It total floors me that anyone would have a problem with any elected official answering the questions posed by the NRA's questionair --- Try asking any question on that list in person and you will get everything but the answer to the question --- Putting it in writing will make them accountable even if it is a lie ---
The same needs to happen in California where the Sheriff's office is the point of gun control in that State. The Sheriff is the only person who can approve a concealed carry permit in California. Based the Sheriff induced restrictions on approving concealed carry permits, most Sheriff's are opposed to the 2nd Amendment. If people knew their stand on the 2nd Amendment before an election, it would likely make a difference as to who will, or will not, be elected. This needs to be applied to the State's legislature as well, both Assembly and Senate.That said, ditto for Florida and all other states. Retired US Marine Officer
Federal officials and military swear an oath to defend the Constitution "against all enemies foreign and domestic" my concern is that that oath has been abandoned by the current administration and local law enforcement are being encouraged to support Homeland Security which has demonstrated its self to be corrupt and I fear local law enforcement will become the useful idiots to put down an uprising against the unlawful take over of the government by the Obama supporters when the election goes against them. The Obama Administrations game plan follows the plan used by Hitler's Brown shirts, Linen, Mao and Ho Che Min's take over of their respective countries. Call it Socialism, Progressive-ism, Communism or totalitarianism they all use class envy, redistribution and other means to destroy the control of the country then reeducation of the masses and finally control of the populace to facilitate the ruling elites aggrandizement. We need sheriffs who support the Constitution.
After being in law enforcement for over 25 years most people are to stupid to even know how there local Chief of Police and the Sheriff stands on guns rights. In the state of Fl the Sheriffs Association and the Chief of Police Association have made there ideas as plain as day on Gun control. I did use the word stupid in a negative sense because most people fail to know the candidates running for Office.
Absolutely YES. If they (sheriffs) expect to get our vote, they should be ready to answer ourquestions as to where they stand on gun rights and any other pertinant areas.
Wouldn't mama P. say we have to elect them before we can find out what makes them tick? That's the Democrat's way.
Anyone running for office who does not want to talk abourt the 2nd amendment cannot be trusted in any issues. If they aren't open on one subject, then they will lie on everything they do. Look at obama!!!!
Sheriff , Politicians and Presidents the public has a right to know where each stands . However what we need is a LAW which would allow each us the right to SUE the bastards if they don't up hold the laws of the land.
As I voted the results were 96% Yes and 4% No. I guess that tells the anti-gunners how out of touch their opinion is
When any individual citizen, company, newspaper, union or any other agency is not allowed to question an elected officials stance on any subject they are to be enforcing, endorsement should not be an issue. It is a right to know what the potential public servant intends before going to office. Otherwise a voter can't make an educated decision. Even the presidental candidates state on their commercials they endorse ad's promoting their preferences. Let the NRA endorse the candidates they prefer, state why and let the informed person vote the way they want.
Sheriff = Public OfficePublic Office = Public ServantPublic Servant = Public TrustPublic Trust = Protecting PublicProtecting Public = Enforcing LawEnforcing Law = Fulfilling OathFulfilling Oath = Defending ConstitutionDefending Constitution = Public SafetyPublic Safety = Happy VotersHappy Voters = Elected SheriffAt no time does this equation ask for a Sheriff's personal interpretation or opinion of Constitutional Law.
It's surprising how many sheriffs are anti gun. I guess they think it's ok for them to use a gun to protect their lives but not for anyone else. I would like to know where they stand on our gun rights.
I hope that we will be able to see the results of the poll of the Sheriffs before the election so that we may make an informed decision before we cast our ballot.
The Office of Sheriff is an elected position, the candidates belong to political parties. It is a political election! I want to know which person represents me and my interests. If you want my vote show me you deserve it.
I think we need to know where the sheriff stands on the 2A. The sheriff in my county is the only one that says if I can have a CCW or not. He/She is also the only one that says if I can own a slincer or not. So if a sheriff has that much power about my 2A then yes I think I have a right to know.
Not just yes but HELL yes!
I ask, Why Not? I want to know where they stand on the subject.
I support polling on important policy issues and this is one of the most important. That being said, the question is sophomoric. The advocacy lead-in delegitimizes the results. I want to know if candidates support the 2A and the laws meant to proteect that right, like right to carry, stand your ground, etc. But stop it with the framing of the question with a political sound bite.
It is important for the public to at least know the position of an elected Sheriff on issues concerning gun control. Sheriffs often do NOT speak for line officers in this area. While there is a wide range of political leanings in Law Enforcement agencies, they do generally tend to be more conservative. That is not always the case with their Sheriffs or Chiefs. Cops know that no matter what the law is, criminals just ignore it. Gun laws against criminals are where the emphasis should be and not against law abiding citizens. Every day we have gun crimes committed by people who are not supposed to have them. Yet what we always hear about from the media is the law abiding public. Can a law abiding citizen become a criminal? Of course that happens, but the usual response is to curtail my rights and the rights of all of the public that has these rights. If you want to have an affect. Get tough on criminals that use guns and let the public defend themselves. Criminals are less likely to attack you if they think you may be armed.
The NRA should definitely get involved in Sheriff's races. For most of the country, Sheriff's control access to firearms regulated by the National Firearms Act. This includes suppressors, which are a basic safety device intended to protect our hearing. The NRA should help its members choose pro-gun Sheriffs, not those who will passively deny access to legal firearms.
Of all comment I have read, Only two were in my mind out of step with reality.Harald Junkes and Lisa. Every Constitution and the Bill of Rights supporter IMHO REALLY HAS THE OBLIGATION TO BELONG TO THE LOCAL GUN GRASS ROOTS ANDTHE NRA, IF THEY WANT TO GET AMERICA BACK TO WHAT THE FRAMERS ENVISIONED.VOTE OR LOSE YOUR FREEDOMS, WATCH FOR OBAMA TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW.
I cannot help but post again after reading all of the posts. One individual made reference to FL not "being the deep south" and insinuating that southern people are not progressive thinkers. I am highly offended at the fact that we Southerners are continually stereotyped by people from northern cities. Yet for many years they have continually invaded the south because of its warmer climates and cheaper property taxes. The problem is when they come they insist on bringing their way of life with them. Instead of trying to fit in they want to change everything to the way it is up north except of course, the weather and cheap cost of living. Florida ceased to be the deep south when it was swamped by New Yorkers and Cuban convicts. Statistics show a dramatic rise in violent crime in south FL when the Cubans came. The people of FL and their legislators saw a need for ordinary citizens to be able to protect themselves and their families by the growing crime rate. In their wisdom and progressive thinking they were among the first states to inact "shall issue" concealed carry laws for law abiding citizens. I clearly remember the liberal press talking about how there would be shoot outs on the streets of FL by ordinary citizens settling minor disputes. They said it would be like the "wild west". Of course none of this came to pass, yes there were shoot outs on the streets, but they were by rival drug gangs and other criminals. Everybody seems to have forgotten those wild and reckless predictions by the liberal media and the anti-gun lobby. Many other states soon followed suit and the 2009 FBI violent crime statistics show crime had dropped dramatically with the lowest nation wide per capita murder rate since the '60s. I attribute this directly to the number of people legally carrying a firearm for protection. It's going to cause a criminal to think twice if he thinks he's going up against a person that could be armed. To this person that made this very uninformed post I ask you. Have you ever had a criminal stick a gun in your face or worse a family member such as your child? I'll bet you would change your thinking if your child's life were put in danger by an armed criminal. You liberals think the police can be everywhere. They are the first to tell you they can't. It is your duty to protect the lives of your family until the police get there. But you have these unrealistic ideas that somehow we can all just get along without the need to ever have to defend yourself against a criminal determined to end your life or that of a family member. You may very well get through this life without being criminally attacked. But what if it does happen what will you do then? I at least want the security of knowing I have a chance of survival for my family and myself. Thank God for the Second Amendment, the NRA that fights against those that would destroy the freedom that the Constitution offers and most of all thank God for the countless men and women that have given their lives so this country stays free, and upheld the Constitution by paying the ultimate price.
I definitely think the NRA should endorse the candidates that will uphold the laws of FL. This should be done by careful review of their law enforcement career and public statements regarding Second Amendment issues both past and present, with more emphasis placed on past actions and not current political speeches. As we all know elected officials will say just about anything to get elected. As soon as they are in office the tend to do what the people who's money got them there want them to. In my opinion anyone running for a public elected office should have all their empoyee files made public in their original form. Not a doctored up summary or resume. Some people may feel this is to private and personal. However, as elected officials they now work for the taxpayer, the public. It is no longer private empoyee records the work for the taxpaying citizens of whatever office they represent. When you or I are applying for a new job the potential employer has a right to contact former employers and ask what kind of employee we were. We as citizens should have the same right as potential employers to the same type of information. Obviously it is not feasible fore every voter to call the former employers of a potential candidate, so to keep everyone informed and keep everything on the "up and up" so to speak, the information should be published unedited in the newspaper or some other written media without any commentary from the media whatsoever. I believe, most of the public is able to understand what is in a work record without influence from the press. It should also be a criminal offense to alter this work history in any form after it has been documented. This way if the candidate as a employee is cleared of some malfeasance by an internal company or department investigation shortly after accused their exoneration would be recorded in their work record. Other than employment, criminal, birthplace or political views an individual's private life should remain private. No individual person is perfect in any of these areas and I would like to believe the people are smart enough to see this. If the press weren't allowed to interfere then organizations such as the NRA could advise their members on who represents what that organization stands for. The people would still have the option to look at the records and determine for themselves who represents their personal views. Organizations have already been advising their members on how they should vote since our country was founded. To name a few; the ACLU, NAACP, Young Republicans, Labor Unions, and various, environmental groups, religious organizations, anti-gun and anti-hunting groups. There's nothing new about groups endorsing political candidates.
I do think the sheriff's poll could have been phrased better. Still the voters have the right to know where they stand on these issues.As far as misleading the public the hoplophobes are trying very hard on Stand Your Ground. Almost everyone knows it has been misused, but that hardly guarantees immunity.To me the big reason the hoplophobes don't like SYG is that it denies personal injury lawyers a paycheck.
NRA should have the same rights as any other political organization. They gather the best information they can on condidates' position on issues important to their (NRA's) core constituency, and present that information. That information does not, in and of itself, necessarily determine for whom members of that constituency votes; it becomes a FACTOR in each person's decision. The weight that factor is given is decided by each and every individual voter, in combination with all of the other information they have or choose to consider. Of COURSE the NRA should endorse--just as any other group does.
If the NRA did not exist then it would definitely be better for all the anti-gunners. News-flash the NRA exists. So, deal with it! As, we have told them from the start. We are the NRA and we VOTE! We will eliminate those who oppose us. Maybe they should find a new career if they can not or will not enforce the Constitution of the United States. We have the right to know. If they never bring up the question they have still given us the answer we seek. If they side-step the question then they have still given us our answer. It does not matter if they have raised more money than any candidate in history. We will do our best to remove them from office. I know where they stand. I don't recall them asking the question. That just screams at me. What do we need them for. To mold us. To tell us what they prefer. To hide the truth. Our eyes are opened. So, serve the people or get out. If not, we will be happy to escort you each and every one to the exit. We are Still the NRA and we are Still VOTING.
" any legal gun owner can assume a threat and shoot based on perception, not reality. "hmm.....When perception becomes reality, it usually results in injury or loss of life. If i feel threatened, i will take the protection of the life of me and mine into my own hands, and react accordingly. You folks that think that the government is gonna be there when criminals strike need to WAKE UP. If a criminal is gonna do bad, he is going to look around for police and if he sees on, most likely he will not act. The protection of our lives is not only in the US Constitution, but the responsibility of us all.
