Thursday, January 17, 2013

Benzie County Michigan Sheriff Ted Schendel Draws the Line

Local news reports



I suppose this means the Sheriff was OK with the restrictions on automatic weapons and grenade launchers and stinger missiles, you know, the other weapons that individual soldiers use and carry but have long been considered taboo for civilians.

I wonder if Sheriff Ted's office is an elected one?  What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

15 comments:

  1. And if he allowed people to carry those? Then what he keeps his oath, then you label him a danger how about you keep your nose out of my rights.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Treason has ceased to be a Capital offence in the State of Michigan since 1963. The Sheriff in question cannot however expect such leniency from the Federal Government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd have to double check but I believe the Supreme Court has held that neither a state nor its agents can be compelled to enforce Federal law.

      Delete
  3. Mikeb, why are you so resistant to knowledge? I've explained to you time and again that "arms" as written in the Second Amendment doesn't refer to the kinds of weapons that you named. But you and your fellow gun control freaks keep trotting that line out.

    This sheriff is doing his duty. There will be many more like him. Keep pressing this radical plan of yours, and things will only get worse before they get better.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Grenades, missiles, landmines, bombs, artillery are all "ordnance" and are offensive weapons ... although some of them could expressly be used defensively as well. Our Second Amendment addresses the individual right of citizens to own arms, not ordnance.

    So yes, citizens have the inherent right to own any firearm of their choosing for self defense against any aggressor. And the Sheriff of Benzie County recognizes that inherent right. It isn't rocket science in spite of what Laci claims. Many Sheriffs and States understand the Second Amendment and are applying it exactly as the Framers intended.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's equivocating semantic bullshit, arms and ordnance. Fully automatic weapons are restricted in spite of your "shall not be infringed" cry, and they're not ordnance. Isn't that right. The sheriff is OK with that. If the law of the land were to determine that AR-15s are also restricted, that's that and almost all the tough talking gun-rights fanatics would get in line with everybody else.

      Delete
    2. Clarity in language isn't equivocating semantic bullshit. It's clear thinking, something that your side can't stand. You have a weak case here, arguing that we can have more infringements because we already have some infringements. Your goal is to remove all guns from private ownership, while ours to to remove all infringements. There will be no compromises, only ground gained and lost by one side or the other. It's nothing less than war--how hot is up to you.

      Delete
    3. No Mike, it's not semantic bullshit. Words are symbols with which we communicate. The definitions of these symbols provide meaning without which there is no communication. During all my time in the military (20+ years) there was a recognized distinction between the two.

      Delete
    4. Mike,

      Congratulations on pointing out the Sheriff's inconsistency. Maybe he can be convinced that he is being inconsistent, and stop enforcing the laws restricting machine guns.



      In all seriousness, Mike, You keep pointing to infringements as part of an argument, which you do not clearly state, that seems to go along the lines of, "We get to restrict your right in this way, so we can restrict it any way we see fit."

      Then, when one of us tries to propose a framework for the reasonable restrictions that draws the line more liberally than you would like to, you call it "equivocating semantic bullshit."

      Delete
    5. No, my "equivocating semantic bullshit" was specifically about making a bid deal of the difference between arms and ordnance. It was not in response to a framework of reasonable restrictions.

      The infringements thing simply points out that 2A literalists are not thinking. There have always been restrictions, as is right. It's not "the way we see fit," it's what's best for the country.

      Delete
    6. Greg: " You have a weak case here, arguing that we can have more infringements because we already have some infringements."

      I'm not saying that at all. I don't believe we need more infringements BECAUSE we already have some. You need to be more precise, man. I'm saying the suggestion "shall not be infringed" is worthless, always has been. We need more infringements because that's what's best for the country.

      Delete
    7. Mike,

      The Amendment says "shall not be infringed." This is not a suggestion--or if it is, then "Congress shall make no law" is a suggestion in the First.

      The Alien and Sedition acts were a violation of the First, and does not give us the right to pass such a law now. The same is true of any historic infringements of the Second Amendment.

      That being said, are there limits to the First Amendment? Yes, but they have been built into a framework of what is protected speech and what is unprotected. Any weapons restrictions need to be built into a similar framework of what are protected arms and what are unprotected.

      The attempt at differentiating between small arms and ordinance was an issue of trying to set up such a framework, hence my comment. The attempt to draw this line shows that the guys proposing this delineation were thinking, contrary to your assertion. They were not lawyers and were not setting it up as an attorney would set up an argument on the issue, but they were approaching the issue correctly.

      If you want to restrict "Assault Weapons," you need to be able to show why they fall outside the realm of protected weapons. When you admit that you want to infringe the right to keep and bear arms, you shoot yourself in the foot Constitutionally. So long as you present your proposals as infringements, and say things like "We need more infringements," don't be surprised if we keep saying "shall not be infringed" and "hell no."

      Delete
    8. Tennesseean, the problem here is that we're textualists--New Critics, in literary terms--whereas Mikeb and his kind are deconstructionists. To a deconstructionist, the point isn't to explain what the text means. The point is to make oneself look smart and push an agenda.

      Delete
  5. Actually, the High Sheriff has the ultimate authority in his jurisdiction. He may, at his discretion, make federal and state officers leave his area of responsibility.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually full auto weapons require a $200 tax stamp and restrictions not much more stringent than required to own a handgun in the State of Michigan.

    ReplyDelete