Sheriff Winders Response to Utah Sheriff Association Letter.

jentzschman

Well-Known Member
Location
Sandy, Utah
Posted on SL County Sheriff's FB page: What do you think?

Recently the Utah Sheriff’s Association prepared a preemptive message to President Obama stating their position on the current debate and presidential proposals concerning gun laws in the United States. The Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office is not currently a member of the Utah Sheriff’s Association and therefore, was not a signatory of the letter. This has raised a lot of questions from the citizens of Salt Lake County as to why I did not sign the letter and asking what my position is in regards to the issue. This is a statement of the Sheriff's Office and the Unified Police Departments (UPD) position on this very complex and important issue:

While not a member of the Utah Sheriff’s Association, Sheriff Winder supports the majority of the intent of the letter. However, after a review of the proposals suggested by the Obama Administration, we agree with the association president that currently there is nothing proposed that we object to and we can find no reason to believe that there would ever be a situation where federal officers would be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them their rights. We are confident in the process that Congress and the courts will continue to protect our rights as established.

Sheriff Winder, the members of the Sheriff's Office and UPD fully support, obey and defend the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Utah. We are a country of laws and order, guided by long established government processes that are meant to ensure and protect our freedoms, including the right to bear arms. We have taken an oath to obey those laws and will do so. The constitutionality of all laws is determined by independent evaluation and scrutiny by the judicial branch of government. Once that has been done and a law has been determined to be constitutional, every law enforcement officer has the duty to enforce it. The determination of whether or not a law is constitutional is not left up to any one person or group or collective group. If it were we would cease being a nation of freedoms.

Sheriff James M. Winder, the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office and Unified Police Department fully supports the Second Amendment as established by the Constitution as well as every other Amendment provided by it and will defend those rights of the citizens of Salt Lake County.

https://www.facebook.com/SheriffJWinder?fref=ts
 

sLcREX

Formerly Maldito X
Location
Utah
He should get voted out if office. I think that's bs. Does he have an email as well that we could express our displeasure to?

edit: this is in regards to the initial report I saw about him refusing to join the united sherrifs.

after skimming this article a bit it seems he may have changed his words around to save face.
 
Last edited:

SAMI

Formerly Beardy McGee
Location
SLC, UT
Winder and Herbert need to be relieved of their posts, IMO. I highly disagree with the notion that its better to fight an unconstitutional law after the fact, than oppose it prior to it passing. Seems like common sense to me. Winder's response seems to tell me that he has his sights set on a career within the Federal Government; his response is aligned with a personal agenda for himself, not in line with the people's rights to whom is serves. Herbert would rather not stir the pot, but I'm not sure why. These two have no business in Utah anymore, AFAIC.
 

cruiseroutfit

Cruizah!
Moderator
Vendor
Location
Sandy, Ut
You have to find it ironic that Governor Herbert is willing to propose something that is admittedly in the face of the constitution (taking federal land back from the fed), yet will lay down when it comes to something that is in fact protected by the constitution. What gives?
 

cruiseroutfit

Cruizah!
Moderator
Vendor
Location
Sandy, Ut
The Constitution sides with UT on the land thing. Almost get tired of typing that... almost.

Really? Your yet to post anything that actual reports as such rather the same "equal footing" talk that is going to 'save' public lands 10 years and going.

What we do have is the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel (which is a subsidiary of the Utah State Legislature), which analyzes proposed legislation, told lawmakers that United States Supreme Court decisions in public lands cases going back to the 1870s (before Utah was a state ;)) gave H.B. 148, “a high probability of being declared unconstitutional.”

So the legal team for same folks that proposed the land transfer, pretty much agree that it will be declared unconstitutional?

But let's look at Utah's own constitution, Article III, Section 2 to be specific: "The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States.".

What am I missing Joseph?
 

Herzog

somewhat damaged
Admin
Location
Wydaho
You have to find it ironic that Governor Herbert is willing to propose something that is admittedly in the face of the constitution (taking federal land back from the fed), yet will lay down when it comes to something that is in fact protected by the constitution. What gives?

Pretty much the same though that came to my mind.
 

Tacoma

Et incurventur ante non
Location
far enough away
Article III, Sec.2 of the Utah constitution pretty much squelches any possible legal challenge to Federal oversight of lands in UT.

The rest of it, back on topic sort of, is pretty shameful-- because it lacks any logic. Burbank's recent statement also baffles me about as much as it saddens me, again because it's unintelligent posturing.
 

SAMI

Formerly Beardy McGee
Location
SLC, UT
You have to find it ironic that Governor Herbert is willing to propose something that is admittedly in the face of the constitution (taking federal land back from the fed), yet will lay down when it comes to something that is in fact protected by the constitution. What gives?

Precisely
 
Top