I totally disagree with the goals of the NRA, but they have the same rights as any of us. Why is it that radical groups on the far right are so much more effective in getting their members to be active in the political process? Why will candidates for Sheriff's office feel obliged to even complete this leading questionnaire? Are liberals and moderates really only 'fair weather' voters who have no 'skin in the game' until someone comes after them specifically, while the right wing always shows up to vote?People, this is Florida, we are not the deep South, we can be progressive and turn back the right wing assault on the right to be UNINJURED by some nut who felt threatened by my physical proximity to him. Read their questionnaire, it spells out that any legal gun owner can assume a threat and shoot based on perception, not reality. It says a license to carry is a license to use! We have a hard enough time to teach and train our police and soldiers to use deadly force, we definitely are not training and educating our 'carry permit' users to use good judgement and should not give them the 'assumption' of such.
The public has the right to know where every candidate stands on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a whole. Would there be controversy if it was the: ACLU asking how potential candidates feel about the right of free speech? ; Southern Baptist Convention asking how candidates feel about freedom of religion? Much to the dismay of many people, the Second Amendment is as important as any of the others and voters have a right (and an obligation) to know any candidate stands on the entire Bill of Rights.
Of course the NRA should poll all potential politicians.Can you imagine one of them saying " I don't like the first or second or the fourth or anyamendment to the Constitution?" You either support all of the Bill of Rights or youdon't belong in politics.
Every public official, elected or otherwise, serves the public whose taxes pay their salary. They also serve after swearing to uphold an oath. What citizen shouldn't ask, "what opinion/position do you, the candidate, hold on supporting the content of the oath for the office you are about to hold?". Yes, you are darn right that I support the organized effort to expose candidate views. No law enforcement official in America is more empowered to limit any/every citizen's Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms than the local Sheriff. Just try to buy a gun in the USA without knowledge / consent of your local Sheriff.
From a Life Member of the NRA, since I was a kid! Expand this questionaire, to every political office, and/or elected or appointed official.If they don't want to answer, There is Your Answer...They have a conflict of interest...with their paycheck, vs. our Constitutional Rights! Like the old saying...you can tell when a politician is lying...their lips are moving! Nuff Said! The Sheriffs Association must have forgotten their individual sworn oaths, to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, above all else! Remember your association Bylaws, or articles of Incorporation were written by Lawer Pimps, who have already sold their souls and their fellow Americans out for a Buck. Not to mention the separation of Powers . Lawers should not be allowed into the Legislature, or the Executive branches, period. Thats what happened to the common law of this great land. They screw up common man's ability to solve his own daily problems, by using the their own Legal new language, to circumvent standard english, spoken by our citizens. Our country has become a nation of blind sheep, no longer willing to follow the principles that created America. Ask questions, Challenge Authority, Use the power of the jury to nullify bad law and go after legislators who create it!Remove the cloak of immunity from judges, all government employees. Hold them accountable, as we are, to each other. Sue them if needed! Clear out the law books, reduce the size of the government and stop all foreign aid. Fix our own country first. Let the rest of of the world do the same; fight for their freedoms against tyranny or die. Lastly bring back the gold standard, worldwide. Abolish the Fed and break the World Bank Bilderburgers up! This will make America once again the Proud and the Strong Leader for freedom and opportunity. God Help Us, to clean house in DC, Congress, and in our home states! Marion: Lead on Girl and Kick Butt enroute! :-) Stay Safe, Ya'll Tom
The most powerful LEO in a county that WORKS for me? Hey I have a RIGHT and a DUTY to KNOW where this person stands on things and how doing their job will affect me and mine and my neighbors! If any such a person has a problem with me knowing their stance and opinions on everything when they hold such a position of power and trust, well news flash, they LOST my vote! And I will vote for the one that is open about such things and in agreement with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I don't give discounts on my life. If an elected official, or candidate, thinks I should, I damwell want to know it up front. Good on ya, Marion!
That'd be just awful if a candidate for public office had to take a stand on an issue. If this continues some really articulate candidates with lots of "electability" might not get elected because their constituents will either know upfront where they stand or find out that they are frauds.
I would this, include elected judges.
Absolutely ! there are far too many anti 2nd amendment police adminstrators out there and we need to know who they are before we vote themm into office and they try to limit our rights to own, carry and otherwise accept our constitution mandate concerning firearms.Who better to endorse them than the NRA !!!!!
Absolutely, if they are running for an elected position, I want to know there positions on matters of concern to me. How else could I make an informed decision
Absolutely the NRA should be able to offer an endorsement of like minded candidates! I'll bet if we wanted to support 1st amendment rights, the press could not report it quick enough. If the Sheriff's Association wants to oppose this, let it be known. I and my friends support people, candidates and organizations that have the same values, interests and political views that we have!!!! Dave Winter Springs
Like the move "The Good The Bad and The Ugly, the NRA would be able to help the NRA Members and the Populace make the RIGHT VOTE.
If they want my vote, I ask for them to write on paper what they stand for. That way I can make an informed decision. Isn't that the right way to do it?
The NRA should poll politicians, including sheriff candidates. I read some of the questions on the poll and they do not offer enough choices. The answers to questions aren't always black or white. They should offer some gray area choices.
When there is a statement of position as a qualifier before a question on a questionnaire I don't believe any public official should answer the question. No matter what their answer is to the question, it implies the agree with the preceding statement by the questionnaire's writer
Of course the NRA should evaluate the pro- or anti-gun stance of anyone who runs for public office. NRA members, like members of any other association, are interested in knowing whether candidates stand for policies and ideologies that they favor. We have a right to know.Now that every respondent to The Post's question has affirmed that the NRA should indeed endorse candidates in sheriff races, let's all watch as The Post rushes to print an article about the overwhelming public support for pro-gun politics. Yeah, don't hold your breath waiting. Any time a news organization encounters a pro-gun response to one of its polls, it immediately kills the story.
Sheriffs run for office as Republican or Democrat, the same as all other elected politicians. Voting records and surveys of said politicians form the bases for various organizations to recommend or deny support of these individuals. Early in the Republican primary season the National Association for Gun Rights submitted surveys regarding the candidates' support for the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners. Only Ron Paul and one other candidate--an early drop out--responded to that survey. That makes one rather cautious about the remainder of the field. Voters have the right to know exactly how candidates stand on issues, although we know from experience that way too many have a change of face once elected!!! At least the results of a survey, in black and white, can be used in an effort to keep the elected official on the straight and narrow.
I want to always be an informed voter. Therefore it is important to me to know where eachcandidate stands on those issues important to me.
As a voter. Of course I want to know where a candidate stands on the issues. Whether it be Mayor, Sheriff or President. It doesn't matter. I want to know where they stand.The more information I can take in, the better. Then I will decide for whom I want to vote.Any organization should have the right to question a candidate's position on any issue.Look what happened in the 2008 presidential election. Because enough people didn't do their research, we now have a Marxist in the White House.
Those of us who have work to do can't eat, sleep, drink and breathe the news and issues we're all affected by. So we turn to other sources. Friends, neighbors, relatives, the local paper and official sources like the Brady Campaign and NRA. With what's been going on in Chicago lately, if my local sheriff candidate thinks we need gun laws more in line with the windy city, then you bet I want to know about it. ANY organization can ask ANY question of ANY candidate.
The NRA, especially Ms. Hammer, stand strongly for individual rights to protect yourself and those you love from harm. The sheriffs we elect should stand for the same and I expect the NRA to let us know where the candidates stand.
Sheriffs are elected just as any politician is. It isperfectly reasonable to ask what a politically electedofficial's views are on issues that they might encounter.---------------
NRA consistently supports candidates that advocate traditional American Values and Freedom from an overbearing Government with its leftist regulations!!! If a canditate stands with the NRA, he or she has my vote!!!!
We as voters should know the positions all candidates running what and where they stand so we can make informed votes.
All persons running for public office should state their position regarding concealed carry, stand your ground, which is current Fla. law. This information would certainly effect my vote.
Voters deserve to know where elected officials stand - regardless of the office they seek.