Constitutional sheriff group influences many in local law enforcement

Second Amendment


One morning last year, around 60 sheriffs and deputies gathered outside Houston for a training that proved to be less about enforcing laws than about subverting them. After a prayer from a pastor dressed like George Washington (wig, frilly collar, musket), the crowd heard from Gary Heavin, the founder of the Curves International fitness chain, who called the 2020 presidential election of Joe Biden “blatantly, in-our-faces stolen.” Then he turned to the reporters in the room (“propagandists”) identifiable by their masks (“diapers”), and said, “I don’t know whether this is going to scare you or comfort you, but just about every person in this room is armed.” The room erupted in cheers 1.

Heavin was helping the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association fund this training, but the dominant presence that day was the group’s founder and director, Richard Mack. With his Reaganesque swoosh of dark hair and the cadence of a country preacher, he delivered his organization’s central message: that sheriffs, within their counties, are more powerful than any state or federal authority, and that they can resist “tyranny” by refusing to enforce laws they believe violate the U.S. Constitution. “This is a peaceful and effective process, à la Martin Luther King, à la Gandhi, à la Rosa Parks,” he said.

The Anti-Defamation League calls Mack’s organization an “anti-government extremist group,” while he prefers to invoke Barry Goldwater’s 1964 battle cry: “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.” Since founding the group in 2011, Mack estimates it has trained at least 800 sheriffs. Agencies in several states, including Texas and Virginia, have allowed officers to use these events for professional education credits. 

While Mack once focused on gun rights, now he’s pushing sheriffs to investigate the 2020 election. One of his sheriff allies is facing a state investigation over his role in seizing a voting tabulator, while others are talking about boosting surveillance during future elections, raising concerns that they will try to intimidate voters. “I don’t think any sheriff is trying to intimidate people not to vote,” Mack recently told The New York Times.

But how influential are Mack’s views? Very, as it turns out. 

Political scientists Emily Farris and Mirya Holman
Mack’s group has successfully radicalized a generation of sheriffs to believe that the office has seemingly unlimited power and autonomy.

The Marshall Project collaborated with political scientists Emily Farris and Mirya Holman on a survey of America’s 3,000-plus sheriffs last year. More than 500 responded, and more than a dozen agreed to be interviewed after taking the survey. Though only a handful claimed membership in Mack’s group, more than 200 (nearly half of the respondents) agreed with him that their own authority, within their counties, supersedes 2 that of the state or federal government. (Another 132 clicked “neutral.”) More than 300 — which account for one-tenth of America’s roughly 3,000 sheriffs — said they are willing to place themselves between a higher government authority and their constituents, an action they call “interposition.”

Mack was once a board member of the Oath Keepers, the militia group whose members are currently on trial for invading the U.S. Capitol. He said he left the group years ago, but some sheriffs have appeared on leaked member lists. The Marshall Project’s survey demonstrates the group’s wider popularity 3: 11% of responding sheriffs said they personally support the Oath Keepers’s positions, though the survey did not ask for specifics. (More than a quarter said they didn’t know the group’s positions or had never heard of it.)

Mack’s group has “successfully radicalized a generation of sheriffs to believe that the office has seemingly unlimited power and autonomy,” Farris and Holman write in a forthcoming book on sheriffs that draws on this survey.

Certainly Mack sees the results as validating. “I was surprised by some of that, and pleased,” he said. “The people of the country are getting behind us.”

2021 U.S. sheriff survey results
The Marshall Project with Emily Farris (Texas Christian University) and Mirya Holman (Tulane University), 2021

Meet Richard Mack

Over his long, peripatetic career, Mack has learned to persuade people: He’s been a car salesman, high school history teacher, reality show contestant (on the 2004 season of Showtime’s “American Candidate”), recruiter (for Gun Owners of America) and unsuccessful entrant into Republican primaries for governor of Utah and congressperson from Texas. In the early 1980s, as a young police officer in Provo, Utah, he attended a training conducted by W. Cleon Skousen on the basics of the U.S. Constitution. (Skousen was known for saying the document had divine origins, but Mack didn’t recall any religious content in the training he attended.)

Mack then moved back to his hometown in Graham County, a sparsely populated stretch of southeastern Arizona, where he was elected sheriff in 1988. Five years later, Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which temporarily required sheriffs and other local law enforcement officials to run background checks on people who wanted to buy guns. Mack and several of his peers mounted a lawsuit, with the help of the National Rifle Association, and the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, with Justice Antonin Scalia declaring that the provision violated state sovereignty.

Graham County, Arizona, Sheriff Richard Mack (left) and Ravalli County, Montana, Sheriff and Coroner Jay Printz (right) with Orange County, Vermont, Sheriff Sam Frank (center) outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., in 1996, after a hearing on the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
Graham County, Arizona, Sheriff Richard Mack (left) and Ravalli County, Montana, Sheriff and Coroner Jay Printz (right) with Orange County, Vermont, Sheriff Sam Frank (center) outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., in 1996, after a hearing on the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
Richard Ellis, ZUMAPRESS.com

Mack became a hero to Second Amendment activists. By then, a smaller cohort on the right had come to argue for sheriff supremacy, an idea that scholars trace back to the “Posse Comitatus” movement (“power of the county,” in Latin) a generation earlier. (The movement’s founder, William Potter Gale, argued the Constitution was divinely inspired to elevate white people above other racial groups, and some of his followers attacked government officials.) Mack regularly disavows racism and violence, and said he knows nothing about Gale. But the image of a county sheriff standing up to federal “tyranny” grew increasingly popular amid anger at how federal agents handled early 1990s sieges at the Branch Davidian compound, in Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, in rural Idaho. 

At Ruby Ridge, a white separatist named Randy Weaver faced arrest after having sold two sawed-off shotguns to a government informant. In the ensuing standoff, federal agents fatally shot his wife and son. Mack wrote a foreword to Weaver’s book about these events.

Although he lost his campaign for a third term as sheriff, Mack traveled around the country as a public speaker and author. He worked closely with the family of Ammon Bundy during a 2014 armed confrontation with agents from the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid fees and cattle grazing rights. “We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” Mack told Fox News at the time, according to The Blaze. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.” (He later backtracked, telling Talking Points Memo that this wasn’t an explicit strategy and the women did this “on their own,” despite his misgivings.)

In a 2019 study, political scientist Zoe Nemerever found that the presence of a sheriff with “Constitutionalist” views was associated with a higher likelihood of violent confrontation between their constituents and federal Bureau of Land Management employees. “Who has been violent in our country?” Mack asked The Marshall Project during an interview. “The federal government has, quite often.”

Many of the sheriffs interviewed after they took The Marshall Project’s survey said they have a fine working relationship with state and federal law enforcement. But others complained about them, particularly in Western states with lots of federal land. “My backyard is a national forest,” said Sheriff Cameron Noel of Beaver County, Utah (population 7,250). “We’d have forest rangers that would come in. They don’t live here … and if a guy is up there with his family to recreate, if he’s got a taillight out, they’re going to write him a federal violation.”

The Constitutional sheriff movement gave such conflicts over authority a more right-wing cast, according to Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow with Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. “Mack is successful in part because he plays to conceptions sheriffs have of themselves already, but with an ideological twist,” he said.

Richard Mack, founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association
Who has been violent in our country? The federal government has, quite often.

Mack’s early focus on gun rights proved prescient. Following the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress began discussing background checks and bans on assault weapons. “My phone [started] ringing off the hook,” recalled Sheriff Brad DeLay of Lawrence County, Missouri (population. 38,300). “People [were coming] to me and [saying], ‘Hey, Obama says he’s going to take away our guns.’” 

Some sheriffs said they learned about Mack’s movement from constituents. “I’ve been asked ‘Are you a Sheriff Mack follower?’” said Noel.

Mack went on to compile the names of nearly 500 sheriffs who rejected gun control measures and encouraged others to join them. He had hit the right issue for the right audience. According to the survey, sheriffs as a whole tend to be skeptical of gun laws 4: 79% said they should be less strict than they are today. (21% said they should be more strict.)

2021 U.S. sheriff survey results
The Marshall Project with Emily Farris (Texas Christian University) and Mirya Holman (Tulane University), 2021

After a mass shooting at a Las Vegas concert in 2017, Nevada lawmakers created a process to take guns from people who threatened themselves or others, and some sheriffs in the state refused to participate. “In Germany prior to WWII we saw Hitler place restrictions on the public’s right to bear arms,” wrote Sheriff Sharon Wehrly of Nye County (population 53,500), a member of Mack’s group, in a viral letter to the governor.

COVID-19, violence and the Republican Party

Many “Constitutional sheriffs” got their first taste of fame in early 2020, defiantly promising — via viral Facebook posts and Fox News appearances — to ignore statewide COVID-19 lockdown orders. (At the time, The Marshall Project found statements from 60 sheriffs across the country.) In an April 2020 Facebook post, at least one invoked Nazism again. Others spoke of budgets and staffing. In the survey, almost one-third of sheriffs said they chose not to enforce mask mandates, and some said this was because they didn’t have the resources to do so, regardless of their political views.

Since then, such rhetoric has continued to grow beyond Mack’s group. Sheriff Mark Lamb of Pinal County, Arizona (population 449,600), a conservative media star who is not officially a member, often uses similar language: “Our County Sheriffs are the last bastion of freedom against government overreach on a local and federal level,” reads the description of his 2020 book, “American Sheriff: Traditional Values in a Modern World.” 

“A lot of [Constitutional sheriff] talking points are squarely among the center of the Republican party now,” said Jessica Pishko, a former researcher at the University of South Carolina Law School and author of “The Highest Law in the Land,” a forthcoming book on sheriffs. She argued that Mack focuses on issues that are already popular on the right, rather than driving the agenda. 





Source link

Articles You May Like

ILA | On Crime, We Know What Works
ILA | Ohio: Emergency Powers Bill Heads to the Senate for Concurrence, Contact Your Senator Today!
Oregon Measure 114: Sheriffs, police chiefs tell judge their agencies are ‘unprepared’ to support gun permit program
Oregon Measure 114 gun control challenge heard in court
Biden Wants to Ban ‘Semiautomatic Weapons’? Dream On.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *