Sheriff will challenge any gun measure that 'violates rights'
by Neil Warren
January 26, 2013 11:40 PM | 3524 views | 21 21 comments | 14 14 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Sheriff Neil Warren
Sheriff Neil Warren
slideshow
The recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut has broken the hearts of millions of Americans and surfaced the need and demand to address violent criminal activity more aggressively — from a federal level, all the way to local enforcement that maintains a safe environment, not only for our children, but all citizens. As Cobb’s sheriff, that has and always will be my personal and professional goal. I take my oath as a Georgia Constitutional Officer seriously and will absolutely uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Georgia, as well enforce state laws that serve and protect our community. In the past few weeks there has been an enormous amount of dialogue about guns, ammunition and legal possession of firearms. My strong support for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution began well before my 37-year career with the Cobb County Sheriff’s Office. The principles contained in this amendment support the other rights and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution. Recently there has been a great deal of confusion and misinformation about the purpose of the Second Amendment. It is not, as some say, about hunting, target practice or even the right to own a gun collection. It is a reflection of our Founding Fathers very real understanding that no rights would be safe without the citizens having the means to defend and protect those rights. These same individuals had just fought a war against a repressive government to achieve their freedom. They knew very well what was required to maintain that freedom. Over the years, I have had discussions with individuals, liberal and some not so liberal, who were against the right to bear arms for a number of reasons. The argument most often repeated is the belief that to be against violence, you must oppose gun ownership. My response is simple. Guns are not the problem. The real problem facing society is the erosion of family and moral structure that in turn leads to increased criminal activity — with or without guns. Until we face the real problems plaguing our society and quit seeking the quick and often political fix that shadows the real issues, problems will continue to increase. In our American government, Congress and state legislatures make laws and courts interpret those laws and determine whether they pass constitutional muster. Although the president has the authority to issue Executive Orders, that authority is limited. Our Constitution delegates three branches that must balance to maintain the freedom and quality of our life — Executive, Legislative and Judicial. It is profoundly disappointing that many prominent leaders in our country have chosen to capitalize on the horrendous murder of innocent children to advance their political agenda of infringing on the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. Clearly this rush to implement new gun control regulations has been undertaken as a matter of political expediency. It is still too early to tell whether the recent gun control measures proposed by the president will be passed by Congress or what impact his executive orders may have on our citizens. The previous Assault Weapons Ban was part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The ban did little, if anything, to curb violent crime and made meaningless distinctions between banned and non-banned firearms. Since the ban expired in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides for a personal right to keep and bear arms. This 2008 case — District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 — provides guidance and an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that was not available in 1994 when the ban was passed. I believe this decision must be carefully considered before Congress or any other legislative body attempts to limit any rights of law abiding citizens to purchase and possess firearms. I firmly believe that at this critical point in our history, each of us must stand up and speak up by contacting our elected officials, including the president, to encourage them to act decisively to uphold the rights guaranteed all Americans by our Constitution. For my part, I intend to fully exercise the power and authority vested in me by my oath of office as Sheriff of Cobb County. It is my firm commitment to immediately challenge and seek injunctive relief from any statute or executive action which violates the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the citizens of Cobb County.

Neil Warren is sheriff of Cobb County.
Comments
(21)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
SonofLiberty7
|
March 06, 2013
Thank you, Sheriff Warren, for standing up for our Constitution. I'm glad to know where you stand.

When I served, my oath was first to the Constitution, and only after that to follow the orders of the president. In the UCMJ, it makes clear that only lawful orders may be obeyed, and that is the duty of any junior officer or NCO to refuse to obey any unlawful, unConstitutional order. Gun confiscation is and will forever be, illegal and unlawful, and every person in law enforcement and the military is sworn to ignore any such unlawful order.
nelleo
|
January 29, 2013
Sheriff Warren has done an outstanding job of expressing the most important and fundamental issues facing our great country. I am proud to know such a man is leading our law enforcement community here in Cobb.
Too funny
|
January 28, 2013
Sheriff - since you are so gung-ho on enforcing the 2nd amendment, when you will step up regulation for the armed militia that the amendment calls for?
Devlin Adams
|
January 29, 2013
Too Funny, you need to review your history. The militia is composed of every armed citizen in this country, just as it was in 1776.

Sorry, but the militia is not an organizaion with uniforms and membershiop cards. That is the military.

The militia will be there when it is needed.
Too funny
|
January 31, 2013
Devlin, you need to review your reading comprehension. I said "regulation" as in, "a well regulated" militia. You know, the kind that's necessary to the security of a free State. Perhaps you should revisit Madison's argument for a well regulated militia in Federalist 46. Here's a snippet, "But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." Madison of course didn't really expect attack from Europe. What he did worry about were the hundreds of thousands of chattel - otherwise known as people - who might want to rise up and demand freedom. Try telling a southern plantation owner that he couldn't have guns; there goes your hope for a United States.
SonofLiberty7
|
March 06, 2013
Too Funny,

Either you completely missed Madison's point in No. 46, or you failed to read the preceding No.45, or you are intentionally misrepresenting the position Madison is taking in No.46.

Madison's entire point is that those afraid that the federal government might one day usurp the powers of the state governments and began to oppress the people, should be reassured that the several state governments and the people thereof would never be stupid enough to stand by and patiently watch while the feds accrued that power over time. (Unfortunately, we have been.)

Also, the entire context of section of No. 46 from which you cherry picked one phrase, is that the state governments and their militia, the people themselves, would be able to repel any armed hostility by any federal army. I'm not sure I share Madison's confidence here, but this proves exactly the opposite of what you tried to state. Madison believed the militia, an armed populace, was the best guarantee of the people's liberties. Shortly prior to the phrase you lifted from No. 46, Madison said this.

