functioned any differently than any other semi-automatic pistol. The other weapons were not even classified as "assault weapons". They were a double barrel shotgun, a pump shotgun and a hi-point 9 mm rifle with a 10 round magazine.
Sheriff Box is an honorable man and a great county sheriff who has served us well, so I was surprised at his comments on Facebook recently. I disagreed with his comments noting that nothing in the federal proposals violate the Second Amendment. He has since softened his stance as noted above.
Asked what he would do to stem the outbreak of gun violence, Box said he would favor the enforcement of gun laws that are already on the books and “that it’s important to deal with the real problem of mental illness in this country.
Sheriff Box has a stellar reputation and need not stoop to political posturing to get re-elected.
Sheriff Box - Please explain to me how limiting high capacity magazines and enacting stricter background checks so insane people can't get their hands on guns infringes on our right to bear arms? Everyone can still have a gun. Everyone can still have 100 guns if they want. There is not a single word in the proposal (assuming you read it) that talks of taking peoples guns. Do you really want a whole county of people carrying Ak-47's?
So, using your logic, I should be able to own an RPG right? That's an arm. Mount a .50 to my Jeep, right? It's scary and somewhat tyrannical for you to decide what laws you will and won't enforce in our county, and I would say grounds for dismissal.
Stop grandstanding for future political office and do your job.
Is the this the official policy statement of the Collin County Sheriff's Department? If so, why was it posted on Terry Box's personal Facebook page?
How professional is that? How scary this is? Sheriff Box declares to the citizens of Collin County he will pick and choose the laws his department will enforce. BTW, no laws have been enacted. Talk about your knee-jerk reactions by a grand-standing politician.
On this day of days, my memory goes back to images of policemen and the governor of Alabama defiantly keeping little children from entering the school house because those officials felt the had a right to segregate society.
The Supreme Court disabused those officials of that notion.
Why don't you let the justices do their job, Sheriff Box...and you do yours?
Why does he feel he has the right to decide if something is constitutional or not he isn't a supreme court justice? His ignorance is inexcusable he has a duty to uphold the all the laws not just ones he agree's with!
How shortsighted of an elected official. To use an absolutism approach over common sense principals is more stubbornness than looking at the whole and greater good. Its a shame that a selfish view as such is being taken here. You take the views of 100 people and take this stand? What about the other thousands in Collin County? No one is taking away your 2nd Amendment rights, nor is it being proposed that they are. Speak to the survivors and families from Columbine, Ft. Hood, Virginia Tech, the mall in Oregon and most recently Sandy Hook...see if they think its a knee jerk reaction.
You wonder about the views of 100 people and then ask about the other 1000's. If you are truly keeping up with the issue you know you are very much in the minority. In fact the ratio is about 10 - 1 in favor of Sheriff Box's stance.