Chatham County Online BBS
September 30, 2014, 07:49:35 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Before you go out to eat check out the Local Restaurant Reviews
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  
Digg This!
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Sheriff Webster, what say YOU????  (Read 4537 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
chrstnhsbndfthr
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 03:23:25 AM
Date Registerd:February 21, 2006, 12:25:33 AM
Posts: 9760



« on: January 18, 2013, 10:57:29 PM »



Sheriff Webster, can you join this patriot in defending your citizens?
Logged

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest <> of freedom, go <>in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. <>may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.-- Samuel Adams 1776
NickD
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 10:15:06 PM
Date Registerd:February 15, 2012, 09:37:47 PM
Posts: 252


« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2013, 11:39:03 PM »

Imagine if a contingent of citizens with press in tow marched into every county Sherriff's office in NC and asked them to compose this letter...
Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 01:13:49 AM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Posts: 3457



« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2013, 01:29:23 AM »

Webster is not a bad guy, but it is my understanding that he is no friend to gun owners.  I will happily stand corrected if he does something like this, but I really doubt it.  Webster is the kind of guy that wants to straddle the middle, and since he is a Democrat, he can't do something like this without ticking off the far left wingers.  Well, it just so happens that the far left wing is in control of the Chatham Dems, so that is a no go.

If he did, he would probably get a letter from Voller demanding an explanation.  We've already seen Voller's behavior regarding the school board not towing the line.  Imagine how out of sorts he would be if Webster sided with freedom.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
natvrabit
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 07:34:46 PM
Date Registerd:March 08, 2008, 03:45:06 PM
Posts: 7203


« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2013, 06:06:37 PM »

Frankly, I believe Sheriff Webster has far more class and intelligence than to make knee jerk reactions, not to mention being more concerned with doing the job at hand vs. media hound notoriety...

I think he has and he is doing a good job, and would vote for him anytime he elects to seek that position...
JMO.
Logged
chrstnhsbndfthr
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 03:23:25 AM
Date Registerd:February 21, 2006, 12:25:33 AM
Posts: 9760



« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2013, 09:09:27 PM »

The choice of serving the people under the Constitution or a government gone wild is simple enough. What is knee-jerk about that?
Logged

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest <> of freedom, go <>in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. <>may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.-- Samuel Adams 1776
Andy
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:September 28, 2014, 11:08:12 PM
Date Registerd:February 22, 2011, 05:04:37 PM
Posts: 1017


« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2013, 08:40:54 AM »

That pledge has a gaping loophole in it, doesn't it. Technically, if the congress passes a law saying you can't possess a specific weapon, then possessing such a weapon means you are not abiding by the law. Ergo, Sheriff Lee could confiscate their "illegal" weapons without violating his pledge.

As I've said before, the assault weapons ban didn't work then and it won't work now. But I think it is very, very wrong for law enforcement officers to pick and choose which laws they will enforce.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 08:45:13 AM by Andy » Logged
Silk_Hope
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 08:52:02 PM
Date Registerd:April 02, 2007, 09:29:04 PM
Posts: 9966



« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2013, 08:53:27 AM »

I have had no problems with Webster and I voted for him however if he does not have the backbone to make a stand on this issue I will have to rethink my choice in the next election.
Logged

"This year (1935) will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"  - Adolf Hitler
circlecity
Member
**
Offline Offline

Last Login:May 01, 2014, 04:42:46 PM
Date Registerd:December 09, 2008, 06:43:56 PM
Posts: 51



« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2013, 10:37:17 AM »

Sheriff Webster has the backbone of a jellyfish, have you ever seen or heard of Sheriff Webster making a stand on anything. All I have seen is him making himself look pretty with fancy uniforms. Sheriff Webster is all about himself do you really believe this liberal democrat would actually stand up for the people of Chatham County. He was too scared to stand behind the immigration law issue. Come on people of Chatham County it is time for you to wake up and stop letting the liberal democrats take our rights away, liberal democrats of Chatham County have done enough damage.
Logged
Axiomatic
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 09:43:54 PM
Date Registerd:August 04, 2010, 10:27:19 PM
Posts: 3001



« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2013, 12:33:49 PM »

Sheriff Webster has the backbone of a jellyfish, have you ever seen or heard of Sheriff Webster making a stand on anything. All I have seen is him making himself look pretty with fancy uniforms. Sheriff Webster is all about himself do you really believe this liberal democrat would actually stand up for the people of Chatham County. He was too scared to stand behind the immigration law issue. Come on people of Chatham County it is time for you to wake up and stop letting the liberal democrats take our rights away, liberal democrats of Chatham County have done enough damage.

*thumbs-up*
Logged

Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!
hb727
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:June 13, 2013, 06:16:10 PM
Date Registerd:October 12, 2008, 07:35:36 PM
Posts: 1847



« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2013, 12:35:15 PM »

That pledge has a gaping loophole in it, doesn't it. Technically, if the congress passes a law saying you can't possess a specific weapon, then possessing such a weapon means you are not abiding by the law. Ergo, Sheriff Lee could confiscate their "illegal" weapons without violating his pledge.

As I've said before, the assault weapons ban didn't work then and it won't work now. But I think it is very, very wrong for law enforcement officers to pick and choose which laws they will enforce.

Andy,

I'm not certain that NC statute 14-177 is still on the books but from what I can find, it appears that it still is. That law has to do with "Crimes against Nature", some of which include anal and oral sex. If that law is still on the books, is it your opinion that it would be very, very wrong for law enforcement officers to choose not to enforce it?

If it is no longer on the books, do you think it was very, very wrong for law enforcement not to enforce it while it was on the books all those years?

Now, I'm not saying that I think it should be enforced nor do I want to hijack this thread but I just want to ascertain that when you made that statement about picking and choosing, that's exactly what you meant.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 12:44:19 PM by hb727 » Logged
Axiomatic
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 09:43:54 PM
Date Registerd:August 04, 2010, 10:27:19 PM
Posts: 3001



« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2013, 01:21:12 PM »

hb727 - if you reread andy's comment you'll notice that he correctly used the word "could" (enforce). We all should know by now that "serve and protect" is propaganda. They do not serve and protect - they enforce. They are allowed discretion and are not legally required to enforce anything other than the directives of their superiors (as long as they don't break other laws in the process).

So Sheriff's Carter and Webster could sign such a declaration and technically not be breaking it if they found circumstances to seize a particular weapon. The obvious problem with that is the public perception of his breaking a vow would ruin him credibility-wise.

"Read my lips: no new taxes" - George HW Bush
Logged

Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!
hb727
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:June 13, 2013, 06:16:10 PM
Date Registerd:October 12, 2008, 07:35:36 PM
Posts: 1847



« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2013, 03:37:49 PM »

hb727 - if you reread andy's comment you'll notice that he correctly used the word "could" (enforce). We all should know by now that "serve and protect" is propaganda. They do not serve and protect - they enforce. They are allowed discretion and are not legally required to enforce anything other than the directives of their superiors (as long as they don't break other laws in the process).

So Sheriff's Carter and Webster could sign such a declaration and technically not be breaking it if they found circumstances to seize a particular weapon. The obvious problem with that is the public perception of his breaking a vow would ruin him credibility-wise.

"Read my lips: no new taxes" - George HW Bush

Yes, I understood that he clearly meant "could". What I want Andy to affirm is his/her emphatic statement and belief regarding "pick and choose". I used NC statute 14-177 as an example of what I expect is a prime example of a law that is, or was, on the books and not enforced.

It appears to me, that most of the sheriffs who have taken a position on such proposals as Feinsteins, believe that constitutional rights may be violated and, as such, would opt not to enforce such a law. Considering that, I'm wondering if, in a couple of years, a Democratic congress, passed a law to confiscate all firearms except black powder guns, would Andy think that is a law that would be constitutional and that a law enforcement officer would be bound by his/her oath to enforce it.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 03:40:38 PM by hb727 » Logged
Axiomatic
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 09:43:54 PM
Date Registerd:August 04, 2010, 10:27:19 PM
Posts: 3001



« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2013, 04:23:19 PM »

Understood  Wink
Logged

Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!
Lifer
Member
**
Offline Offline

Last Login:February 23, 2013, 06:54:30 PM
Date Registerd:February 01, 2011, 03:28:42 PM
Posts: 57


« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2013, 05:33:26 PM »

Since you're advocating that the Sheriff ( and by extension, the Sheriff's Dept.) ***NOT*** enforce a law that you disagree with, then you should have the, ummm....stones to stand up and forfeit your right to the ALL the services provided by the Sheriff's Dept. You should opt out the 911 system. You should leave your own protection to yourself. If you're the victim of a crime, don't call the Sheriff. If you're in a car accident...deal with it yourself.
After all fair is fair.
Logged
Lifer
Member
**
Offline Offline

Last Login:February 23, 2013, 06:54:30 PM
Date Registerd:February 01, 2011, 03:28:42 PM
Posts: 57


« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2013, 05:35:14 PM »

In fact, all of you that re supporting this asinine publicity stunt...move to Lee County. I'll help you pack...
Logged
Tags: legal  Sheriff  law enforcement  constitution  bill of rights second amendment 
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!