Archive for the ‘Sheriff’s First’ Category

New legislation would fire sheriffs who disobey federal gun restrictions

March 28, 2013 5 comments

Move over – there might be a new sheriff in town if you don’t go along with federal gun control mandates, says new state legislation. The 380 sheriffs who have vowed to defend the constitutional right to bear arms may now be at risk to lose their jobs.

Many state legislatures are now pushing to passing measures that would remove any sheriff found defying federal law.

In the Texas state legislature, Dallas Democratic Representative Yvonne Davis introduced a measure that would fire any aw enforcement officer who disobeys state or federal orders.

And it gets worse………..



Yvone Davis. This fat, fascist bitch needs her Mickey D’s yanked out of her paws.

Colorado Sheriff Refuses To Enforce Gun-Control Bills

March 18, 2013 1 comment

TWG: Very good.  Each and every thinking citizen should be talking with their Sheriff in order to find out where they stand on these unconstitutional and unenforceable infringements.  Thank God we still have a few good one’s wearing the badges.   Talk with your Sheriff’s.  Ask them if they intend to uphold the Oath they took when they accepted their badges.


  • Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, center, backed by a group of fellow sheriffs, testifies against proposed gun control legislation in the Colorado Legislature, at the State Capitol, in Denver, Monday March 4, 2013. State Senate committees began work Monday on a package of gun-control measures that already have cleared the House which include limits on ammunition magazine sizes and expanded background checks to include private sales and online purchases. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)

    Associated Press/Brennan Linsley – Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, center, backed by a group of fellow sheriffs, testifies against proposed gun control legislation in the Colorado Legislature, at the State …more 

GREELEY, Colo. (AP) — A Colorado sheriff says he won’t enforce two aggressive gun-control measures waiting to be signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper.

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke told The Greeley Tribune ( ) that Democratic lawmakers are scrambling after recent mass shootings, and the bills are “feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable.”

One bill expands background checks on firearm purchases, and the other limits ammunition magazines to 15 rounds. The 15-round magazine limit would make Colorado the first state outside the East Coast to ratchet back gun rights after last year’s shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn.

Colorado’s gun-control debates have been closely watched because of the state’s gun-loving frontier heritage and painful history of mass shootings, most recently last summer’s movie theater shooting that killed 12.

The sheriff said he “won’t bother enforcing” the laws because it would be impossible for officers to keep track of how the requirements are being met by gun owners — and he and other sheriffs are considering suing the state to block the measures if they are signed into law.

Cooke said the bill passed Friday requiring a $10 background check to legally transfer a gun wouldn’t keep firearms out of the hands of those who use them for violence.

“Criminals are still going to get their guns,” he said.

The sheriff’s office did not immediately return calls left by The Associated Press.

The magazine-limit bill passed earlier in the week will technically ban all magazines because of a provision that outlaws any magazine that can be altered, he said, adding that all magazines can be altered to a higher capacity.

Expanded checks have been a top priority for Hickenlooper, who called for the proposal during his State of the State address in January.

Cooke oversees law enforcement in Colorado’s third-largest county by area. His jurisdiction includes its largest city, Greeley, and large swaths of farmland and areas of oil and gas production.





February 24, 2013 2 comments

By a vote of 20-0, a bill that bans cooperation with federal agents over the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has just passed the Montana House Judiciary Committee. Known as HB 522, the bill would also require the state’s attorney general to report any attempts by federal officials who try to enforce the NDAA. HB 522 is now one step closer to becoming law.


American sheriffs unite to defy Obama’s gun grabbing laws

February 19, 2013 Leave a comment

, Law Enforcement Examiner

Jim Kouri, CPP, the fifth Vice President and Public Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.


Joining a growing number of the nation’s law enforcement officials refusing to partake in unconstitutional actions ordered by the federal government, the sheriff of Linn County, Ore., sent a preemptive letter to Vice President Joe Biden on Sunday stating he is prepared to refuse to enforce federal regulations “offending the constitutional rights of [Linn County] citizens.”


According to his letter to Biden, Sheriff Tim Mueller will also prohibit his department’s “enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers” within his jurisdiction.

Several states have passed laws preventing local law enforcement officers from enforcing unconstitutional laws such as federal gun-control laws including Utah, South Dakota, Tennessee, Idaho and others. Recently Kentucky and Wyoming introduced similar legislation….