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were...." and he proceeds in the statement which you so clearly lifted out of context, as I hope other readers here will agree.
Marie in Marietta
|
January 27, 2013
Oh, Rich. Someone as spacey stupid as you shouldn't bring up "examined." Rich, go find an illegal alien to go on a hunger stike in your place. OK?
Kevin Foley
|
January 28, 2013
Oh Marie (whoever you and your next door neighbor are), my goodness me, my stars alive, good golly almighty! You think intelligent discourse is calling somebody you disagree with stupid?

Stupid is as stupid does, Marie!
Devlin Adams
|
January 29, 2013
@Foley. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You engage in name calling and or insults every time some one disagrees with you.
Pat H
|
January 27, 2013
The comments below by our two progressive (i.e. Socialist) residents are laughable.

They want a FEDERAL executive order enforced but hypocritally want Sheriff Warren to ignore the half million illegal invasion in Georgia. Why ignore illegals? Because its a FEDERAL law and the State and County have no jurisdiction. At least there is a law passed by Congress as directed by our Constitution, unlike an Executive Order which is unconstitutional in its basis because it bypassed Congress and infringes on our 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment was adopted to protect citizens from a tyrannical government. We need sophisticated weaponry now more than ever because this administration has overreached with Obamacare and now limits on citizens' defense.

Amnesty next - family unification will seal the deal for socialism until the money runs out in a generation.
Gordo Meis
|
January 27, 2013
Thank you Sheriff. The two America-haters that posted below prove you are on the righ track. For them, whatever Comrade Obama says IS the law. And neither of them are bright enough to know that bank robbers already have "assault weapons" and magazines.Or that by definition, criminals don't obey the law - even on guns.

When you have Fake News Foley and Nation of Islam, open borders Pellegrino against you, you have the right enemies.

BTW- Foley has a second home in Montana. It is important to him that everyone knows.

I know becauase he felt compelled to put it in his little read blog several times. Maybe he has looked up what a rifle is by now too. Who knows. Who cares.

According to Rich Pellegrino, "what isn't love is hate". I think these clown hate you sheriff.
Melissa C.
|
January 27, 2013
Thank you for standing up for our rights!
Kevin Foley
|
January 27, 2013
Sheriff, you job isn't to interpret the law. Your job is to enforce it.

I wonder if your attitude will change if your deputies ever have to face bank robbers armed with assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
Mike Jones
|
January 27, 2013
Kevin. I have an assault weapon with a high capacity magazine. And I have never robbed a bank with it or done anything illegal. What business is of yours what I own? Also, I have a suggestion, why don't you mind your own business.
Melissa C.
|
January 27, 2013
because bank robbers buy assault weapons legally?
Blah41
|
January 29, 2013
Actually, it technically is to interpret the law. Sheriff's operate under the JUDICIAL branch, not the EXECUTIVE branch. Sheriff =/= Police Officer, go learn the difference.

PS: His deputies and other officers have guns too. In the event of a home robbery, I am guessing you wouldn't.
Richard Pellegrino
|
January 27, 2013
This is typical political rhetoric, filled with bias and errors, from a politician but apparently not a law enforcement official. Hmmmm, this Sheriff, who often touts "the rule of law" for his other actions, has now openly admitted that he will decide which laws to enforce and which laws are constitutional, placing himself above the law. Thank you Sheriff Warren for finally coming clean about this---your unequal application of the law--based on your personal preferance (which is what I have been pointing out for years about you). This is the problem when we have political hacks elected to law enforcement positions, a practice which needs to be re-examined.
Mike Jones
|
January 27, 2013
Kevin Foley. You are wrong. Sheriff Warren took an Oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution. And the US Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" What part of "Infringed upon" do you not understand? This is the same Oath our current President, Barrack Obama took, and he so far has stomped the Constitution into the mud. He recently signed into law the NDAA act, which allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial or jury (declared illegal and unconstitional by his own appointed Federal Judge, Kathryn Forest. And he's issuing executive orders all over the place, which are illegal and unlawful. So why don't you aim your critisism a little higher than Cobb Sheriff. and besides. We know what the presidents agenda is (to include yours) It's to disarm us one weapon at at time. Starting with AR 15's, then handguns, then everything. I might have been born at night, but it was not last night.
Eric Williams
|
January 27, 2013
As a retired Cobb County Police Officer, I have known Sheriff Warren for a number of years and a LE professional he is and has always been, a political hack he is not. He has sworn that as the duly elected Sheriff of Cobb County he will enforce the laws of Cobb County,The State of Georgia and The US Constitution. The same 2nd Amendment which guarantees the right of the citizens to bear arms, and was learned by most of us in Elementary School, many years before the current regime was in control(the same document by the way that President Obama swore to uphold, not to circumvent). Unlike the "Ruler"(Obama's words) currently occupying the, WH, who does believe he can enforce the laws he wants, such as gun control,health care and illegal immigration by use of "Executive order", Sheriff Warren is acting on behalf of the county and the people who elected him. President Obama and his ilk try to manipulate the law to suit their purposes,rather than uphold it. Thank you Sheriff Warren for supporting our State Laws and our constitutional rights under the US Constitution(which I guess is the reason you keep getting re-elected by the people of Cobb County, despite the bombastic and shrill statements of your opponents).
Don in Marietta
|
January 27, 2013
So much for replies from the liberal peanut gallery!
Bill Nixon
|
January 28, 2013
Any constitutionally elected official is under obligation to "enforce and protect" the constitution of the United States. Any confiscation law would be in violation of the more than one article of the constitution, and unenforceable.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides