Front Page  »  

Parkinson asks Biden not to support new gun laws

February 25, 2013
Ian Parkinson

Ian Parkinson

San Luis Obsipo County Sheriff Ian Parkinson issued a letter to Vice President Joe Biden requesting that he address the country’s flawed mental health system, rather than lobbying for stricter gun control measures in response to recent shooting tragedies.

In the Feb. 9 letter, Parkinson said that he supports the 2nd Amendment and that he will not enforce any laws that take firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

“I believe that every law abiding citizen has the right to acquire, own, possess, use, keep and bear firearms under the 2nd Amendment,” Parkinson wrote. “I will not take firearms from law abiding citizens and turn law abiding citizens into criminals by enforcing gun control legislation that will not solve or prevent tragedy.”

Parkinson said that new gun laws in response to the recent Connecticut school shooting would be “reactionary and cosmetic.”

“Many people’s first reaction after a tragedy, like what occurred in Connecticut, is to try and pass more restrictive laws and look for a quick solution, rather than address the real problem.”

The sheriff instead requested that Biden work to allocate more federal funding for mental health facilities and services.

“I do not believe that passing more gun laws is the solution to this problem. Many of these shootings and many of the homicides in my county, over the past few years, have been related to mental illness. I believe that it is very clear that we must address and put more attention to the mentally ill and the mental health systems in this country.”

Parkinson authored the letter to Biden in support of the 2nd Amendment after the North County Tea Party circulated a petition requesting he do so. Approximately 20 California sheriffs have taken public stances against stricter gun laws proposed by the White House. Several of the sheriffs have, also, written letters to Biden opposing more gun laws.

The North County Tea Party announced the Parkinson letter at a 2nd Amendment rally Saturday in Atascadero. Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian and former Congresswoman Andrea Seastrand each spoke at the rally, as did executive director of Gun Owners of California Sam Paredes.

Parkinson did not appear at the event.

 


Loading...
Subjects:                 
Related:


103 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The funny thing is…Biden’s last task was to reduce and or eliminate Government waste. If his performance there is any example; when he is finished with the gun ban campaign every person in America will have an AR 15…


0

Ha ha! Very pithy.


+1


0

+1 from me!


0

Both Joe and his boss have sold more firearms with their rhetoric in a few years than any firearms buying frenzy in the history of the USA and it will not stop for years to come. They are the best sales team for the firearms industry this nation has ever known. Bloomberg comes in second.


0

The Sheriff has yet to return the firearms taken in the Doobie Dozen raids. The registered, unloaded, locked, up non assault type weapons are still in the evidence locker, if former Detective Cory Pierce didn’t take a fancy to them and help himself.


0

From what we know so far, Detective Pierce only stole drugs from the evidence locker and used his issued guns to force people to sell the stolen drugs.


0

See what happens when SLOPD tries to work outside its comfort zone of speedtraps and noise disturbance calls?


0

I don’t think we really need potheads running around with guns, do you?


0

I don’t think we need anyone “running around with guns” while under the influence of any drug — including alcohol which is also commonly imbibed by LEOs. However, many pot smokers, like many beer drinkers, don’t partake and carry at the same time. Why should it be any different for them? In fact, I would venture to say that “potheads” would be much less likely to use a gun than drunks when under the influence. (The same does not apply for users of meth or cocaine.)


0

At last! A couple of elected officials in California that I can be proud of! I met both Ian and Katcho before their election and really liked them both. I supported and voted for both and I’m proud to have done so. The sheriff is a level headed , intelligent young man who can see past the current hysteria and grasps the REAL problem.


The sheriff knows that we already have more than enough laws in place that limit gun ownership and further, more restrictive laws won’t help the problem.


Keep up the good fight you two, you have my 100% support!


0

Now if Sheriff Parkinson would be more open to CCW permits….


0

I find it odd that the sheriff says:


“I believe that every law abiding citizen has the right to acquire, own, possess, use, keep and bear firearms under the 2nd Amendment,”


When taken with the US Supreme Court’s Heller decision language from page 10:


“At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to carry.When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S.125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”


One has to wonder how the Sheriff can reconcile his resistance to issue a license to carry a concealed firearm by law abiding citizens. Parkinson’s words in the letter as reported here do not match his actions. His actions do not match the oath he swore to uphold the Constitution..


0

Have you submitted your application? I consider him very open if one meets the basic requirements and can author an intelligent and respectful letter illuminating your good cause. I consider my CCW one very worthwhile benefit of living in SLOC. Ian is a 2013 sheriff, not an old school sheriff.


0

Please explain/justify the Constitutionality of having 1 person dictate who gets to exercise their civil rights and who does not without due process of the law?


Monarchy?


‘Good Cause’ should be wholly encompassed within “I am a law abiding citizen who wishes to exercise my civil rights”. Anything else could never pass the strict scrutiny afforded civil rights within our courts. Indeed, look into what the 3 judge panel in the 7th Circuit had to say about Illinois’ carry laws. While not controlling, this decision is VERY persuasive throughout the rest of the nation.


There is ZERO way Sheriff Parkinson is operating within his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution with his current modus operandi for LTC issuance.


Sorry Jack, I refuse to beg for my civil rights.


0

I agree with Choprzrul. Parkinson (and other sheriffs) should have a policy of issuing CCW permits unless there is some evidence that the person applying might present a danger to society. A “need” should not be required of the applicant since it should be a right requiring no justification.


0

smiley,


I would only shoot one barrel, leaving one ready just in case. A short barreled 357mag with shotshell ammunition works in the same manner, with the appropriate stacked rounds following them.


Praise our God for allowing the invention of the hand gun for self defense, praise!


0

I support the 2nd amendment, but this sounds like pointless political grandstanding by Parkinson. I could be wrong, but has there been any serious law proposed that would require Parkinson to take firearms from law abiding citizens? The laws I have heard of are those requiring better background checks, as well as prohibiting the *sale* of certain types of guns and magazines. Prohibiting a sale is much different than confiscating a gun. Parkinson is worrying about something that has no chance of happening.


On the other hand, existing laws say that felons and the mentally ill cannot possess firearms. Is Parkinson saying he will not enforce these laws and instead will allow felons and the mentally ill to possess firearms?


0

You are wrong, I think. the position of Sheriff is truly unique in this country, they are non-appointed, elected law enforcement – the only kind (DEA, ATF, FBI, US Marshals, Police, etc are all appointed). As such, it is the sheriff’s sworn duty to uphold the laws (Constitution) and protect the citizenry of his or her jurisdiction. Sheriff’s should NEVER cow-tow to State or Federal agencies, in my opinion. They should be the highest office of law enforcement, as they are directly held accountable by the people they serve.


Sure it seems political, this letter-writing B.S., but in the end, Washington (and the State) need to know that the SHERIFF is the voice of law enforcement of the people, whom all government officials serve.


It was a great reminder for the vice-president; and while I was not a supporter of Sheriff Parkinson during his run, I support this action by him now. It was the only correct move, I believe.


0

Go live in LA county. It’s like the dark ages regarding firearms. Ian is a good man bringing his profession out of the rut so many sheriffs exist in.


0

Just happens to be the cover story for the ultra right JohnBirch magazine this month with a pic of Arizona Arpagio Joe.

There is serious study published recently about the tea party being an extension of global tobacco cartels, I will try to find a link. http://m.tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/07/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815.abstract

So it goes.


0

Where can we get our hands on a copy of the actual letter?


0

I second this request. CCN, while I appreciate extensive quoting from it, it would be nice to see a scanned uploaded version.


0

It took a while, but I think this is it: http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u515/SanLewy/parkinson_zps51a5bd6f.jpg


0

“ ….. Parkinson said that he supports the 2nd Amendment and that he will not enforce any laws that take firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.”


How does Ian Parkinson know if the person is a law abiding citizen or not if there is no universal background check, as proposed, at a local gun show at the Paso Robles Fairgrounds?


This loophole means that dangerous criminals and dangerously mentally ill individuals have a most unfettered access to firearms, and Ian Parkinson is against this? H-E-L-L-O, anybody home?


0

There really is no such loophole…private party transfers of guns must be processed through an FFL dealer for a background check, even among family members here in California. So Ted, get informed before making a fool out of yourself.


0

Downtown Bob,


Then why does the act of background checks gain ground as Republicans defy gun lobbies by wanting mandatory screening of buyers at gun shows?


http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Background-Checks-Gain-Ground-as-Republicans-Defy-4289734.php


If we’re to believe your assumed knowledge, then what is the big deal about Congress and their proposed background checks at gun shows all about? Are they pissing in the Mississippi to try and change it’s direction?


Listen, maybe you should call your Republican Congress representative post haste, and tell them that according to you, their proposed universal background check is all for naught!


Let us know in what they say, to see if you become the fool. Okay?


Thanks.


0

If ever I was going to go swimming in the Mississippi, I sure aint gonna now! Thanks, Ted.


0

Ted go to gun show and try to buy a gun and report back to us. ( it ant going to happen)


0

mustang,


Once again, then what is this uproar all about concerning “loop holes” that even the Republicans are wanting to close concerning mandatory screening of buyers at gun shows?!!!


http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Background-Checks-Gain-Ground-as-Republicans-Defy-4289734.php


Can anyone answer this question, instead of skirting it?


0

Gun trust loophole:


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/in-gun-trusts-a-legal-loophole-for-restricted-firearms.html?hp&_r=0


Might not answer your quesion, Ted, but it is an interesting read.


0

Ted, I love you like bother, but once in a while, we’re gonna have to dissagree. The “gunshow loophole” is media hype and not applicable in our state. Transfers must take place through an FFL dealer, even if it isa private party transfer. There’s a “Dealer Record of Sale” and an NICS Check performed by the FBI.


Either way, you shouldn’t feel scared of armed criminals or the mentally ill. Someone who takes personal responsibility seriously takes responsibility for their personal safety. Get a tool for self defense, learn to use it safely and effectively, be a part of the only solution that’s been proven to work.


0

SpeakTruth,


I am speaking of the universal background check, barring our state, that I have shown ol’ Downtown Bob above, and that Republicans are backing at gun shows in the link given. If it’s not a dangerous loophole, then why is Congress spending so much time on passing a bill that prevents this alleged loophole?


Either way, I have the following decal upon the windows of my home; “The owner of this property is armed. There is nothing inside worth risking your life for!” Along with you and others, I am on board with the personal safety scenario!


0

Do you actually own a gun or are you just planning to throw your Bible at them if they break in? (:>))))


0

Harley, Harley, Harley….shame on you! LMAO!


0

danika,


My dear, let us not encourage the antics that Harley throws out from time to time, okay? You know how it goes, if you give him carte blanche in his seemingly funny refutations, then he will always act in this manner and clog up the thread.


Thanking you in advance.


0

I retract my LMAO, Ted and humbly hang my head in utter shame. I apologize to all posters for clogging up this thread.


0

danika,


I will pray to Jesus tonight in the hopes that He will forgive you since your laughter was directed at His Father’s direct words in the bible being thrown about.


I can’t promise you anything, but to do my best in prayer tonight in your behalf. You can thank me later.


0

Harley,


Yes, I own many and have been trained very well.


If anyone is stupid enough to break into my dwelling, the first thing they will hear is the sound of chambering a 45 auto.


Harley, there is no need to throw the bible at any intruder, only in a metaphorical sense, by reading this passage: “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.” (Exodus 22:2) Thank our God for this passage, praise!


0

Better weld the magazine in because on the state level they want to ban any weapon that has a detachable mag .


0

mustang,


Where is the press on this issue?


0

Ok Ted, so now it’s a .45? Wasn’t it you that earlier spoke of a short barreled .357 Magnum with shot shells?


Glad to see you reconsidered, those would be a piss poor self defense load,. A heavy weight hoody would take most of the bite out of those.


0

Harley,


Don’t you own more than one gun? Tsk, tsk.


0

Time for you to take your foot out of your mouth and admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about. California has had back ground checks for many years and gun shows aren’t and never have been exempt.


0

I should have said “gun shows aren’t and never have been exempt since the back ground checks became a requirement”.


0

Harley,


“Then why does the act of background checks gain ground as Republicans defy gun lobbies by wanting mandatory screening of buyers at gun shows?”


http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Background-Checks-Gain-Ground-as-Republicans-Defy-4289734.php


I am talking about “universal” background checks at gun shows. Can someone answer the question above in an overall sense???!!! Everyone is skirting my main premise!


0

True, but a short drive to Arizona, Oklahoma, or many other states, and one can walk out with all kinds of nifty firearms – cash only, no tax, no check, etc.


I have bought firearms this way in the past, and it really felt odd… but I soon learned that the “odd” feeling was “freedom” – It was so long since I didn’t feel I needed permission from a government agency to do something, that I started to have heebee-jeebies! Wow, it has been TOO LONG since people in this state actually tasted freedom.


0

The Sheriff has shown some great insight and courage that is rare in today’s climate of politicians that try to undermine the Constitution that they swore to uphold.


I support Sheriff Parkinson 100% on this statement.


0

The Sheriff is the top cop. It is he or she that stands up for the people at a local level. When the state or federal governments over reach and ignore the constitution then it is the county Sheriff’s responsibility to defend the people of his county. Never ever allow the county to take away the right of it’s citizens to elect a Sheriff. Some counties have moved to appointing their Sheriff…that is a huge mistake.


0

^^ this. Exactly!


0
1 2 3