Oklahoma Sheriffs leave Capitol when asked to disarm.

Several Sheriff's Asked to Disarm at Oklahoma State Capitol.

"Everybody in that building knew who we were," said Wagoner county sheriff Bob Colbert, who, along with 40 other sheriffs from around the state, converged on the capitol as they do every year to meet and greet and lobby.

Until... "One of the senators, who they wouldn't tell us, complained because we were armed in the building," he said. They were then given a choice, disarm or there's the door.

"So we all packed up and left," he said.

I dont know what to make of this.

It looks like citizens are not permitted to carry firearms in public buildings:

38. Are there places I can’t carry my gun?

1. Any structure, building, or office space which is owned or leased by a city, town, county, state, or federal governmental authority for the purpose of conducting business with the public;

I just think things should equal.

Government should not be allowed to do something that is illegal for a citizen.

If we're not allowed to be armed, neither should anyone else.

reply to post by gladtobehere


I give those Sheriff's a standing ovation, however everyone of them had to have prior knowledge that it is illegal to carry any kind of firearm on to State property unless authorized to do so....State Hunting land comes to mind.
That's one of the main talking points they drill into you when going through 'there' course for a CCW.

reply to post by gladtobehere


They made their statement. Being armed is more important than pretty much anything else.

But these are Not normal citizens we are talking about.. they are Sheriff's. I would think the law does not apply to Law Enforcement. Heck there are cops who work IN every Capitol building that HAVE to carry guns

Citizens cannot carry guns into Jails but cops can.. that falls under the list of nono's. That's only right.

There is something really fishy about this story.

JohnPhoenix
But these are Not normal citizens we are talking about.. they are Sheriff's. I would think the law does not apply to Law Enforcement. Heck there are cops who work IN every Capitol building that HAVE to carry guns

Citizens cannot carry guns into Jails but cops can.. that falls under the list of nono's. That's only right.

There is something really fishy about this story.

edit on 17-3-2014 by JohnPhoenix because: sp

yep LEO's do consider themselves above the law

If they were there in official capacity(doing their job) then carrying on their person would not be a problem but they were there for a who ha as private citizens. Rules are rules. Could they personal carry on a flight through the state? Nope.

The only ones I would give a pass to would be the ones that work that county.

Here is the law in question, for whatever it's worth.

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer"—to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.

Although LEOSA preempts state and local laws, there are two notable exceptions: "the laws of any State that (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property" (such as a bars, private clubs, amusement parks, etc.), or "(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property,
installation, building, base, or park"

en.wikipedia.org...
www.gpo.gov...

I watched a video sometime ago where it was clearly stated only US Marshalls (or some other kind of law enforcement team) are legal in the US technically. A law enforcement person (cannot remember what group he was in) was discussing rights to carry arms and why he chose that particular branch of service, because he (if I remember correctly) stated they where the only real authorised law department technically in the US constitution or something.

In certain places, even LEOs are suppose to "check their weapons at the door" in certain states.

Prisons are no exception. Normally inside a correctional facility, they do not want ANY firearms inside the facility itself. Normally guards are armed with things that are suppose to be "non-lethal" IE; pepper spray, mace, clubs, etc.

Firearms are given to those on duty on the outside perimeter of those places.

Court houses here in SC: NO FIREARMS are allowed inside the building, unless under VERY special circumstances. With good reason in my opinion, even though I support our 2nd Amendment, there are some places where it's just insane to actually have weapons.

Listen guys, what is so difficult!

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

If you keep sprouting all of these made up laws that do in fact INFRINGE, then you allow the watering down of the 2nd.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, what part do you not understand.

These are Sheriffs for heavens sake.

The big question here is why are the Feds so scared of citizens being armed in their presence?

I do not care if some of these laws are sensible ... they violate the second .... the only way to allow these Laws to exist is to alter the 2nd!

This is not rocket science, it is not tricky logic questions!

P

ETA In fact, the whole reason for the Second is to keep control of the Government and therefore, Federal and State buildings is where the citizens should be armed more than any other place! This is the most blatant law that waters down the Second.

Don't be too quick to applaud these guys. Sure, they make a big stink about their own weapons, but they'll probably be the first ones knocking on your door to confiscate your weapons when the time comes and the order is given.

They're cops, and cops can't be trusted. We cannot take them at their word nor assume they have any intention of upholding their oaths. They're playing for the other team. Period.

Do not forget that.

NthOther
Don't be too quick to applaud these guys. Sure, they make a big stink about their own weapons, but they'll probably be the first ones knocking on your door to confiscate your weapons when the time comes and the order is given.

They're cops, and cops can't be trusted. We cannot take them at their word nor assume they have any intention of upholding their oaths. They're playing for the other team. Period.

Do not forget that.

Sheriffs around the country have been some of the most outspoken officials regarding the protection of our rights and civil liberties.

In almost every state the sheriff holds their office under the authority of the state constitution, and they are elected by the citizens of their county. They are the ONLY constitutional law enforcement body. In their county jurisdictions, they hold more power of law than the governor of the state or the FEDs. The authority of their office cannot be diminished by the legislature or the courts, but only by a constitutional amendment.

They aren't cops. They hold a very important and powerful office. This is why the foreign city-state of the district of Columbia hates sheriffs and is doing everything they can to phase them out all together.

Here is a group of Americans open carrying AR-15's, and the sheriff shows up. Skip to 1:10 and listen to what he says.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Outside of their counties they are out of jurisdiction. They have the same carry rights as you, although other leos will typically look the other way.

METACOMET
Sheriffs around the country have been some of the most outspoken officials regarding the protection of our rights and civil liberties.

A little less talk and a lot more action would be nice. Like, I dunno... maybe throwing some of these treasonous bastards into those jails of theirs?

Talk is cheap.

In almost every state the sheriff holds their office under the authority of the state constitution, and they are elected by the citizens of their county. They are the ONLY constitutional law enforcement body. In their county jurisdictions, they hold more power of law than the governor of the state or the FEDs. The authority of their office cannot be diminished by the legislature or the courts, but only by a constitutional amendment.

So they're elected officials... so what? That means they're about as trustworthy as our other elected officials, which is to say--not at all.

They aren't cops. They hold a very important and powerful office. This is why the foreign city-state of the district of Columbia hates sheriffs and is doing everything they can to phase them out all together.

Are you telling me Joe Arpaio is not a cop? He's just about the coppiest cop around. The fact that he's also a politician doesn't change that (other than making it much worse). Cop is its own aberrant worldview--sociopathy with guns. It doesn't matter which jurisdiction it is or where they get their money. They are the blunt end of state tyranny, whatever you want to call them.

Again, when they start locking up as many politicians as they do stoners I *might* cut them a little slack.

reply to post by gladtobehere


I gotta go with the sheriffs on this one. One of them sums it up quite nicely in my opinion.

From the article:

"If the state troopers are satisfied that we're ok in that building I'm pretty sure that the legislators should have something else to worry about such as the economy or something," he said.

He makes a great point with that statement. Whoever complained, it was not their responsibility nor duty to check weapons coming into or out of the Capitol. There are people paid to do that and apparently this group of sheriffs measured up to that inspection.

What we have here is a person that doesn't know his place or does not respect the duties of others. The cowardly senator even hid behind anonymity. Come on. Those sheriffs had the right to know who forced an ultimatum on them. How were they a threat to that person? The mere presence of armed individuals? Something is not right when the complaints of ONE PERSON with anonymous authority has the power to dictate ultimatums to a group of individuals.

I would love to find out which senator was so perturbed by the situation that they took it upon themselves to question the rights of not only the sheriffs but also the competency and judgement of the authorities that allowed the group into the Capitol in the first place.

All I see is corruption. An individual with power was upset and got their way. I can guarantee that a common citizen would have been laughed out of the Capitol if he or she had made such a demand.

reply to post by NthOther


A law abiding citizen carrying a gun protects from all of the non-law abiding citizens that carry a concealed weapon.

More legal guns equals less crime.

What part of the country do you live in?

Happy1
A law abiding citizen carrying a gun protects from all of the non-law abiding citizens that carry a concealed weapon.

More legal guns equals less crime.

I agree. I just don't believe cops whenever they open their mouths. They have to actually do something to make me believe what they say. There seems to be this "public servant worship" in this country. Cops, teachers (as if there's much of a difference), etc. They can do no wrong and to slander them is sacrilege in this society.

They say they support the 2nd Amendment. I say prove it. Put your monies where your mouths are, LEOs.

Happy1


More legal guns equals less crime.

A bold face lie..or do you actually believe that myth?

New Study Shoots Down 'More Guns Less Crime' Myth; Findings of Pro-Gun Researcher John Lott Assailed

Debunking 18 Pro-Gun Myths

Smashing the Absurd Myth That More Guns Make Us Safer

METACOMET

NthOther
Don't be too quick to applaud these guys. Sure, they make a big stink about their own weapons, but they'll probably be the first ones knocking on your door to confiscate your weapons when the time comes and the order is given.

They're cops, and cops can't be trusted. We cannot take them at their word nor assume they have any intention of upholding their oaths. They're playing for the other team. Period.

Do not forget that.

Sheriffs around the country have been some of the most outspoken officials regarding the protection of our rights and civil liberties.

In almost every state the sheriff holds their office under the authority of the state constitution, and they are elected by the citizens of their county. They are the ONLY constitutional law enforcement body. In their county jurisdictions, they hold more power of law than the governor of the state or the FEDs. The authority of their office cannot be diminished by the legislature or the courts, but only by a constitutional amendment.

They aren't cops. They hold a very important and powerful office. This is why the foreign city-state of the district of Columbia hates sheriffs and is doing everything they can to phase them out all together.

edit on 03America/Chicago31am2014-03-18T00:18:58-05:00201403America/Chicago31 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)

Cant believe I was only the second to star your post, this is the best one in the thread so far.

Not saying there arent other great posts, there actually were several as of the post I quoted.

It is nice to see you notice the Sheriff is actually the only elected law enforcer in the country, and he has the backing of the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution.

Once again, great post!!