Itasca county taking a stand against the anti-gunners...

Firearms related political discussion forum

Itasca county taking a stand against the anti-gunners...

Postby PHATSPEED7x on Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:32 pm

Image

I'll see if I can come up with a link online confirming this...
"Amateurs train until they get it right... Professionals train until they get it wrong"
User avatar
PHATSPEED7x
 
Posts: 1002 [View]
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:21 pm

Re: Itasca county taking a stand against the anti-gunners...

Postby Hmac on Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:44 pm

Here's Sheriff Vic Williams' statement on the issue...dated Jan 27, 2013

I have been asked by many people in Itasca County what my position is on the Second Amendment.

As county sheriff, I took an oath to protect the citizens of my county and to support the Constitution of the United States of America. It is without hesitation that I stand in defense of the right of Itasca County citizens to defend their rights against threats, both foreign and domestic. The duty of county sheriff is to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens. The position of sheriff in the State of Minnesota is statutory in nature and defined by state law. This definition does not preclude the duty of the sheriff to uphold the Constitution. The sheriff is the keeper of the county, and with that obligation I must and do accept the responsibility to stand before my constituents and demand the Constitution be adhered to, and that no one be allowed to diminish the protections and all rights provided under the Constitution. The safety of all my law-abiding citizens of Itasca County, and their right to live free without being victimized, is my highest priority.

Victor J. Williams
Itasca County Sheriff
Last edited by Hmac on Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Hmac
 
Posts: 1716 [View]
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:51 am

Re: Itasca county taking a stand against the anti-gunners...

Postby sansooshooter on Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:46 pm

Thank you Sheriff ! We need more of our elected officials to stand up for our personal rights and to follow the constitution!
sansooshooter
 
Posts: 326 [View]
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:33 am
Location: north of Andover

Re: Itasca county taking a stand against the anti-gunners...

Postby Mn01r6 on Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:51 pm

I am going to say that document is fake. Maybe the Sheriff made it, but IMHO he is overstepping his (and the county's) authority if he thinks they have the authority to do half of what is in there.

My hope is that this is a false flag operation...
User avatar
Mn01r6
 
Posts: 1197 [View]
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:01 pm
Location: Playing Devil's Advocate

Re: Itasca county taking a stand against the anti-gunners...

Postby Hmac on Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:03 pm

I'm not aware of what other Sheriffs' positions on this issue. I guess I'd be curious to know the position of the Aitkin County Sheriff and the Crow Wing County Sheriff.

As the copy of the resolution posted above, I'm not sure of its validity. I can't find any mention of any such resolution in the Itasca County Board minutes going back to mid-December 2012.
User avatar
Hmac
 
Posts: 1716 [View]
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:51 am

Re: Itasca county taking a stand against the anti-gunners...

Postby BemidjiDweller on Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:01 pm

I'm going to hold of on getting excited and planning a move to Itasca county until this can be validated/invalidated(?).
Remember the Battle of Athens.

In the entire history of the Mosin Nagant there have only been four documented cases when anyone has actually used the safety.
True story
-Apple a Day on THR
User avatar
BemidjiDweller
 
Posts: 764 [View]
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:26 am

Re: Itasca county taking a stand against the anti-gunners...

Postby greenfarmer on Mon Feb 18, 2013 6:07 pm

Mn01r6 wrote:I am going to say that document is fake. Maybe the Sheriff made it, but IMHO he is overstepping his (and the county's) authority if he thinks they have the authority to do half of what is in there.

My hope is that this is a false flag operation...



I have to say this is the second time i have heard of this, but here's something interesting to read. The sheriff of said county actually has more power than President Obama...

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/09/21 ... cy-clause/

Read that link. It's very interesting! I had no idea, but after doing some searches, and hearing what our sheriff has to say about this, and now the sheriff from Itasca county, i'm actually surprised that the sheriff is higher up the food chain that Obama himself!
greenfarmer
 
Posts: 252 [View]
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:43 am
Location: kinda by the SW Metro, but a little further out in the sticks.

Re: Itasca county taking a stand against the anti-gunners...

Postby gjohnson80 on Mon Feb 18, 2013 6:38 pm

I have in an email to Sheriff Williams (I'm in Itasca county) to see if he can confirm this resolution or not. I'll post my findings....
gjohnson80
 
Posts: 10 [View]
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:16 pm
Location: Grand Rapids MN

Re: Itasca county taking a stand against the anti-gunners...

