Sheriff Candidate Kirk Byram Responds to Firearms Question

21

Sheriff Candidate Kirk Byram Responds to Firearms Question

I’ve been asking each candidate for Vanderburgh County Sheriff the same question regarding their views on Federal nullification and a hypothetical DHS gun confiscation. As many of you know, we have a new contender for that office in Kirk Byram, a Republican. I am pleased Mr. Byram was recently able to take a little time from his busy schedule to join his counterparts in answering the aforementioned question. Our conversation is reprinted below without edit, alteration or comment.

QUESTION:

(To Mr. Byram)
It’s come to my attention you are seeking the office of Sheriff for Vanderburgh County. Congratulations and good luck!
I will ask you the same question I have asked every other candidate thus far…
“What’s your position on the duties of the office of Sheriff and where do you stand on the subject of nullification of unconstitutional Federal Law? Would you enforce a hypothetical order from DHS to confiscate the legal firearms of the citizens of Vanderburgh County?”
Thanks in advance for your answer.

ANSWER:

Mr. Linzy,

The answer to your first question, “What’s your position on the duties of the Office of Sheriff?” is very simple to answer. Indiana Code 36-2-13-5 outlines the duties of the Sheriff. As Sheriff, I will arrest those who have broken the laws of the State of Indiana and will insure that they are given their right to due process through the Vanderburgh County Court System. I will execute and serve all civil process writs and warrants as directed to by the Vanderburgh County Courts. I will maintain security in all Vanderburgh County Courts, maintain the Vanderburgh County Confinement Center and, in such, take photographs, fingerprints, and other identification data in compliance with Indiana State law of anyone taken into custody for felonies or misdemeanors. I will abide by all regulations as given to me by the Indiana Department of Corrections.

We are fortunate, within the Vanderburgh County Sheriff’s Office, that we do much more than, run the Confinement Center, provide security to the Courts and serve tax warrants. We have an excellent motor patrol division full of competent and dedicated motor patrol deputies. We have an Investigative Division that I will put up against any in the state and dedicated professionals, who mentor our students, secure our courts and serve those charged in our care in our confinement facility. We also have a dedicated support staff for who we could not perform our day to day duties without. There is much more to the Sheriff’s Office than what is outlined in the Indiana State statute.

Next, if a citizen legally possesses a firearm, there is no reason for me to confiscate the weapon. They have not violated a state law. They are in possession of a weapon legally.

Finally, I hope this answers your questions. Hypotheticals are always difficult to answer until you have some specifics to go on. I can assure you that I will seek legal input and I will surround myself with people who will provide me with valued counsel. As Sheriff, I believe that I will faithfully enforce the laws of the State of Indiana. By doing this, I can insure that the rights of the people of Vanderburgh County are also faithfully served.

Thank you for your time,
Kirk Byram

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

21 COMMENTS

  1. Ok, Mr. Linzy, I didn’t hear a NO, he answered basically the same as other legitimate candidate. You are not going to get a real world answer to a question based in hypothetical facts.

    • You’re right. He didn’t say “no”. I left him a follow up question to clarify his position. Hopefully that one gets answered.

      This is a better answer than Wedding’s, but not by much.

  2. It’s a slippery slope when a sheriff can just pick and choose what laws to enforce. What if a sheriff decides murder is now legal in his jurisdiction? The fact of the matter is a rogue sheriff like the one in the news lately should be jailed by federal authorities. If you don’t like the laws take it up with your congressman. There will be no gun ban anyway so everybody can just calm down.

    • The question of a gun ban wasn’t even mentioned. My question was about a DHS order to confiscate weapons in a way similar to what happened during Katrina in NOLA.

      It’s a legitimate question whether you think so or not. I wasn’t asking whether he would violate the law, I asked if he would uphold the Constitution of the United States as sacrosanct if a Federal directive told him to violate the Constitution. Again, whether you like it or not, that is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any law passed by Congress, or State Legislature that violates the Supreme Law is null and void. A sheriff does not have to wait for a SCOTUS decision to tell him if a law is in violation of the Constitution.

      • There again, you are asking HYPOTHETICAL questions. Would it make you happy if everyone started answering you with hypothetical answers? Not true answers, just what if answers. That’s a pretty simple way of dealing with every question posed to each candidate. If that’s the case, lets all run for office.

        • There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking pointed hypothetical question of prospective politicians.

          I actually could have easily phrased it as a non-hypothetical and said something like: “Do you agree a Sheriff has the duty to protect County citizens from overreaching government and defend Constitutional rights at all costs?”

          That’s not a hypothetical.

          I could have asked the DHS portion like this: “Do you believe a DHS directive trumps the Constitution? Would you ever follow a DHS directive, or any other federal or state directive that violated the Constitution?”

          I could have phrased them in various ways. I chose a hypothetical because it allowed me to give more precise circumstances and get an answer on a specific scenario. Politicians hate hypotheticals because they are more difficult to weasel out of.

          I’ve said this plenty of times, but I’ll say it again… You are a bloody fool if you think these questions should be off limits. A hypothetical question is merely one wherein one asks “what if”. Anyone who plans for anything or analyzes any situation must ask hypothetical questions to gauge possible futures and prepare for them. Maybe if more bureaucrats and politicians and policemen asked themselves hypotheticals more often, we wouldn’t get ourselves into situations where our country is run on debt and our police break into homes without checking for an open WIFI.

