Based on current rap heard around Idaho County, a more appropriate topic/question to ask a sheriff candidate (other than comments or questions about sheriff’s office personnel issues) would be: So, where do you stand with respect to protecting our God-given and constitutional rights, and what evidence of pertinent past “taking a stand” activity can you reference? “Taking a stand,” as in actively participating (in person) in the politics of hot button political issues - defensively and offensively. Offensively, as in, before what we’re seeing take place in Virginia, shows up here in Idaho County.

Remember, the last line of defense and first line of offense against the left’s push for gun confiscation is the sheriff. We currently appreciate the benefit of a constitutional sheriff and continuing with that benefit is critical.

Ray Bowers

Elk City

Recommended for you

(1) comment

Gene Ralno

We’re witnessing a sea change in the sanctuary movement. I've always understood that these partisan laws could be defeated by simply denying assistance to federal or state law enforcement. Clearly, federal and state resources alone are woefully inadequate to enforce such things as red flag or magazine violations. Clearly too, they could not begin to undertake such an effort without local law enforcement assistance.

If deputizing thousands in Culpeper County, Virginia, to physically resist federal and state law enforcement, is representative of the whole movement, it’s a soft rebellion against one issue which could rapidly expand. I'd estimate that almost 70 percent of the counties in the U.S. will endorse 2nd Amendment Sanctuary principles. If that materializes, federal and state enforcement initially would avoid the peaceful counties and concentrate on the 63 counties where the vast majority of criminal activity occurs.

And if they wiped out most of the gang members, mobs and serious felons, the democrats might just shut up about this issue. Or they might be emboldened to go after the peaceable, lawful counties that have virtually no murders and very little crime. Armed confrontations between local law enforcement and federal-state enforcers could easily flare and if new deputies are thrown into the mix, I'd put my money on the local forces even if half are untrained amateurs.

And any governor tempted to oppress a sheriff should pay heed to the words of President James Madison. He said, “…local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” (Federalist 39)

“There is no lawful authority for judges or a court to direct the law enforcement activities of a county sheriff. He’s not a part of the judiciary, and holds executive power and can set up a court, empanel a jury, and form a militia or posse to protect the rights of those he represents.”

In other words, county sheriffs have the constitutional authority and duty to protect the citizens, by force if necessary, even if it means authorizing a militia.

eventually, states with few representatives will realize they have hundreds of allies in the counties dominated by big city career politicians in other states. If the democrats really want a war, they should consider who controls what.

States with few electors, combined with sparsely populated counties in states with many electors, control all the food and water, wood products, oil and gas, wind turbines, hydroelectric power, minerals, highways, bridges, utility easements, access to most of the lakes, national and state parks, most natural resources and countless other life sustaining necessities.

They’re much more likely to be armed and far less likely to surrender to the likes of any government official. They’re also more willing and able to survive deprivation of food, water, fuel and power. Perhaps most importantly, they have sheriffs who control vast expanses of land and access to it. All these people are far more willing to fight for the constitutional republic rather than surrendering to democrat domination.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.