Postby gjohnson80 on Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:06 pm

Just got a reply from Vic and he says he did not draft this document and is not sure of its origin. Very disappointing that someone felt the need to make this up.
gjohnson80
 
Posts: 10 [View]
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:16 pm
Location: Grand Rapids MN

Re: Itasca county taking a stand against the anti-gunners...

Postby gjohnson80 on Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:29 pm

Hmac wrote:Here's Sheriff Vic Williams' statement on the issue...dated Jan 27, 2013

I have been asked by many people in Itasca County what my position is on the Second Amendment.

As county sheriff, I took an oath to protect the citizens of my county and to support the Constitution of the United States of America. It is without hesitation that I stand in defense of the right of Itasca County citizens to defend their rights against threats, both foreign and domestic. The duty of county sheriff is to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens. The position of sheriff in the State of Minnesota is statutory in nature and defined by state law. This definition does not preclude the duty of the sheriff to uphold the Constitution. The sheriff is the keeper of the county, and with that obligation I must and do accept the responsibility to stand before my constituents and demand the Constitution be adhered to, and that no one be allowed to diminish the protections and all rights provided under the Constitution. The safety of all my law-abiding citizens of Itasca County, and their right to live free without being victimized, is my highest priority.

Victor J. Williams
Itasca County Sheriff


Where did you get this qoute?
gjohnson80
 
Posts: 10 [View]
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:16 pm
Location: Grand Rapids MN

Re: Itasca county taking a stand against the anti-gunners...

Postby PHATSPEED7x on Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:54 pm

I got this print out from a local gun retailer. It sounded a little fishy without anything in the news or being able to find anything on the website, or internet in general.

Also just found out Colorado passed gun control bill. Looks like Magpul will be moving outta state. God I hope MN doesn't become the next gun control state. I will relocate if that happens...
"Amateurs train until they get it right... Professionals train until they get it wrong"
User avatar
PHATSPEED7x
 
Posts: 1002 [View]
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:21 pm

Re: Itasca county taking a stand against the anti-gunners...

Postby greenfarmer on Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:00 pm

PHATSPEED7x wrote:
Also just found out Colorado passed gun control bill. Looks like Magpul will be moving outta state. God I hope MN doesn't become the next gun control state. I will relocate if that happens...


That could really actually help us. If other states see that big businesses like Magpul will leave their state if they pass bans, that could help our cause. Look, DPMS does somewhere around 30+million in taxes i thought i heard. That's alot! You take some of these big companies and they close up or relocate, where is our state going to come up with that extra money? From us probably. But eventually they will see what kind of an economic effect that's going to have. Hopefully that's something that will bring this state to it's senses, and realize we don't need to ban guns, just stop nut jobs from getting them.
greenfarmer
 
Posts: 252 [View]
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:43 am
Location: kinda by the SW Metro, but a little further out in the sticks.

Re: Itasca county taking a stand against the anti-gunners...

Postby gjohnson80 on Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:04 pm

the colorado bills still have to get through the senate..
gjohnson80
 
Posts: 10 [View]
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:16 pm
Location: Grand Rapids MN

Re: Itasca county taking a stand against the anti-gunners...

Postby St. Olaf on Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:35 pm

There are four bills--some may pass the Colorado Senate.....some may not.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ ... ut-limited
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who didn't.
User avatar
St. Olaf
 
Posts: 420 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:08 pm
Location: The Woods

Re: Itasca county taking a stand against the anti-gunners...

Postby damian_mb on Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:44 am

greenfarmer wrote:
Mn01r6 wrote:I am going to say that document is fake. Maybe the Sheriff made it, but IMHO he is overstepping his (and the county's) authority if he thinks they have the authority to do half of what is in there.

My hope is that this is a false flag operation...



I have to say this is the second time i have heard of this, but here's something interesting to read. The sheriff of said county actually has more power than President Obama...

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/09/21 ... cy-clause/

Read that link. It's very interesting! I had no idea, but after doing some searches, and hearing what our sheriff has to say about this, and now the sheriff from Itasca county, i'm actually surprised that the sheriff is higher up the food chain that Obama himself!


I don't think they are above him but rather they don't have to follow through with unconstitutional laws that are passed. They are above the laws locally and due to that they can stop feds from comming in to enforce unconstitutional laws. If the law was constitutional, the sherrif's can't deny the feds is what I understand. I could be wrong but so far what is being proposed from the guy , it's unconstituational so they are not required to enforce it.
"It can never happen in Amurika"
damian_mb
 
Posts: 243 [View]
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:47 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Next

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests