Bama Proud

Most of you know I am a born and raised Alabama gal.  Although I am now a Texan, I still follow what’s happening in my home State and more importantly in my home County where most all of my family still resides.  Over the last few weeks we’ve seen numerous statements from County Sheriffs who are taking a stand against Obumer and his band of merry Gun Grabbers by stating they will not back any Federal confiscation of firearms in their Counties.  The best by far comes from the Sheriff of Morgan County, Alabama (my home County).   This statement has the best definition of what “Militia” really means.

I have had many concerned citizens ask me how I feel about gun control and the 2nd amendment as it relates to the recent incidents. I swore an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the State of Alabama and the United States of America. I took that oath very seriously. I understood, that County Sheriffs may one day be our last line of defense against a government that seeks to reach outside its lawful bounds. A Sheriff is by constitutional statute, the highest law enforcement officer in the county; a law enforcement officer that is elected by the people. We are given the ability to call upon the people in times of need; to swear them in as deputies, to stand with us, in order to protect citizens from enemies that would harm us or would seek to rob us of our freedoms or of our rights as American Citizens. My job and the job of the deputies that stand with me, is an awesome responsibility, especially now in such perilous times of conflict. Our right to keep and bear arms is one of those absolute rights of the constitution that I am sworn to protect. This right is given to Americans so that we may not only protect ourselves and our families from criminal elements, but also to be called upon to stand with me should the need arise. God help us if it should come to that. The 2nd amendment was framed to insure that the people would be armed and able to fight for a righteous and lawful cause.
I do, however, believe there should be controls over who is able to purchase and carry weapons. Those controls are in place. The law forbid felons, the mentally ill, or dangerous and violent people from possessing/carrying guns. There are laws to prevent guns in schools, courts, federal properties, and other public places. Individual property owners and businesses have a right to forbid weapons on their premises if they wish. Federal laws require background checks for firearm purchases and special ATF permits for certain types of guns. Sheriffs of each county are tasked with the responsibility of approving concealed carry permits. We don’t need any further laws or statutes. We need the power and ability to enforce the ones we have and the means to deal appropriately with criminals and the mentally ill that fall through the system. I believe that every law abiding citizen has the right to own and carry a gun if they wish to do so. This right shall not be denied or infringed upon according to the constitution. I, nor any of my deputies, will be seizing guns from law abiding citizens nor will we stand for any federal agent to violate our citizens’ constitutional rights.

I’m relieved to know that my family are not going to have to deal with an overreaching political stooge for a Sheriff.  This one is a tough, no nonsense Officer.

And HER name is Ana Franklin.

18 comments

  1. 1
    LC SecondMouse growls and barks:

    May we be blessed with many more like her. If this country finds a way to turn from the course that it is currently on, it will be because people at the state and local level stood against federal overreach, and turned the tide. Alabama is not alone in this fight. Several governors, including Rick Perry, have made unequivocal statements about the status of incremental federal gun control activities within their states. For students of history, you may be recognizing these strong statements rebuking the federal government as similar in spirit to the views toward centralized authority in the eras preceding the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Mark Twain once said that history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

    I would quibble with the sheriff over the flavor of her interpretation of the Second Amendment. I, like many others, believe the Second Amendment is an affirmation of a natural right to bear arms for defense. This distinction is important, because it means that these rights are not conferred by government, and there is no legislative avenue for anyone, anywhere, to take those rights away. This is one of the many ways that the United States was made exceptional by its founders. An individual’s natural right to be armed in defense of their liberty is the one feature of our Constitution that is intended to allow us to protect it in perpetuity. The loss of this right is the beginning of the end for the Constitution. This must not be allowed to happen. To protect this right, we may be forced to use it. Let us have the strength to act, should other measures fail.

  2. 2

    I see your point, but I believe her wording of this is a response to those who yammer that “a well ordered Militia” only pertains to the National Guard or Military entities, and not ordinary citizens. She’s making it a point to say that WE are the Militia that will and can be called upon in times of need, and she has the right to call upon us if and when that need arises. Some believe that ordinary citizens should stay out of the way when conflict comes and let LEO’s and the Military deal with it, but she knows damn well that those resources would probably not be enough if the fecal matter strikes the air propulsion device, especially if we are faced with dealing with a Military divided between those that remember their oath, and those willing to follow a corrupt and overreaching Government. She’s letting it be known that she’s not afraid to allow us to stand on the line with her and beside her to fight.