[TWG NOTE:  Montana has also introduced “Sheriffs First” legislation.  On Friday, the measure cleared the Legislature’s House Judiciary Committee and is now headed to the House floor.   You can learn more about the Sheriff’s First efforts here:   and about Sheriff Mack’s “County Sheriff Project” here:



Montana Closer To Declaring Sheriffs Supreme

February 16, 2013 2 comments

TWG: You can learn more about “Sheriff’s First” efforts here:


Montana moved a step closer Friday to declaring that local sheriffs are the supreme law of the land and trying to nullify any federal crackdown on assault rifles.

The measures were among a slate of gun rights bills that cleared the Legislature’s House Judiciary Committee and now head to the House floor.

Other measures that advanced would let college students bring guns on campus, allow high school students to leave guns locked in their cars, and clear the way for nearly anyone to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

Several of the bills met with staunch opposition from Democrats.

The so-called “sheriffs first” bill says federal agents must get a sheriff’s permission before making arrests or serving warrants — or risk local kidnapping or trespassing charges.

If the bill clears the Republican-controlled House and Senate, it would go directly to voters in 2014. The direct referendum would avoid the potential veto pen of Gov. Steve Bullock, a Democrat.

Supporters said it is a necessary check on the power of federal law enforcement agencies,

The measure was opposed earlier in the week at a hearing by local law enforcement agencies, and critics have said such a measure most certainly would face a legal challenge.

Opponents, led by Democrats, warned it would threaten the effectiveness of cooperative task forces tracking violent crime and drugs.

“To call the sheriffs in our state the supreme law of the land, I find that absurd,” said Rep. Ellie Hill, D-Missoula. “What is the message we are sending to Montana and the rest of the nation?”

Another bill that cleared committee would bar police from enforcing any federal bans on assault rifles or high-capacity clips. Supporters said it’s necessary to protect gun rights in Montana.

Opponents, who called it an extreme piece of legislation, argued the bill also violates the U.S. Constitution granting the federal government supremacy in such matters.

The panel also advanced a measure allowing the use of silencers while hunting big game, and removing the potential penalty of disturbing the peace for the discharge of a firearm.

Below is a letter from Gary Marbut, Founder and President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, dated January 8, 2013, which lists bills introduced and an explanation of each bill. 
Dear MSSA Friends,

The Montana 2013 legislative Session if fast approaching, and once again
MSSA has an aggressive agenda of pro-gun and pro-hunting bills to
introduce and get passed.


The items on MSSA’s Legislative Agenda are pasted below. Please study
them so you are familiar with them. Please redistribute this email to
all your pro-gun friends.

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
author, Gun Laws of Montana



1. Harmonizing concealed weapon permit (CWP) requirements. Since 1991, a
CWP has not been required for a law-abiding person to carry a concealed
weapon in 99.4% of Montana – outside the limits of cities or towns. With
over a decade of experience that not requiring CWPs for nearly all of
Montana has not created any problems, we propose a bill to harmonize the
law so a permit will no longer be required for a law abiding person to
carry a concealed weapon in the remaining small part of Montana, inside
cities and towns. We intend to leave the permitting process in place, so
citizens who desire them may still obtain CWPs for travel to other
states that recognize Montana CWPs, and for firearm purchases at gun
stores under the federal Brady Law. This change would exclude criminals
from applicability – it would still be illegal for criminals to carry
concealed weapons. It would also close a dump truck-sized loophole in
existing law that allows people to carry firearms openly in the
“prohibited places” of bars, banks and public buildings, but would
exempt law enforcement personnel and actual CWP-holders from “prohibited
places” restrictions.

2. Smokeless powder and primer production. There is a serious threat to
our right to bear arms because of narrow, monolithic and
federally-controlled manufacture of essential ammunition components,
smokeless powder (propellant), primers and cartridge brass. For example,
there are only two manufacturers of smokeless powder in the U.S., one
plant owned by defense contractor General Dynamics and another owned by
defense contractor Alliant Systems (ATK). All other smokeless powder
used in the U.S. is imported, and subject to immediate and arbitrary
import restrictions. And, General Dynamics and Alliant Systems are
subject to a standard condition of military contracts that 100% of their
production may be commandeered for military use at any time. Without
ammunition, our firearms and our right to bear ammunition are worth
nothing. We propose certain incentives to encourage small-scale
production of ammunition components in Montana. That model includes
offering liability protection to future producers, providing that such
producers qualify for existing state assistance with financing, and will
include a 20-year tax amnesty from start of business, which would give
up zero current tax income to the state but would provide jobs for Montana.

3. Shooting range funding. Montana began using some hunter license money
to make matching grants to develop shooting ranges in 1989. The program
to build safe and suitable places for Montana people to shoot was put
into state law in 1999, as the Shooting Range Development Program
(SRDP). The funds for this program are approved each legislative session
in the appropriations process for the Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks budget. There are no general tax revenues used for this program,
only the money hunters pay for licenses. The 2007 Legislature
appropriated $1,000,000 for the SRDP. $600,000 was appropriated in 2009,
and about $650,000 in 2011. We ask that $1,000,000 be appropriated to
the SRDP in the 2013 legislative session, regardless of any FWP
opposition to that level of funding.

4. Overreaction to firearms locked in student vehicles in school parking
lots. An underreported tragedy in Montana is the number of students who
have been disciplined, many expelled, for forgetting that their hunting
rifle was locked in their vehicle, usually from a weekend hunt. When
such a condition occurs in a school parking lot, ill-informed
administrators universally tell reviewing school boards that they have
no choice but to expel offending students because of compelling federal
law. However, unknown to these poorly-informed (or perhaps over-paid)
administrators, federal law on the subject specifically excludes from
consideration any firearm locked in a vehicle in a school parking lot.
About 450 Montana high school students have been expelled, and had their
academic aspirations ruined for life, over this issue. We propose a bill
to clarify for uninformed administrators and misinformed school boards
that firearms locked in a student vehicle does not mandate expulsion.
This bill would NOT deprive school boards of tools to deal with genuine
safety problems, but would clarify that firearms locked in vehicles do
NOT MANDATE student expulsion.

5. Allow safe travel to work and employee property right inside private
vehicles. Employees have a property right to what they choose to carry
in their vehicles, whether Bibles, newspapers, or firearms. Employees
also have a constitutional right to be equipped to provide for their own
personal protection when traveling to and from work. However, many
private employers have made it a termination offense for an employee to
have a firearm locked in the employee’s vehicle if that vehicle is
parked in a company parking lot. Such employers assume no responsibility
for employee safety during travel to and from work. We propose that
employers be prohibited from firing employees only because that employee
has a firearm locked in a privately owned vehicle in a company parking
lot. This bill would require that any such firearms also be out of sight
from outside the vehicle.

6. Self defense legal costs. A few prosecutors use the tactic of
“throwing the book” at persons accused in order to make legal defense
costs so unaffordable that the accused has no choice but to plead guilty
to some prosecutor-approved charges. We propose that, in cases where
self defense is alleged, prosecutors must pay the legal defense costs
associated with any charges that are dropped, dismissed, or for which
the accused is found not guilty.

7. Disorderly conduct – fixing bad law. The existing disorderly conduct
statute in Montana is badly written because it makes it a potential
crime for a person to discharge a firearm, except at an established
shooting range. While inappropriate prosecutions under this existing law
have not been a problem in Montana, it is susceptible to abuse and
should be repaired. Besides, a person could lose their constitutional
right to keep and bear arms for life if convicted of this perceived “gun
crime.” This bill would simply strike the offense of firing firearms
from the disorderly conduct statute.

8. Sheriffs First – Law Enforcement Cooperation. Many Montanans, both
citizens and people in public office, are concerned about the lack of
accountability of federal officers conducting law enforcement operations
in Montana. In Montana, we know the county sheriff and he is elected and
accountable locally. We believe the sheriff is the chief law enforcement
officer in the county, and ought to have the tools to implement that
status. MSSA will offer a bill to require federal officers to obtain the
written permission of the local sheriff before conducting an arrest,
search, or seizure in the sheriff’s county. There are exceptions for
federal reservations, Border Patrol, Immigration and Naturalization
Service, close pursuit, when a federal officer witnesses a crime that
requires an immediate response, if the sheriff or his personnel are
under investigation, and other necessary exceptions. This bill was
passed by the Legislature in 1995, but was vetoed by the Governor.

[TWG: Here’s a document written by Mr. Marbut which addresses the “Accusations” with very succinct “Answers” regarding the  Sheriff’s First Legislation:
You can learn more about “Sheriff’s First” efforts here:

9. When police may take firearms and how long they may keep them. There
are no clear directions to law enforcement in current Montana law about
under what circumstances law enforcement officers may disarm citizens,
and how long they may keep guns taken. This leaves it up to the
discretion of individual officers to make this call. A few officers
abuse this discretion by insisting on disarming every armed citizen they
encounter – treating citizens like criminals. The right to bear arms the
people have reserved to themselves at Article II, Section 12 of the
Montana Constitution does NOT say “except when in the presence of a law
enforcement officer.” Rather, the Constitution says the right to bear
arms “shall not be called into question …” We propose legislation to
establish some clear but workable rules for under what circumstances and
for how long law enforcement officers may disarm citizens.

10. University system gun bans. The people of Montana have reserved from
government interference the right to keep or bear arms in the Montana
Constitution. The Montana university system is a government entity. The
Montana Constitution gives the Board of Regents broad authority to
manage the affairs of the U. system, but it gives the Board NO authority
whatsoever to suspend, amend or abolish the Constitution and the rights
the people have reserved to themselves from government interference. We
propose a bill that withdraws all authority from the Board of Regents to
restrict firearms on U. system campuses, and then gives back to the U.
system narrowly-tailored authority to adopt certain restrictions that
are sensible and also defensible under recent federal (Heller and
McDonald) and state (Colorado, Oregon and Utah) court cases.

11. Suppressors illegal for poaching. Firearm suppressors do not
“silence” firearms, but suppress somewhat the noise of the muzzle blast.
They do nothing to attenuate the loud crack of the sonic boom as a
bullet breaks the sound barrier all along its flight path. Currently,
firearm suppressors are illegal for hunting. FWP argues this is
necessary for them to be able to catch criminals who poach. We propose a
bill to make use of suppressors illegal for poaching only, but not for
general hunting. Some argue that use of suppressors for hunting is not
“fair chase,” because the hunted animal would not hear the muzzle blast
from a hunter’s rifle. This argument ignores physics – that a rifle
bullet arrives before the sound of the muzzle blast because the bullet
flies faster than the speed of sound. It ignores that a missed shot will
startle the game animal with the nearby sonic boom before any sound of
muzzle blast arrives. Finally, it ignores the common acceptance of “fair
chase” hunting with absolutely silent arrows during archery season.

12. Controlling wolves. Federally-fostered wolves have become a serious
problem in Montana. They are decimating Montana’s valuable herds of
huntable game, killing or impacting an unacceptable amount of livestock
in Montana’s already stressed agricultural community, and are carrying
diseases that may cause serious human and livestock health problems. We
propose again a bill for Montana to take a much more aggressive posture
in managing and controlling wolves.

13. Revise fish and game enforcement laws. Montana game laws are very
different in their application and enforcement than similar criminal
laws in Montana. We propose to adjust Montana fish and game laws so they
conform generally to the standards applied in all other criminal matters
in Montana.

14. Concealed weapon permit list private. Montana people have reserved
the right to privacy to themselves in the Montana Constitution.
Notwithstanding this restriction, the Montana Department of Justice has
been releasing the names of about 30,000 Montanans who hold or have held
concealed weapon permits. This release includes to the Billings Gazette,
and others. In other states, newspapers have published such lists,
making CWP-holders’ residences focused targets for burglars seeking guns
for crime. We propose a bill to prevent release of CWP-holder names
except for law enforcement purposes.

15. No shooting range property tax. The Deer Creek Shooting Center
recently had its property tax bill increase from $246 to over $7,000 in
one year, which is being assessed retroactively for two more years. MSSA
will see introduced a bill to flat exempt all active shooting ranges
from property taxes.

16. Prohibiting enforcement of new federal gun control. Since the school
shooting in Connecticut, Senator Diane Feinstein has promised to
introduce federal legislation to reassert the 1994 federal “assault
weapons” ban, to cause semi-auto firearms to be classified as machine
guns under the National Firearms Act, to require registration and
licensing of most gun owners, and much more. MSSA’s bill in response to
this will prohibit all state and local authorities from enforcing or
aiding in enforcing any such new federal gun control.

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
Author, Gun Laws of Montana

Montana Sheriffs Weigh In On Gun Debate

January 27, 2013 2 comments

Cascade County Sheriff weighs in on gun debate

Posted: Jan 27, 2013 8:42 AM by MTN News

President Obama on Wednesday laid out a comprehensive package for reducing gun violence in America, a multi-part plan he says will not only “help prevent mass shootings” but also to “reduce the broader epidemic of gun violence in this country.”

Among the initiatives outlined in Mr. Obama’s plan include universal background checks for gun sales, the reinstatement and strengthening of the assault weapons ban, capping ammunition magazines to a 10-round limit, banning armor-piercing ammunition, providing schools with resource officers and school counselors, putting more police officers on the streets, creating serious punishments for gun trafficking, and ensuring that health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.

Several Sheriffs in Montana have reacted to the proposed new guidelines.

Sanders County Sheriff Tom Rummel sent a letter to county residents on Monday outlining his position. In the letter, Rummel said he wanted to clear up any doubts about his stance on gun control and the Constitution. He said that our right to self defense is first and foremost “God given,” and that this right is protected in both the U.S. and Montana Constutions.

He ended the letter by saying that he and his deputies will not enforce any federal regulations enacted by Congress or Executive orders of the President circumventing the rights of the citizens of Sanders County.

Lewis & Clark County Sheriff Leo Dutton says that he’s responded to many concerned residents wanting to know his stance. Though no federal mandate has been ordered, Dutton says he will not take away guns from anyone who is law abiding and he doesn’t support confiscation of any weapons of any make or model.

Now Cascade County Sheriff Bob Edwards has offered his thoughts on the issue; he posted the following open letter on his Facebook page:

A Note from your Sheriff: I have been fielding a lot of questions lately regarding my opinion on gun laws.

I will start out by saying as your Sheriff, I have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and Montana and I take that very seriously. This means I will not support any unconstitutional laws and I do not think any Sheriff would.

I have also pledged to protect and serve the citizens of Cascade County to the best of my ability.

Guns are on the forefront of debate when it comes to violent crime. This is where I get frustrated. There is more to violent crime than just guns and in my opinion, new gun laws will not change the fact we have violent crimes.

We recently had a suspect drive through our County throwing pipe bombs at responding law enforcement trying to kill them. Also, there was a suspect that attempted to attack one of my deputies with a baseball bat that had fencing nails attached to it.

Obviously, these people were not in their right minds and did not use guns to commit their violent crimes.

I would like to see our lawmakers start working on mental health issues. Granted, not everyone with a mental health issue has violent tendencies so please do not take this the wrong way.

We in law enforcement are the first to respond to a person having a mental health crisis and usually it ends with the persons arrested for disorderly conduct or trespass. I am here to tell you, jail is not the answer.

These folks end up in my jail on a misdemeanor, and a lot of times they end up being charged with a felony because they act out and assault one of my staff and end up staying. This is not fair to people with mental illness. They need a place where they can go to get the help they need.

It also takes a ton of time to get them committed and they have to wait in jail while the process takes place.Remember these folks have rights as well.

We in law enforcement can’t even take them to the hospital unless they are a threat to themselves or others. Medical professionals are not allowed to inform law enforcement on mental health issues due to HIPAA regulations. This is a huge issue especially if the person is violent.

I realize we have rights when it comes to medical treatment but when a person is violent and has the potential to harm others, we in law enforcement would like to know so we can take the steps to prevent violent crimes. What about all of the people with drug /alcohol induced mental health issues? These people are the most dangerous and a huge challenge for law enforcement. They do not have a rational thought process and will be violent at the drop of a hat. Most of the violent crime cases I have investigated were a result of alcohol/drug use.

I could go on and on. My point: our lawmakers need to slow down and take a look at the big picture and the many pieces of the pie that make up violent crime. More gun laws are not the answer. We have good gun laws already on the books. Knee jerk reactions usually never work out and mistakes get made.

I am a firm believer in our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. I have been a responsible gun owner for years. My friends and family that own guns are responsible and law abiding citizens as well.

We have a lot of good responsible gun owners in Cascade County exercising their 2nd Amendment right so let’s not turn these law abiding citizens into criminals with the swipe of a pen.

Some of you may not agree with my opinion and I respect that.

I have talked to a lot of people regarding this issue and the bottom line is, and we have all agreed, that we need to look at the big picture.

I hope this answers some of your questions.

Sheriff Edwards



Another Dead obama Critic: Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever

September 19, 2012 2 comments

[TWG:  Another outspoken critic of the obama regime mysteriously drops dead. This time, Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County, Arizona.  The dead bodies are really stacking up, especially with the clinton’s still in power.  It appears the clintons have taight obama well.]


  • Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever and Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu

    Nov. 1, 2010: Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever, left, speaks about illegal immigration at an event in Arizona also attended by Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu. (AP)

WILLIAMS, Ariz. –  Larry Dever, the four-term Republican sheriff of Cochise County, has died in a one-vehicle crash near the northern Arizona town of Williams. He was 60.

Dever’s death was confirmed early Wednesday by the sheriff’s department. The department declined to release details of the crash or his death.

The sheriff died just four days after his 86-year-old mother, Annie Mae Dever, died of cancer.

Dever was first elected to his post as the head of the county’s law enforcement agency in 1996, and was last re-elected in 2008. He joined the agency as a deputy in 1976, according to the sheriff’s department website.

He entered the national spotlight as one of Arizona’s four border sheriffs who asked to legally defend the state’s controversial anti-illegal immigration law, known as SB1070, in federal court. Cochise County, in the state’s southeastern corner, shares an 83.5-mile border with Mexico and is one of the state’s hot spots for illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

He said at the time that the federal government was failing to secure the border and praised the law, which includes provisions that require police to question a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and if officers suspect the person is in the county illegally.

“If the federal government had been doing and would continue to do its job in securing the border here in southern Arizona, this would not be an issue. Unfortunately, they failed to do that, so Arizona stepped up and said, `We want to be partners. Here’s a role we think we can play,”‘ Dever told The Associated Press earlier this year.

It was Dever’s office that investigated the 2010 death of a prominent rancher whom the sheriff said was likely killed by an illegal immigrant. The killing spurred Arizona’s political leadership, including Gov. Jan Brewer and its U.S. senators, to renew pressure on the Obama administration to deploy National Guard troops along the southern border.

Dever also joined other Arizona sheriffs in slamming the Obama administration over a botched federal operation that lost track of weapons sold to suspect straw purchasers for Mexican drug gangs.

Dever was born and grew up in the town of St. David. He is survived by his wife, Nancy; six sons; and 11 grandchildren.



Posse Comitatus Act kicked to the roadside by feds, say critics

{TWG Note: This is a nightmare that has become a very real and dangerous  threat.  You can learn more about the “Posse Comitatus Act” HERE ]


Jim Kouri's photo

Law Enforcement Examiner

The new defense authorization act all but erases decades of U.S. government compliance with the letter and the spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act 1878,  a law that prohibits the use of the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions within the United States, according to police officials and others opposed to the militarizing of American law enforcement. 

Provisions in the new authorization act allow military reservists — Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines — to be called to duty and deployed in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency within the homeland, as well as mobilization of reserve units to support counterterrorism and security missions overseas, according to the American Forces Press Service’s Donna Miles.

“Except for a crisis involving a weapon of mass destruction, the reserves historically have been prohibited from providing a homeland disaster response,” Army Lt. General Jack C. Stultz, the Army Reserve chief, told reporters on Friday. …(Con’t)



obama’s democrats Revive Legislation To Strip Sheriffs Of Powers

May 18, 2012 1 comment

Delaware State Bill 325 moved through the State House quietly and with no publicity from any of the so called main stream media.  What was so important about this Bill and why it should have had people in every state in the union shouting from the roof tops, was that it was a Bill aimed at removing…YES, REMOVING…the powers of arrest from the County Sheriff.  If this Bill had passed you have got to believe that a similar Bill would have been enacted in all other states. 

To put this into perspective, the County Sheriff is the constitutionally elected chief law officer in a county, with say over all that happens in their county, including as to if federal troops and agencies can operate there or not. The Obama Regime has been fighting this very issue since the attacks on the president by Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio and others who are doing the jobs that they are paid to do, whether it be on fighting at the county level illegal immigration to fighting other crime and corruption like operation fast and furious, or doing what their citizens ask for in investigating the eligibility of Mr Obama to be President due to his birth status.  All the above and other crime fighting jobs done by the Sheriffs have caused this administration problems and embarrasment and the attacks have been ongoing.  This Bill, however, is a full frontal attack on a constitutionally elected official and their duties…(Con’t)













Read more information about the Sheriff’s First Movement and Sheriff Mack’s organization, County Sheriff Project



Montana GOP Primary June 5, 2012

TWG Note: Wondering about the upcoming Montana GOP Primary?  Me too.  This, from one of the TOP Gun Rights and Freedom Advocates in this Nation, Mr. Gary Marbut.  Mr. Marbut is the President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.  We can Thank Mr. Marbut for a plethora of very successful bills, including the Firearms Freedom Act.  Mr. Marbut has been a vigilant and diligent proponent for our Second and Tenth Amendments, not just here in Montana, but across this Nation.   You can learn more about Mr. Marbut’s efforts and about the Montana Shooting Sports Association by visiting the following sites:

Gary Marbut, Montana Shooting Sports Association

Montana Shooting Sports Association





Here is Mr. Marbut’s assessment of the upcoming Montana. You can find the original text at:


Montana Republican Governor’s Primary Election Race
The View from MSSA

Usually, after pouring over candidate voting records from previous public service, and examining returned candidate questionnaires, MSSA would like to make an endorsement in a race as important as the one for Governor of Montana.

There are seven Republican candidates facing off in the upcoming Primary Election on June 5th.  Historically, to endorse any one candidate, MSSA wants to see one letter grade gap between the endorsed candidate and others, an “A” versus a “C”, or a “B” versus a “D.” (We don’t endorse candidates for the Primary who don’t earn at least a “B” grade.)

In the Republican Primary race for Governor, we simply cannot identify any candidate that is head-and-shoulders better than the rest – with a letter grade gap above the others.  So, MSSA will make no endorsement in the Republican Primary for Governor.

If I ended this message right here, I can imagine that most GOP Governor candidates would be satisfied, although maybe some disappointed.

However, I can also imagine many MSSA members saying or thinking, “Come on Gary.  You know these candidates.  You’ve worked with them, tracked their votes in the Legislature, talked with them, watched their performance, and surveyed them.  We need whatever information you can pass along in order to make an intelligent choice in the Primary.”  Right.

So, I feel MSSA owes its members at least some information about the various candidates.  In lieu of an MSSA endorsement, let me tell you what I know and what I think (I’ll mix the two) about the various candidates.

I tend to want to place political figures on a spectrum from liberal to conservative.  Because those are fuzzy terms as commonly used, let me tell you how I define them.  I think of a modern (not classic) liberal as a person who tolerates or favors shifting power, choice and money from people to government.  I think of a conservative as a person who would prefer to shift power, choice and money from government to people.  Those are generally the definitions I will apply here.  I will also discuss what is known about each candidate’s position on the right to keep and bear arms, MSSA’s prime focus.

As far as I know, there are no out-and-out liberals in this Republican Primary race, but some appear to be more or less conservative than others.  Here’s what I know or believe, working from the most conservative to the least conservative. (BTW, these candidates will ALL probably end up disliking all or parts of my assessment – comes with the turf if I’m to give MSSA members an honest review.  I know most of these candidates personally, and count them as friends.  I hope they’re still friends after they read my comments.)

Bob Fanning & Joel Boniek

The most conservative of the candidates is Bob Fanning.  Fanning has a good grasp of constitutional principles.  He’s a firm advocate for states’ rights.  He has far more time and energy invested in wolf control than any other candidate, maybe than all candidates combined.  Fanning has been a CEO and a member of the Chicago Board of Trade.  He understands economics.  Fanning returned a great MSSA candidate questionnaire.  Bob likes to describe himself as a “Montanan by choice; not by accident.”  He moved here over a decade ago to deliberately become a Montanan.  Fanning has not previously held any public office in Montana.  Bob buys big game tags every year and is an elk hunter.  He is not as acquainted with the details and processes of state government as some other candidates.  Fanning hasn’t raised a lot of money, and he got off to a late start with is campaign.  His running mate is former Rep. Joel Boniek, a philosophically-pure guy who carried the Montana Firearms Freedom Act for MSSA when it passed in 2009.  I’d say Fanning’s chances of getting into the Governor’s office are a long shot.  He’d have a steep learning curve if he got there, but would be something of a breath of fresh air for Montana in the Governor’s chair.

Ken Miller & Bill Gallagher

Former State Senator Ken Miller is very nearly as conservative as Fanning.  Miller also has a strong bent towards states’ rights and individual liberty.  Miller has FAR more effort invested in the Governor race than any other candidate.  He’s been actively campaigning for over a year and has crisscrossed Montana multiple times meeting locally with any groups of people who wanted to meet him.  Ken was Chairman of the state GOP for a cycle, and managed to shake up and out that good-old-boy GOP structure some to make the GOP a more effective organization.  As GOP Chairman, he was willing to make more hard decisions than some others who have held the post.  When in the Montana Senate, Miller always supported MSSA’s pro-gun bills.  Miller returned a very good MSSA candidate questionnaire, although with reservation about MSSA’s proposal to stimulate smokeless powder and primer manufacture in Montana.  Ken and his wife Peggy are both big game hunters.  Ken grew up in Montana, and has been a successful small business owner in Montana.  In statewide polling, Miller continues to run a close second place in terms of support among likely Republican voters.  Miller’s running mate is Bill Gallagher, a Helena attorney currently elected to the Montana Public Service Commission.  Because both Miller and Gallagher have served in elected public office at the state level, they have a good grasp of how state government works and perhaps, because of that, an enhanced ability to translate Miller’s philosophy into deeds.

I see a bit of a gap on the liberal-to-conservative spectrum between these candidates and the next two.

