Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Oklahoma Sheriffs Visiting State Capitol Ordered to Disarm

This from "The Blaze" (Source Article)

Wagoner County Sheriff Bob Colbert traveled to Oklahoma City, the state’s capitol, earlier this week with 40 other sheriffs from around the state like they do every year — to meet with politicians and lobby.

Everything was going fine in the state capitol building on Tuesday. More than that, “everybody in that building knew who we were,” Colbert told KTUL-TV in Tulsa.

“One of the senators, who they wouldn’t tell us, complained because we were armed in the building,” Colbert added to the station.

Then he said the sheriffs were given a choice — disarm or leave.

“So we all packed up and left,” Colbert told KTUL.

Colbert said he doesn’t know which senator complained, but he has his own beefs about the treatment he and his associates received.

“We’re the people that protect these people,” he told KTUL.

In addition, Colbert said politicians should be more concerned about improving state business than law enforcement officers who happen to be carrying guns.

“If the state troopers are satisfied that we’re OK in that building,” he told KTUL, “I’m pretty sure that the legislators should have something else to worry about such as the economy or something.”

While Colbert acknowledged that some lawmakers have called to apologize about the incident, the insult will be felt for a while.

“Pretty sad day for me,” he told KTUL.

BizPac Review noted that a different account of the incident was reported in The Oklahoman, a paper which serves Oklahoma City.

When the sheriffs entered the Senate gallery, “the sergeant at arms asked the sheriffs to take off their guns or leave the building,” the Oklahoman said. “But a state Senate official says the sheriffs were only questioned briefly before being allowed back into the Senate gallery, still wearing their service weapons.”
I have a couple of comments on this:

  1. Sheriff Colbert, I hope this opens your eyes to the state of things for millions of law-abiding gun owners every day who are forced, under penalty of law, to disarm themselves before going into places like churches, restaurants, government offices, post offices, and yes, even State Capitol buildings, because the presence of that gun on their hip is somehow "threatening", even though no one can see it.  
  2. Sheriff Colbert also needs to educate himself about the legalities of his statement "we're the people who protect these people".  In fact Sheriff, the Supreme Court has ruled this is not true, and you have no legal duty to protect anyone. (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, DeShaney v. Winnebago County). You may have one in your own ethos, but that is not a legal matter.
  3. Someone needs to out the Senator who complained.  I suggest looking for the one who has a package of adult diapers in their office.

2 comments:

Will said...

Actually, you were wrong in saying that they have no duty to protect those politicos. That is their first duty. Everything else comes second to that. Protecting the political class has always been the primary job of the police types, throughout history. It may or may not be ink on paper, but woe to any badge holders that ignore it. That would be one of the fastest way to join the ranks of the unemployed.

Scott said...

Will,

First - you did notice that I cited two Supreme Court cases that contradict your statement, right? You did also notice my statement about the sheriff's personal ethos overriding those cases, right? I think that covers your contention.

Second - your view of "police types" is rather narrow, and indeed the content of the article and the comments of the sheriff would tend to contradict your assertion. There are all kinds of "police types" in this world, just like there are all kinds of "other types" in this world. Many of these "other types" would be fired for publicly disobeying their boss, just as your hypothetical "police type" would be for disobeying his boss, so your point is meaningless, as it applies to everyone.

Lastly - thank you for reading my blog. It's nice to know that sometimes people do so, although in your case, it is six months after I made the post. Still, better late than never.