Reply from Sarpy County Sheriff

[Lmbass14]

Here is the reply that was received when asked if they supported the 2A and conceal carry.  I used Husker1fanzz letter as a template.  Thank you Husker1.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Jones <mjones@sarpy.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:13 AM
Subject: RE: Sheriff of Sarpy County - Jeff Davis
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


The elected Sheriff is recognized throughout the United States as the chief local law enforcement officer and is directly accountable to the people through the electoral process. All sheriffs take an oath of office to enforce and defend the United States Constitution and state constitution and laws. A primary mission of sheriff is to ensure public safety; and gun safety is vitally important to our nation’s public health.
 
The cause of violence, including gun violence, must be addressed on many fronts, including improved mental health treatment, media violence, drugs, gangs, breakdown of the family, strengthening laws that prevent or reduce the access of legally prohibited persons to firearms and vigorous enforcement of existing laws.
 
The National Sheriffs’ Association represents the interests of all sheriffs who are sworn to support and defend the United States Constitution. The sheriffs strongly support our citizens’ protected right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. The National Sheriffs’ Association does not support any laws that deprive any citizen of the rights provided under the Constitution and Bill of Rights; and the doctrine of judicial review grants to the United States Supreme Court and the lower courts the power to determine the constitutionality of any law and sheriffs do not possess the legal authority to interpret the constitutionality of any law.
 
As the Sheriff of Sarpy County, I support the rights conferred by the Second Amendment and further recognizes the ultimate authority of the courts in interpreting the scope of those constitutional rights.
 
Best Regards,
 
JL Davis

[NENick]

" further recognizes the ultimate authority of the courts in interpreting the scope of those constitutional rights."

Does that mean if the court decides that we only get snappers and sparklers, he's cool with it?

[OnTheFly]

" further recognizes the ultimate authority of the courts in interpreting the scope of those constitutional rights."

Does that mean if the court decides that we only get snappers and sparklers, he's cool with it?

Yep!

Fly

[on the fritz]

" further recognizes the ultimate authority of the courts in interpreting the scope of those constitutional rights."

Does that mean if the court decides that we only get snappers and sparklers, he's cool with it?

Exactly;... he is trying to play both sides. 

[thirtydaZe]

and gun safety is vitally important to our nation’s public health.

[DanClrk51]

and the doctrine of judicial review grants to the United States Supreme Court and the lower courts the power to determine the constitutionality of any law and sheriffs do not possess the legal authority to interpret the constitutionality of any law.

This is especially troubling to me. Wasn't it the Supreme Court that came up with that doctrine? The US Supreme Court basically granted itself the ultimate authority to rule on what the constitution means even though this authority is not spelled out in the constitution. The US Supreme Court DOES NOT have final say on what the constitution states....it is We the People who have final say.

[Lmbass14]

This is especially troubling to me. Wasn't it the Supreme Court that came up with that doctrine? The US Supreme Court basically granted itself the ultimate authority to rule on what the constitution means even though this authority is not spelled out in the constitution. The US Supreme Court DOES NOT have final say on what the constitution states....it is We the People who have final say.

Yes, this bothered me also, plus didn't like the tone of the answer.  Just wanted other people thoughts on this issue.