  3. 3
    LC Jackboot IC/A growls and barks:

    Bravo Sheriff !!!! You can’t do better than that. The folks in your county are smart to elect someone like her Sis.
    LC Jackboot IC/A recently posted..Bama ProudMy Profile

  4. 4
    angrywebmaster growls and barks:

    Did anyone attend the nationwide pro-second amendment rallies in their state capitals today? Just got back from the one in Concord NH. Report on blog to follow
    angrywebmaster recently posted..Obama’s gun control ordersMy Profile

  5. 5
    LC Draco growls and barks:

    I have a feeling there are a lot more sheriffs and LEOs out there that feel the same way. They just are not being vocal atm.
    LC Draco recently posted..The new SOF: Special Operations FitnessMy Profile

  6. 6
    irish19 growls and barks:

    angrywebmaster @ #:
    Didn’t get to a rally-can’t afford the gas. But I could afford to go to an area gun shop and get some stripper clips for the SKS. I am happy to report the place was packed.
    They have probably tripled their number of parking spaces since I started going there, and parking was at a premium. Lots of empty space in the showcases. Very few EEEEEEEEEEEEEevvvvvvvvvvvviiiillllllll black rifles to be found.

  7. 7
    LC Sir Rurik, K.o.E. growls and barks:

    Okay, I didn’t get to go. Our state capitol is too far, and I was taken by PGR flagline duty. However, I have another report from a good friend in Arizona (a friend who is a serious gunner as well as published author). Of course Arizona is at the epicenter of it all.

    >>Today’s event at the state capitol received varied coverage, depending on the agenda of the media outlet you see. AP said about 500 “protesters” attended while I guesstimated 500-700. However, a head count from a 2nd story ran just under or over 1000 (people kept moving around.) Based on what I saw, there was just as much support for the Bill of Rights as there were protests against further limits on RKBA.

    The organizer (whose name was undecipherable amid the hubbub) indicated that several folks were scheduled to speak, but a bullhorn/loudspeaker was unavailable until near the end.

    A show of hands indicated maybe 50% veterans. Included a USAF vet who’s organized Arizona American-Africans who support the Constitution. He said “We’re Americans first.”

    Other speakers included constitutional/gun laws publisher Alan Korwin and former State Sen. Russell Pierce, author of SB 1070 (immigration reform).

    Weapons were present in abundance, literally from pitchforks to muzzle loaders to six-shooters to AR-15s.

    Sampling of signs:

    “No gun ever assaulted anyone.”

    Profile of an AR: “You don’t like me because I’m black.”

    “AR-15 = 20th century Brown Bess.”

    Alan, just back from SHOT, said Gov’nor Jan sent 2 AZ commerce reps to hit up gun companies under fire (!) in other states to move here. AZ generates something over $1 billion in guns & related sales annually, and the known 300+ companies could grow well beyond that figure.

    More as it occurs.<<

    In other news from SoDak, our legislature is considering a bill which would legally establish "Constitutional Carry". It would be nice, though IM(notso)HO, CCW is nice because it adds a sense of mystery and uncertainty to matters. And that makes everyone a potential armed citizen, even when totally unarmed. And that is good for crime rates and civility.

  8. 8
    single stack growls and barks:

    Our right to keep and bear arms is one of those absolute rights of the constitution that I am sworn to protect. This right is given to Americans so that we may not only protect ourselves and our families from criminal elements, but also to be called upon to stand with me should the need arise. God help us if it should come to that. The 2nd amendment was framed to insure that the people would be armed and able to fight for a righteous and lawful cause.

    I do, however, believe there should be controls over who is able to purchase and carry weapons.

    Am I the only one who sees the contradiction in this argument?
    I hear it all the time. To paraphrase:

    We have the right to own and possess guns to insure that we can fight against tyrannical government but only those people who have asked for and received government’s permission to own guns should have the guns government grants them permission to own. If we want to carry guns, well, that’s a whole other category of government permission to bear arms in places where government gives us permission.

    This changes gun ownership from a natural right endowed by our creator to a privilege granted by the very government the right is supposed to protect us from.
    Our own inconsistencies are propelling us to our doom.

  9. 9
    Uchuck the Tuchuck growls and barks:

    My dear Lady M-ITT

    I am from Bama as well, just down the road. Born and raised in Cullman County, halfway between Cullman and Holly Pond on Highway 278. Good to hear from somebody from the old homepatch.

  10. 10
    LC Moriarty, Imperial Goatherd growls and barks:

    “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” Hubert H. Humphrey, (1911-1978) US Vice-President, US Senator (D-MN)

    Memorize and stuff sideways down the throat of the nearest “liberal.” Lather, rinse, repeat.

  11. 11

    single stack @ # 8: Exact same inconsistent babble I heard from other places. Which side will they take when the “law” is dictated from 1600?
    LC cmblake6, Imperial Black Ops Technician recently posted..Barack Obama to use the SEC to overturn Citizens UnitedMy Profile

  12. 12
    Tallulah growls and barks:

    single stack @ #:

    We have the right to own and possess guns to insure that we can fight against tyrannical government but only those people who have asked for and received government’s permission to own guns should have the guns government grants them permission to own. If we want to carry guns, well, that’s a whole other category of government permission to bear arms in places where government gives us permission.

    Yeppers, that’s how I read it, too. All this LICENSING and PERMITTING [spit]. Just gives the Goobermint a Target List, folks.

    Let me tell you how it’s worked here in New York: you have to pay hundreds of bucks to CRAWL to a [Demoshit] “judge” to pleeeead your cause and make a case that you NEEEEEED a gun, according to Their ideas of who NEEDS a weapon. Then the judge may or may not ALLOW you to have a license to keep a gun IN your home; but you can’t take it out without basically burying it in wet cement and letting it harden first. THEN you have to go through this whole Crawl On Your Belly bullshit scenario again, I think it’s every TWO FUCKIN’ YEARS. And pay the hefty fee again for the privilege. At which time the next Demoshit judge can rescind the State’s LORDLY permission, and they can confiscate “your” weapon.

    See? that’s how it works in an unconstitutional, lawless, tyrannical, piece of shit polity. Like New “Tammany Hall” York.

  13. 13
    single stack growls and barks:

    Tallulah @ #: 12

    What really frustrates me is that’s the argument being made by our side.
    All the 2A supporters I talk to always take the position that we have the right to keep and bear arms but it’s important for the government to control it-but not too much.
    This is intellectual suicide and the reason our rights are being eroded away.

    The fact is, the 2A places guns outside the jurisdiction of government. This is made plain both by its purpose – to ensure that the people can resist government that has become tyrannical – which is articulated in the prefatory clause: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, and by the operative clause: “The right of the people…shall not be infringed”.
    The 2A explicitly forbids any and all laws regulating gun ownership and possession. It is impossible to make a law controlling, restricting, or otherwise regulating a right without infringing it. This argument is supported by the contemporaneous writings of the men who wrote, debated, and ratified the Bill of Rights; the 2A in particular.

    Whenever I make this argument the howls of horror and condemnation from 2A supporters is loud and fearful. Our own side has conceded the battleground to the enemy. Is it any wonder we have to ask government permission to exercise an enumerated right that is supposed to protect us from government?

  14. 14

    single stack @ # 13: Correct. Every gun law written since 1791 is UNConstitutional. Period. To join the United States, under the Constitution, the states had to agree to go along with its guidance. While the 10th Amendment says all things not mentioned here are your own business in your own state, there is still that “Shall Not Be Infringed” line in the 2A. This being so, even city laws are against the 2A, regardless of the 10A.
    LC cmblake6, Imperial Black Ops Technician recently posted..Barack Obama to use the SEC to overturn Citizens UnitedMy Profile

  15. 15
    LC Proud Infidel growls and barks:

    BRAVO to her and all the other Sheriffs taking that stand! :em01: Sheriff Frank McKeithen here in Bay County, FL has taken the same stance. So far, there have been about a dozen, and I hope that number grows exponentially!!

