Although I have great respect and admiration for each of my colleague Sheriffs and police
chiefs across the country, I take exception with the handful of public servants who have
Suggested that they would reject enforcement of any “unconstitutional mandates,”
specifically related to the Second Amendment. The rhetoric, of the few, related to these
significant constitutional issues has been interpreted by many who believe that a person
in a position of authority might be able to deteirnine the constitutionality of an issue. If
an issue were to be arbitrarily deemed “unconstitutional,” the decision to curtail further
enforcement responsibilities would be in direct conflict with the concept of the balance of
powers, as defined by our founders. The principle of balance of powers demands a
system of checks and balances, accomplished through the distinct and deliberate
separation of the authority and responsibilities of the three branches of government:
executive, legislative, and judicial. Public safety professionals serving in the executive
branch, do not have the constitutional authority, responsibility, and in most cases, the
credentials to determine the constitutionality of any issue. The authority and
responsibility to determine the legality and/or constitutionality of a matter is to be
accomplished by the judicial branch, as clearly deiined in the Constitution. For a public
safety professional to suggest that they can determine the constitutionality of an issue and
establish public policy based upon that ill-conceived notion, would be tantamount to a
peace officer arresting an individual, deciding guilt and sentencing the individual to
incarceration in the county jail. This is not how our principle based, constitutional
system functions - WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS.