Every now and then, a piece of news appears in unlikely places that brings a modicum of hope to the constitutionally oriented mind. Such was the case in the Tulsa daily paper on January 13, 2016, well hidden and headlined: “Creek County sheriff urges arms bearing.” Credit was given to Rhett Morgan, a World staff writer.
The story began by stating that Sheriff John Davis was offering a cost discount for those seeking concealed carry licenses and further was encouraging residents the day before to take up arms if they haven’t already. The final paragraph stated that his office will be opening the administrative office building one Saturday a month to accommodate those applicants whose work schedule makes it difficult to appear during the week for the required fingerprinting.
In the evening news of one of the local TV stations the next day, a reporterette was doing an interview with Sheriff Davis on the story. That was a pleasant surprise and the sheriff came across as being really intent about his move, and having a desire to be of service to his constituents by making the process less expensive and more time convenient.
The common sense approach to this is the fact that no police force is able to protect the population from criminal activities. Their duty is to investigate crimes and apprehend the culprits to bring them into the system of justice established in the United States. There simply is no way there ever could be enough personnel in any of the various levels of police departments to provide protection for individual citizens in an ongoing way.
The statement of Sheriff Davis encouraging citizens to arm themselves, if legally entitled to do so being implied, reminded me of stories that surfaced some years ago, first about a town in Florida and a suburb of Chicago that had passed ordinances mandating homes to be armed (unless occupants were not legally entitled to or had religious objections). In both cases, the media reports indicated a major reduction in all forms of crime. A very few years later, a similar report surfaced about another couple of cities that had the same results with similar laws.
Long being of the conviction that elected officials should be complimented when having done something agreeable (even quicker than criticized when doing the opposite), contact was made on January 15 with the Creek County Sheriff office. Sheriff Davis was on the phone, probably with another interview or attending to his sworn business, so my discussion was with his undersheriff who advised that they had already received numerous call complimenting them for the actions, so mine were added.
It should also be noted that a sheriff in one of the upper Midwest states, possibly Michigan or Wisconsin, had previously issued such recommendation. These actions indicate a refreshingly rare, in government officials, streak of common sense and attention to the well being of our citizens. This is particularly in contrast to so many of the chiefs of police who, at least from the proclamations of their association, oppose citizens even owning firearms. Perhaps one huge difference is that, for the most part, police chiefs are political appointments by city officials while sheriffs are elected by the people, making them tend to be more attentive to the average citizen.
As part of our discussion, my statement was that a permit had not been sought by me out of concern that some current or future dictatorial state or federal official could demand the permit lists and then send armed thugs to collect those weapons first. Also that while in the Army Air Forces in World War II, my range scores were marksman in the M-1 carbine, caliber .30 and expert in the pistol, M-1911-A-1, caliber .45 and I would not hesitate to assist any officer under attack.