Letter to the editor: Up to interpretation?

Posted 1/15/20

Up to interpretation? Regardless of whether you support gun control or not, it appears that the Douglas County policy is the most unclear and potentially overreaching when comparing views between …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Username
Password
Log in

Don't have an ID?


Print subscribers

If you're a print subscriber, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one.

Non-subscribers

Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.

If you made a voluntary contribution in 2019-2020, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one at no additional charge. VIP Digital Access includes access to all websites and online content.


Our print publications are advertiser supported. For those wishing to access our content online, we have implemented a small charge so we may continue to provide our valued readers and community with unique, high quality local content. Thank you for supporting your local newspaper.

Letter to the editor: Up to interpretation?

Posted

Up to interpretation?

Regardless of whether you support gun control or not, it appears that the Douglas County policy is the most unclear and potentially overreaching when comparing views between some metro area sheriffs in last week’s article “Sheriffs’ views vary on red flag law.” Sheriff Spurlock is the only sheriff among those interviewed in the article who did not say what his office will do when someone doesn’t surrender their weapon. By contrast, Jefferson County Sheriff Shrader clearly said that “according to the law, if a person declines to surrender his or her guns and a (red flag) court order is able to verify that they do possess them, the judge will then issue a search warrant.”

As stated in the Second Amendment, a regulated militia is the very reason that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” That’s too black and white for many people to accept, but that is our constitutional law. Using his own words, Spurlock said that it’s impossible to say what his office will do when someone doesn’t surrender his or her weapon. It’s ironic that Sheriff Spurlock could therefore be unintentionally supporting actions of a future police state. More than ever, his policy, or in this case the lack thereof, reinforces the need for the Second Amendment intended to protect us against this very kind of loose interpretation of the law. 

How fortunate we are in Douglas County to have county commissioners all united in support of the Second Amendment and opposed to this law.  

Smith Young

Parker

Comments

Our Papers

Ad blocker detected

We have noticed you are using an ad blocking plugin in your browser.

The revenue we receive from our advertisers helps make this site possible. We request you whitelist our site.