  16. 16
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    The road to war Part I
    Posted on January 17, 2013 | 2 Comments

    Something has been started now that cannot be stopped. Pandora’s box has been opened, the genie in the bottle unleashed. The great kinetic energy that has been building in our society has been unloosed; An avalanche rolling down the mountain This has been building for weeks and now it has come to a head. For the past few weeks, the White house has pushed this assault weapons ban and hyped it. It would be done! It must be done! They have taken it to a fever pitch. When the moment came for the next great King , the great narcissist to make his move, he blinked. He choked, surrounded by children on his gilded stage, he stepped back from the edge of the precipice and relented; He relented because the time was not right, resistance was too great. There was real talk of revolution in the air and he fell back on a smaller scale plan; A plan that would be incremental , implemented over time as things cooled down. What he did not realize was that things would not cool down.Not this time. He had taken our society to the edge. Law abiding citizens being forced to make the decision to be law abiding or to defy laws that had no basis in our constitution. He made law abiding Americans make the decision to become revolutionaries. He made honest men (And Women) decide that they would become criminals. He made men make peace with themselves and their God and make the decision to leave their families,their most loved, and die for our republic; Die in the defense of our most sacred and basic right,that of self defense. He took an entire nation to the brink of blood and war. All the time judging the water and playing politics. There are many things that led to this point: The gradual erosion of our rights, Outright violations of our constitution such as the 2012 NDAA, the patriot act and many others. These many things finally came to a head. When they were all added up along with executive orders abridging the second amendment it spelled and smelled, of tyranny. It smelled of treason of the worst kind. The problem is mr. President, once you make a man, many men, make that decision, make them so committed that they are willing to give their life, how do you just turn that off? You made us commit to being criminals and revolutionaries, made us decide to cede our lives and our families for our rights. We are good men, family men, patriots and good citizens and all we ask is to be left alone , left free. The seeds for something much larger have now been planted in our society. Plans were made, strategies decided upon ,we have said our goodbyes ; the ball is rolling. The kinetic energy has been released. The question is: Will it be stopped because what you had planned is watered down? Or more importantly can it be stopped at all? The war has started already, they just don’t know it yet.

    http://eatgrueldog.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/531/

  17. 17
    LC Moriarty, Imperial Goatherd growls and barks:

    LC Gladiator @ #16:

    This war started a long, long time ago. Some have argued it began when 1791, when Hamilton coerced Washington into creating a manifestly unfair tax on whiskey. When the people of Pennsylvania (who had recently concluded another war over unfair taxes) rebelled, Washington mobilized the Continental Army and crushed the insurrection.

    In the end, the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution, that “little book” that Piers Morgan is so fond of. It’s worth noting that the Declaration of Independence was signed unanimously, while the Constitution was signed by 39 of 55 delegates present.

    Hamilton and Jefferson were bitterly opposed ideologically. Hamilton strove for a strong, centralized government and banking system. Jefferson hoped to see a decentralized, more free and agrarian nation evolve. Hamilton won his slate and, with the decline of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, the course was set.

    The Declaration abhorred slavery. The Constitution enshrined it, along with taxation, itself a form of slavery. The matter simmered for nearly another century before it boiled over into the bloodiest war in American history. Lincoln imposed conscription (yet another form of slavery) and an income tax. When the latter was found to be unconstitutional, Theodore Roosevelt saved it from oblivion and handed the idea to Wilson, who eagerly promoted it and found the means to amend it to the Constitution.

    FDR and his hand-picked acolyte LBJ made no pretense over violating what few protections remained in the Constitution. By then, the courts had long since overreached and were thoroughly corrupted. The New Deal, the Great Society, the NFA and the GCA ’68 were all direct metastases of the malignancy.

    Now we come to the blithering fools in Congress, the White House and the judiciary. Willfully ignorant of the meaning of our Revolution and utterly contemptuous of the concept of individual rights that lead to it, they hand out edict after edict, sneering and laughing as they do. The corruption of our language, culture and our very ability to think about these things aids them enormously.

    The war began long ago and most of the great battles for our rights were lost generations ago. What you see today is a mopping-up action.

    Someone once wrote that we don’t need another revolution in this country, we need millions of them. If your mind is indeed your primary weapon, seek to unleash it first. We must now learn to think critically in a sea of idiots and rediscover what was once “common sense.” Firearms are, in the end, only tools. If we are to recapture what has been lost, it’s going to take a hell of a lot more than preventing a ban on magazines.

  18. 18
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    McDonald’s settles Mich. suit over Islamic diet
    Published – Jan 21 2013 08:29PM EST

    JEFF KAROUB, Associated Press

    DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) — McDonald’s and one of its franchise owners agreed to pay $700,000 to members of the Muslim community to settle allegations a Detroit-area restaurant falsely advertised its food as being prepared according to Islamic dietary law.

    McDonald’s and Finley’s Management Co. agreed Friday to the tentative settlement, with that money to be shared by Dearborn Heights resident Ahmed Ahmed, a Detroit health clinic, the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn and lawyers.

    Ahmed’s attorney, Kassem Dakhlallah, told The Associated Press on Monday that he’s “thrilled” with the preliminary deal that’s expected to be finalized March 1. McDonald’s and Finley’s Management deny any liability but say the settlement is in their best interests.

    The lawsuit alleged that Ahmed bought a chicken sandwich in September 2011 at a Dearborn McDonald’s but found it wasn’t halal — meaning it didn’t meet Islamic requirements for preparing food. Islam forbids consumption of pork, and God’s name must be invoked before an animal providing meat for consumption is slaughtered.

    Dakhlallah said there are only two McDonald’s in the United States that sell halal products and both are in Dearborn, which has one of the nation’s largest Arab and Muslim communities. Overall, the Detroit area is home to about 150,000 Muslims of many different ethnicities.

    The locations advertise that they exclusively sell halal Chicken McNuggets and McChicken sandwiches and they have to get those products from an approved halal provider, Dakhlallah said. He said there was no evidence of problems on the production side, but he alleges that the Dearborn location on Ford Road sold non-halal products when it ran out of halal.

    Dakhlallah said he was approached by Ahmed, and they conducted an investigation. A letter sent to McDonald’s Corp. and Finley’s Management by Dakhlallah’s firm said Ahmed had “confirmed from a source familiar with the inventory” that the restaurant had sold non-halal food “on many occasions.”

    After they received no response to the letter, Dakhlallah said, they filed a lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court in November 2011 as part of a class action.

    The AP left messages Monday afternoon for attorneys representing the corporation and the franchise.

    In the settlement notice, Finley’s Management said it “has a carefully designed system for preparing and serving halal such that halal chicken products are labeled, stored, refrigerated, and cooked in halal-only areas.” The company added it trains its employees on preparing halal food and “requires strict adherence to the process.”

    He said although Ahmed believes McDonald’s was negligent, there was no evidence that the chain set out to deceive customers.

    “McDonald’s from the very beginning stepped up and took this case very seriously,” Dakhlallah said. “They made it clear they wanted to resolve this. They got ahead of the problem.”

    The lawsuit covers anyone who bought the halal-advertised products from the Ford Road restaurant and another Dearborn McDonald’s with a different owner between September 2005 and last Friday. Since that would be impossible to determine, Dakhlallah said both sides agreed to provide money to community-based charities that benefit members of this group.

    The other location on Michigan Avenue wasn’t a defendant or a focus of the investigation, Dakhlallah said.

    He said the final hearing will ultimately determine who gets what and how much, but roughly $275,000 is expected to go to the Huda Clinic, about $150,000 to the museum, $230,000 to attorneys and $20,000 to Ahmed.

    Dakhlallah said he believes it’s the first lawsuit of its kind related to McDonald’s and halal food.

    In 2002, McDonald’s agreed to donate $10 million to Hindu and other groups in the U.S. to settle lawsuits that accused the chain of mislabeling french fries and hash browns as vegetarian. The vegetable oil used to prepare the items had contained traces of beef for flavoring purposes