          • Yo brad, at least you don’t get to blame the existence of the DHS on Obama or anything Katrina related. I’m sure you’d like to.

          • Why do you not understand the political paradigm of left vs. right does not apply to me? You keep making these ill-informed statements as if because I am Republican, I defended George Bush when he was in office. I hated George Bush as much as I hate this guy. I’m a libertarian, i.e. classical liberal. I am a Republican because I believe the Republican Party can be turned around by imbibing it with libertarian, classical liberal ideals. Trying to label me with your tired labeling system is like calling Elvis Presley “Country Blues” instead of “Rock and Roll”. You need a new category in your political paradigm. Until then, you are going to be totally in the dark about what’s really happening at the grassroots in this country.

        • Here is a hypothetical question for you troll.

          If President Obama asked you to run guns to the Mexican drug cartel would you do it even though it is illegal?

          If the US Government asked you to torture a political prisoner as part of your job even though it may be illegal would you do it?

          If you worked for the IRS and they sent you to take a car from someone’s driveway that would cause them to lose their job for back income taxes even though it is stealing would you do it?

          Hypothetical questions should have been asked about all of these things years ago. They weren’t and people just like you and I have engaged in illegal activity cause the gubment told them too.

          • Please now you’re going to defend Linzy’s craziness with a different name? I would too!

            The moral of those stories is to ask questions not throw up ten million hypotheticals that don’t have a snow ball’s chance of ever coming true.

            So Brent and Linzy, spare us all!

          • I have only thrown out one hypothetical question to these candidates. Not ten million…one.. And that was based on something that has already happened elsewhere. It’s not some pie in the sky, off the wall question like some of you seem to think it is.

            It’s supposed t be a difficult question to answer precisely because to answer it without equivocation would mean beyond a shadow of a doubt you support the Second Amendment to the Constitution without exception.

            Again, I have asked a follow up question to Mr. Byram. I hope he answers the follow up. I’d like a little clarification from this candidate.

          • WinneckeThePooh,

            Someone told me that my name was mentioned here by you a couple of times. I come here on my lunch hour to set the record straight. None of these posts in this thread are mine. I don’t wake up every morning and wonder what is going on at the CCO and go and troll this website and start posting with random names. I don’t have that kind of time. If you have a problem with me or an alleged action I have done, feel free to call or email me. I am easy to talk to.

            However, I do find it quite hypocritical of you to use a fake name while complaining about people using different fake names. Bit of a double standard there don’t ya think?

            I would highly encourage the CCO to require logins or a Facebook integration to post comments here. I know the CCO uses WordPress and I know its just a plugin that they can download and activate in the backend.

            Until that day comes, stop with the accusations and lies about me WinneckeThePooh!

            Brent Jackson
            email: bjackson at idatatech.net
            812-305-5058

          • Brent, I know you think the world revolves around you but how do you even know you’re the one he’s talking about? In another thread there were 2-3 different Brents being mentioned including Friends Friend and the 2 user names that backed him up that have never been used on here and FF even mentioned he was indeed “Brent” and has posts that are eerily similar to this one aside from the fact that there is magically just one person defending Linzy every time.

            Lighten up Brent we’re just talking Brad Linzy here.

          • Brent Jackson: there was another Brent person on here who I was referring to this time and one time before who is a well-known out of this world ultra-Libertarian that frequents this site who I was just messing with on here. I called him up and he said it wasn’t him so I do apologize sincerely to both even though I wasn’t really making any accusations and I wasn’t even talking about you. I thought he was going crazy about his libertarian ideas with Linzy again so I decided to clown around with him on here.

            I do remember the Friends Friend person saying they were Brent and I have no idea if that is you but the Brent in this post and the other one I was talking about the other day were directed at Brent my friend. I have no idea who you are.

            • What in the hell are you talking about? Are you Lloyd Winnecke? You sure think like him.

  3. Kirk did a good job answering the applicable real life type questions. It is obvious he is proud to wear the uniform and speaks well of his fellow workers. It is going to be an interesting race for sheriff.

    • I agree, maybe there will be a new sheriff in town. At least a different political party.

      • Not saying anything negative about Byram, but he is a part of the current administration. He was promoted by them and given his current assignment by them. He is them. The Sheriff gets the final say on who gets promoted and who gets what assignments. So the theory that Byram is somehow the anti-establishment candidate or he is way different than the current administration is not realistic.
        There are a lot of similarities in the two candidates. But one has more experience and has had a lot more responsibility than the other.

  4. While Lt. Byram was promoted by the current administration, his rank is a merit rank. He had to test and interview for that position. It is not appointed. The sheriff does have a part in the promotion process, but if Lt. Byram passed all the steps in the promotional process, the sheriff can’t stop the promotion if the position becomes available. Only the Merit Board has that power and then something like disciplinary problems could disqualify a promotional candidate.

    • Do you honestly think the sheriff could not block a promotion if he chooses to? Believe me, this has been going on for years. No one will be promoted, regardless of test scores, if the almighty sheriff decides he doesn’t like or want that person.

Comments are closed.