Neil Livingstone & Ryan Zinke

Neil Livingstone is an interesting guy, albeit a bit mysterious.  Although born in Montana, Neil has spent much of his life immersed in the murky world of international business, intelligence and clandestine operations, both in Washington, D.C., and overseas.  Livingstone speaks forcefully about his commitment to constitutional principles, and he definitely wishes to roll back what he sees as extreme environmentalists’ suppression of the natural resource industry in Montana.  Livingstone returned a fine candidate questionnaire, although he had some un-detailed concerns about MSSA’s “Sheriffs First” proposal.  Livingstone has not held elected office in Montana.  While expressing strong support for the right to keep and bear arms, Livingstone did select a running mate, State Senator Ryan Zinke, who formerly expressed a very definite opinion that “civilians” should not be allowed to own .50-caliber rifles.  Livingstone quickly explains that he and former SEAL commander Zinke have come to terms about .50-caliber rifles, and Zinke now whole-heartedly supports civilian ownership of such firearms, as does Livingstone.  Livingstone has a forceful personality.  There are concerns expressed by some, however, that he has not spent enough time in Montana in recent years to have a good sense of Montana issues and Montana culture.  Livingstone has not hunted in Montana, but says he has hunted in Eurasia and Africa.  Livingstone is supported by a number of former high-ranking military and government officials of excellent national repute, many of whom are not Montana residents.  Were Livingstone elected Montana Governor, one gets the impression he would kick ass, and that the timid and naysayers would do well to keep out of his way.  With his long employment, connections and experience with the federal government, one would hope that his total allegiance would be to Montana, rather than to the federal government or influences from D.C. or elsewhere.

Corey Stapleton & Bob Keenan

Both Stapleton and Keenan are former state senators, both with good conservative credentials, and both of them are known as proven supporters of the right to keep and bear arms – excellent guys.  Stapleton is a graduate of Annapolis, a strong recommendation by anyone’s standard.  Stapleton did not return MSSA’s candidate questionnaire, but, based on his past votes in the Montana Senate, I believe he would support most of the issues MSSA plans to have before the 2013 Legislature.  Because both Stapleton and Keenan have long experience in the Legislature, they also know how state government works and how to translate their philosophy into deeds at the state level.  They would also be realistic, even pragmatic, about what a Governor can accomplish.   Stapleton’s campaign has not been highly visible. There is a concern that because Stapleton has been (and presumably still is) an officer in the U.S. military, the federal government might be able to “pull rank” and command his loyalty in any disagreement between Montana and the federal government.

Continuing to work from the conservative end of the political spectrum gets us to:

Rick Hill & Jon Sonju

Rick Hill was formerly elected to represent Montana in the U.S. House of Representatives, and his running mate, Jon Sonju, has been in the Montana Senate.  Both are experienced hands in the process of politics.  Hill is currently thought my many to be the front-runner in this seven-way Republican Primary.  He is reported to lead in fundraising, and is known to be supported by many “old guard” Republican figures.  Although Hill did not return MSSA’s candidate questionnaire, he did speak to the MSSA Annual Meeting in Helena in March (as did Fanning, Miller and Livingstone), where he expressed strong support for the right to keep and bear arms.  It is unknown how this strong expression will translate to the details of MSSA’s legislative agenda in 2013.  I expect he would support most of those issues, but with no returned candidate questionnaire and no voting record from the Montana Legislature, that’s just my educated guess.  Hill is reputed to occasionally hunt upland game birds.  Sonju has been a solid supporter of gun issues in the Legislature, and his family manufactures firearms in the Kalispell area.  It is argued by some that the nature of Hill’s work and experience in D.C. and Montana may make him more vulnerable to attacks by the Democrats in the General Election, making it difficult for him to win the General Election, although Democrats will certainly attack whomever becomes the Republican candidate for the General Election.  Hill recently released a statement asserting need to better manage wolves to prevent negative impact on game herds.  While quite welcome, this recent interest by Hill is seen by some as being a bit late and lacking the strong intent needed to resurrect Montana’s predator-decimated game herds.

Jim Lynch & Al Olszewski

Current Governor Brian Schweitzer (a Democrat) appointed Jim Lynch to be Director of the Montana Department of Transportation.  In that office, Lynch says that he has made maintenance of the Montana highway system much more effective and efficient.  He wishes to bring the same management techniques to the Governor’s Office.  Lynch has been an insider in state government long enough to know how things work, although he hasn’t been involved in the political machinations used to turn eggs into an omelet.  Lynch did return a very good MSSA candidate questionnaire, a plus for him, although MSSA puts more credence in a voting record history than in a candidate questionnaire.  I know nothing about Lynch’s running mate, Al Olszewski.  It is said that Lynch has made numerous political donations on record to Democrat candidates, although that may just be an unspoken job requirement to work for Governor Schweitzer.  It is my fuzzy opinion that Lynch is probably a pretty good manager, but I have not heard others who know him speak of his conservative philosophy or credentials.

Jim O’Hara & Scott Swingley

Jim O’Hara is elected as a County Commissioner of Choteau County.  He did not return MSSA’s candidate questionnaire.  I haven’t met O’Hara and really don’t know anything about Jim or his running mate, Scott Swingley.


I’ve tried seven times to write a conclusion, but I’m just not getting there.  I guess you’ll have to draw your own conclusion.  I hope this has been helpful.



%d bloggers like this: