EDGAR CO. (ECWd) –
Statement from Edgar County Sheriff Ed Motley’s official facebook page:
Why is it that there are politicians who want to prevent… law abiding citizens from protecting themselves or their families against threats of violence? Why are we not holding those accountable for the evil they do with the same vigor they go after gun right advocates?
The Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” These words have generated much controversy as part of the debate over gun control. Supporters of stricter controls generally argue that the amendment was only meant to protect the combined rights of states in maintaining a militia. Their opponents counter that the amendment was intended to protect an individual right to protect their life and their family.
On June 26, 2008 the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of District of Columbia et al. v. Heller. In that decision, the Court’s majority stated “Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Citizens shouldn’t have to carry guns to protect themselves. However, criminals don’t follow rules or abide by the law when it comes to carrying a firearm in their commission of a felony or threatening your life.
“The Sheriff is the ultimate law enforcement authority in his county and in this country. He is not a bureaucrat and does not answer to one. He answers to his boss, the citizens. The Sheriff is the employee of the people and exists to serve and protect them in all matters.”
As Sheriff and an Illinois gun owner, I still support the concealment and carrying of legal firearms and will not enforce any Executive Order or law that is unconstitutional regarding legal firearms.
14 Comments
Wayne Leonardi
Posted at 19:04h, 28 FebruaryWe are in Strange Times. Thank You Sheriff Motley, for having Courage of Conviction, and standing up for the Constitution. We need more like you and others need to appreciate your good servitude.
S. Rogers
Posted at 15:33h, 15 FebruaryThank you Sheriff Motley, wish there were more like you.
Connie Pennington
Posted at 20:07h, 24 JanuaryThank you, Ed.
RetiredCopterPilot
Posted at 18:32h, 23 JanuaryWay to go Ed !!!
For all dissidents, ponder this:
Just as happend after Vietnam, we can count on our active duty forces being cut to near zero after we cut-and-run from Afghanistan. We can all remember the bulk of our Reserve and National Guard forces being federalized and deployed to the Middle-East for Desert Shield/Storm leaving state Governors with little or no ‘militia’ available.
Ponder the possibility of a similar situation with a following major emergency or attack here at home.
State Governors would be committed to using able-bodied volunteers in the same way George Washington relied heavily on the ‘Minutemen’ during the Revolutionary War. Of course, the military assets would have deployed with their weapons, equipment and supplies. Thus, any volunteers would have to bring their personal firearms JUST LIKE THE MINUTEMEN!!!
The Second Ammendment, AS WRITTEN, is just as pertinent today as it was when ratified in 1787.
Tim Humphreys
Posted at 08:09h, 23 JanuaryThank you Sheriff Motley for your service and standing up for our 2nd amendment rights!
From an Air Force Vet.
Tim Humphreys
Nobama
Posted at 07:04h, 23 Januaryi cant stand liberal idiots saying, “why do you need more than 10 rounds to protect yourself or hunt?” if my wife and 3 year old kid are home alone and some thug or multiple thugs enter my house, i want my wife to have as many rounds as possible. not every person is an expert marksman. besides after putting two to the chest and one to the head to any criminal who enters my house, i’ll be running low on ammo after 3 thugs. then what? the only thing that will make you open your eyes is to be put in a situation where you need a gun to survive.
MEE
Posted at 13:23h, 22 JanuaryIf you mean the statement above,it says he will SUPPORT the constitution.That is done based on what the courts determine to be constitutional,not what the sheriff decides is constitutional.Can you imagine the chaos if every law enforcement official in this country could enforce laws based solely on their own interpretation of what is constitutional and what is not? If a law is passed or an executive order issued he must enforce it until told otherwise by a judge’s order or court ruling.
RetiredCopterPilot
Posted at 17:49h, 23 JanuaryYou mean like the way U.S. AG Eric Holder refuses to prosecute or enforce immigration law ??
Fancy Nancy
Posted at 11:59h, 22 JanuaryCalm down Ed. No one is trying to take away anyone’s fire arm. However, why does the average citizen need a high-powered automatic weapon to protect themselves and hunt? Why does the average citizen need more than 10 rounds to protect themselves and hunt? Basically Ed is saying he will not enforce a law or executive order pertaining to the restrictions of these weapons. Sounds like official misconduct waiting to happen.
jmkraft
Posted at 12:52h, 22 JanuaryPlease watch this video, the last half is the best. The question is not why should the average citizen need large magazines and SEMI-automatic guns, it is what give anyone the right to tell them they can’t have them.
jmkraft
Posted at 12:53h, 22 JanuaryWho said anything about automatic weapons?
MEE
Posted at 12:53h, 22 JanuarySince when is it the responsibility of the sheriff to determine what is constitutional and what is not?
jmkraft
Posted at 13:01h, 22 JanuaryIt is in his oath of office.
RetiredCopterPilot
Posted at 17:57h, 23 JanuaryFYI: No person in the U.S. ( except under special license from the U.S.BATF ) is allowed to possess an AUTOMATIC firearm. You may wish to research subject matter or ask questions before making finite comments.