Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Sheriffs oppose ban on weapons

Merritt signs petition against federal proposal

February 1, 2013

PARKERSBURG — Wood County Sheriff Ken Merritt, along with other sheriffs around the country, reportedly has signed a petition stating he would not enforce a federal assault weapons ban if one is......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(133)

slingblade

Feb-01-13 12:28 AM

Oh...they follow the US Constitution...hmmm...imagine that. I have a question, when are the headlines and politicans going to start addressing Mental Illness treatment and education, something that will actually make a difference in the quality of life for everybody in our society?

17 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

manydemocrats

Feb-01-13 12:53 AM

IF THIS DUMB*** OLD MAN, DEFIES the law of the land as he and the other imbeciles claim they will do??? I will fully back the federal government locking his old carcass up for treason as they should do. The voters of Wood County should be horrified that you have put someone with this type of radical mentality in this politicial position...

12 Agrees | 33 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kunectdots

Feb-01-13 1:05 AM

Hey manydumbocrats - I guess the "Law of the Land" embodied in the Bill of Rights, not to be touched by the Federal or state governments, have little meaning to you, right? Who wasted their money sending you to school? If they come to lock "his old carcass up for treason" you will THEN know who I am because he will have deputized me.

24 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rightfacts

Feb-01-13 1:32 AM

Here's a Sheriff Ken Merritt that was elected by the people who understands where his responsibility lies. Get over it Many. Your guy and his stick in the mud actions lost.

24 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

theshield26l0l

Feb-01-13 5:14 AM

Actually if the sheriff was a Republican it would be okay.

5 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

theshield26l0l

Feb-01-13 5:15 AM

Whoops! Meant to say. "Actually if the sheriff was a Democrat it would be okay."

7 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

impeachobama

Feb-01-13 6:06 AM

Finally we have a sheriff who will follow the law and not make the rules as he goes...

21 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TSmearman

Feb-01-13 6:16 AM

Maybe some of our politicians should take refresher courses in American and World Histories, They should start with "Wounded Knee"

It is a great felling knowing someone is "drawing the line" against the DICTATORSHIP of Obama.

24 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jbennett

Feb-01-13 6:17 AM

No matter, federal ATF agents can take care of matters without the local sheriffs. Local politics doesn't get in the way of the ATF agent to do their job. Their jails are better than your's anyhow.

11 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Rico1985

Feb-01-13 6:26 AM

Coming from the same individuals who have been investigated how many times for violating peoples rights?

Your job is to enforce policy, not create it. A town of 40,000 people and this is the best they have to offer.

17 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Educated

Feb-01-13 6:29 AM

That's all we need, A sheriff to pick and choose the laws to enforce and not enforce.

16 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

marvin

Feb-01-13 6:54 AM

It's hard to believe a sherriff would sign a petition not to enforce any legal law. WHAT law is he talking about?IF is a big word.

14 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

aknar1999

Feb-01-13 6:55 AM

The feds do not have authority over the sheriff, not even the ATF. You bunch of numbnuts need to read the laws instead of speculating and wishing it to be they way you want it.

20 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Privatized

Feb-01-13 7:06 AM

I'm pretty sure they ALL, from the top down, swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Now answer, who is going against the Constitution on this subject?

24 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Privatized

Feb-01-13 7:07 AM

And who is siding with the Constitution? Our Sheriff.

26 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

pkrsbrgh

Feb-01-13 7:19 AM

@tsmearman - nothing major, but referring to the "DICTATORSHIP of Obama" must really be offensive to people who truly lived under a dictatorship. other than that, keep on keepin' on sensationalizing ;)

11 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DisturbedAgain

Feb-01-13 7:24 AM

No matter what you think of Sheriff Merritt personally, he is the elected sheriff for Wood County. It doesn't really matter what a democrat or republican says either. As stated in a previous comment, elected officials take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, there were no exception rules. Yes, the President signed an executive order, but have you read the order? It pretty much details his beliefs, not what is best for America. If he was so confident that his executive order was so inspiring, why did he not attempt to make it a national law? If it is so much the right thing to do, why does the Supreme Court not speak out publicly? Because they would be defying the very oath they swore upon.

This issue isn't about an executive order, this is about maintaining the rich history of our nation and the process in which federal laws are comprised.

18 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ketterj

Feb-01-13 7:36 AM

The Sheriff cannot determine which laws to enforce and which to ignore. He upholds the constitution by enforcing the laws as determined by the three branches of the government - Legislative - Executive - AND - Judicial. That is why we have a 3 part system of checks and balances. IMHO all law enforcement personnel have a job to do and they should do it. This just goes to show that wood county corruption is (still) alive and well. Imagine a system in which ALL law enforcement officers can pick and choose which laws they want to personally enforce and which people they want to arrest based upon whatever belief system (or bribe) they may hold.

19 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Feb-01-13 7:48 AM

“President Barack Obama has proposed a number of executive actions, including a federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition…”

How can that be? Denver has stated numerous times President Obama has not said he wants to ban assault weapons despite evidence to the contrary.

“…locking his old carcass up for treason as they should do.”

I think you need read the Constitution, particularly Article III, Section III, which defines Treason.

As for the law, if an assault weapons ban is passed, it will immediately be challenged, the law will be suspended pending review and it most likely will not withstand the precedent set forth in the Heller and McDonald decision.

The President knows this which is why, despite his desire to ban guns; he did not issue an Executive Order installing a ban. He also knows that without mass hysteria he will not get a ban out of Congress, thus the continued debate aided by military maneuvers meant to frighten citizens. Fear is all

16 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hooligan

Feb-01-13 7:57 AM

In my mind there is no difference between this and saying "I will not enforce the civil rights act". Merrit is an enforcer , ultimately, of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the government. If he is offering legal opinions based upon his own reasoning, he needs to put out his law degree and we can get rid of the county prosecuting attorney.

14 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nonesuch

Feb-01-13 8:07 AM

Seeing the word "treason" used by clueless Obots is another example of the collective stupidity that saddled us up with this nightmare to begin with. But even scarier are the mass of Sleepwalkers who don't even know this debate is happening? The days of care free apathy are over....ah the memories!

15 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wvdave

Feb-01-13 8:51 AM

the sheriff is wrong about the 2nd amendment. if you think; they did that when rifles were single shot and slow to reload and not the semi or autimatic rifles now available. it is a weapons thing and not an amendment thing! he IS in office to uphold the law and not choose to not enforce if he doesn't like a law.

14 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MadAsHeck

Feb-01-13 9:08 AM

Thank goodness for these Sheriffs. We're lucky that some elected officials actually plan to do their duty and uphold/defend/protect the Constitution.

15 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

manydemocrats

Feb-01-13 9:32 AM

CONGRATULATIONS WOOD COUNTY On Thursday, members of the Wyoming state House gave initial approval to a bill that would nullify any gun laws passed by the U.S. Congress pertaining to extended magazine clips or semi-automatic weapons. The move is not only unconstitutional, but it is thus far unnecessary: Congress has yet to pass any new gun laws for Wyoming to attempt to nullify. Under the Constitution, states are not permitted to pass laws meant to supersede federal legislation. But state Rep. Kendell Kroeker (R) argued that since Congress has not yet passed any gun laws, the nullification measure did not violate the Constitution. “It is clearly a different case than trying to nullify something that’s already in existence. But his colleagues apparently tried to keep the representative in check, with one pointing out, “If we want to make a statement we can do it, but let’s not let’s not pretend that it’s consistent with the Constitution, because it’s not....

11 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jbennett

Feb-01-13 9:33 AM

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 133 comments Show More Comments
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web