Tippecanoe Co. Sheriff Race - The truth behind the 2nd Amendment

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Cree

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Dec 28, 2016
    335
    18
    Lafayette
    I try to stay out of some of the forum discussion on political candidates, but not when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Full disclosure, I have known all three sheriff candidates for over 20-years.

    Jason Dombkowski made a passionate statement during the debate about how he was a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendments and how our "rights shall not be infringed". However, in February he called for "stricter background checks", which directly opposes the NRA's stance on the failures of the background check system. While speaking to a local anti-gun group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense", Jason Dombkowski stated that ,"he sees dangers with pistols and semiautomatic weapons" because handguns can be more readily concealed. What is troubling is that me made those statements while standing in front of a projected screen that read, "STOP CCR" (Concealed Carry Reciprocity) and "Text DANGEROUS to 64433" which is a direct way to notify legislators to vote against ANY bill that contains concealed carry reciprocity language.

    Here is a copy of the article so that you read it for yourself and decide.

    https://www.jconline.com/story/news...owski-moms-demand-action-gun-sense/373035002/

    636552630714666079-IMG-0021-1-.JPG
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,021
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    "stricter background checks"

    Complete and utter nonsense. What is "stricter"? He wants someone to go talk to our 4th grade teacher or something?

    Did not stop Cho. Did not stop Lanza (who used the matricide exception). Did not stop Cruz. Give me an example of where "stricter background checks" would have prevented a murderer from committing his crime.

    How does one implement "stricter background checks" for those dealing in stolen firearms?
     

    indykid

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 27, 2008
    11,877
    113
    Westfield
    Next time you see him, ask him if making murder illegal would be a better alternative to any new or old firearm law?
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,021
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Murders I have done in Tippecanoe County with firearm as instrument of crime, 3.

    1 with borrowed .410 single shot NEF shotgun.

    1 with stolen Ruger 10/22 (single shot fired through door) (Defendant acquitted of Murder, guilty of Manslaughter)

    1 with Smith J frame, passed background check. 5 shots to thorax knocked victim down, knife used for coup de grace.

    How the hell would "stricter background checks" impacted any of these?
     

    Cree

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Dec 28, 2016
    335
    18
    Lafayette
    Kirk - they would not impact any of those crimes, nor the overwhelming majority of the gun crimes seen nationally. Jason Dombkowski says that he is not a politician, but any of us, like you, who have been around for as long as we have know better. One does not go from patrolman to lieutenant to chief in 12 years by not having political motivations. Politicians also tailor their responses to meet their political agendas. For someone who says they are not a politician, he seems to have spent his share of time at the State House and in Washington. Do you want this candidate whispering his gun-control thoughts in the Governor's ear as Sheriff of Tippecanoe County?

    30698442_179940549317819_4085708178577162240_n.jpg
     

    Vigilant

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Jul 12, 2008
    11,659
    83
    Plainfield
    Murders I have done in Tippecanoe County with firearm as instrument of crime, 3.

    1 with borrowed .410 single shot NEF shotgun.

    1 with stolen Ruger 10/22 (single shot fired through door) (Defendant acquitted of Murder, guilty of Manslaughter)

    1 with Smith J frame, passed background check. 5 shots to thorax knocked victim down, knife used for coup de grace.

    How the hell would "stricter background checks" impacted any of these?
    How the hell'you get away with three murders? No wonder the prosecutor wants to send in the Boner Drone to recce Freeman Manor!
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,575
    113
    Gtown-ish
    About background checks, it's touted as the most effective gun control by both sides, but that's slight of hand. They trumpet the number of failed background checks as if that represents the number of murders prevented.

    From 1998 through march of this year, > 1.5 million people have been denied, and proponents of background checks act as if this is the number of murders prevented. But there's no way to associate failed background checks with murders prevented. There's no way to know if background checks are actually effective other than the slight of hand used to imply denials = murders prevented.
     

    Cree

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Dec 28, 2016
    335
    18
    Lafayette
    Does anyone have info on Lt. Ricks’ 2A stance?

    I have worked with Lt. John "Woody" Ricks for 22 of his 28-years at the sheriff's department. John has always been a consistent supporter of our Constitutional Rights, including the 2nd Amendment. John Ricks said at the debate that he would like to see the penalty for carrying a firearm without a license (for those who might not live in Indiana, one must have a state issued carry permit) be raised to a felony. John's desire to see criminals prosecuted for violating existing gun laws is inline with the stance taken by the NRA. As Kirk can attest, getting prosecution for Federal gun crimes seldom occurs.
     

    d.kaufman

    Still Here
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    128   0   0
    Mar 9, 2013
    14,867
    149
    Hobart
    Does anyone have info on Lt. Ricks’ 2A stance?

    I have worked with Lt. John "Woody" Ricks for 22 of his 28-years at the sheriff's department. John has always been a consistent supporter of our Constitutional Rights, including the 2nd Amendment. John Ricks said at the debate that he would like to see the penalty for carrying a firearm without a license (for those who might not live in Indiana, one must have a state issued carry permit) be raised to a felony. John's desire to see criminals prosecuted for violating existing gun laws is inline with the stance taken by the NRA. As Kirk can attest, getting prosecution for Federal gun crimes seldom occurs.

    To me that doesn't really align with being a constitutional supporter. Does he support constitutional carry? Making someone a felon for the mere carrying of a firearm without a ltch, especially an otherwise proper person, doesn't really seem to me like a strong supporter of our constitution. On the other hand i do believe if you are a prohibited possessor and get caught witha firearm its already a felony. Im not from that area(tippecanoe county) but if i were, id like to see a sheriff that is truly for our God given, constitutionally protected rights and advocates for constitutional carry here in Indiana. Just my:twocents:
     

    Slapstick

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 29, 2010
    4,221
    149
    Here's the link to the WLFI's Sheriff's debate. Candidates discuss future of Tippecanoe County in WLFI's primary debate Check the answers at the 11:43 min mark for the their response on the gun question. I can say without a doubt that Richards WILL NOT be getting my vote. There doesn't seem to be a gun control measure being pushed by the "Mom's and Every town" that he doesn't like. Rick's answer could have been more polished but he got his point across and Dombkowski, the true politician that he is, didn't actually give much of an answer but he did say it with that typical practiced authority that politicians have.
     

    churchmouse

    I still care....Really
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    187   0   0
    Dec 7, 2011
    191,809
    152
    Speedway area
    To me that doesn't really align with being a constitutional supporter. Does he support constitutional carry? Making someone a felon for the mere carrying of a firearm without a ltch, especially an otherwise proper person, doesn't really seem to me like a strong supporter of our constitution. On the other hand i do believe if you are a prohibited possessor and get caught witha firearm its already a felony. Im not from that area(tippecanoe county) but if i were, id like to see a sheriff that is truly for our God given, constitutionally protected rights and advocates for constitutional carry here in Indiana. Just my:twocents:

    I agree. 2A support does not push off things like this on the feds. He is still pandering regardless.
    Why can we just not get our reading/comprehension skills back on track.
     

    gundawg

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 8, 2016
    207
    28
    Cedar Lake
    About background checks, it's touted as the most effective gun control by both sides, but that's slight of hand. They trumpet the number of failed background checks as if that represents the number of murders prevented.

    From 1998 through march of this year, > 1.5 million people have been denied, and proponents of background checks act as if this is the number of murders prevented. But there's no way to associate failed background checks with murders prevented. There's no way to know if background checks are actually effective other than the slight of hand used to imply denials = murders prevented.

    It would help if the current federal laws were enforced.

    Falsifying Form 4473 in order to buy a gun illegally is a federal felony. But prosecutions for that offense are made in less than 1/2 of 1% of the time.

    We can assume that many of the people who falsify Form 4473 are felons who do so because they know 1) the system if far from perfect and many times disqualifying convictions ae not reported, and 2) if they are rejected, the likelihood of prosecution is virtually nil.

    These are felons actively seeking to obtain a weapon, most likely to use to commit further crimes. We can assume the vast majority, having failed in the attempt to obtains a firearm from a licensed dealer, will seek to obtain a firearm on the street or by theft.

    It's an open and shut case for the prosecution and 5 years in prison for the defendant. How many crimes would be prevented if these criminals were prosecuted for falsifying Form 4473? How many lives would be saved?

    See: https://www.newsmax.com/us/gun-guns-control-rights/2016/09/29/id/750978/

    and: "...between 2008 and 2015, the FBI denied 556,496 gun purchases following background checks. During that time period, the report shows that only 254 false statements were even considered for prosecution, amounting to a 0.04 percent prosecution rate."

    Prosecutions for Lying on Gun Background Checks Fall to New Low - Washington Free Beacon
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,575
    113
    Gtown-ish
    It would help if the current federal laws were enforced.

    Falsifying Form 4473 in order to buy a gun illegally is a federal felony. But prosecutions for that offense are made in less than 1/2 of 1% of the time.

    We can assume that many of the people who falsify Form 4473 are felons who do so because they know 1) the system if far from perfect and many times disqualifying convictions ae not reported, and 2) if they are rejected, the likelihood of prosecution is virtually nil.

    These are felons actively seeking to obtain a weapon, most likely to use to commit further crimes. We can assume the vast majority, having failed in the attempt to obtains a firearm from a licensed dealer, will seek to obtain a firearm on the street or by theft.

    It's an open and shut case for the prosecution and 5 years in prison for the defendant. How many crimes would be prevented if these criminals were prosecuted for falsifying Form 4473? How many lives would be saved?

    See: https://www.newsmax.com/us/gun-guns-control-rights/2016/09/29/id/750978/

    and: "...between 2008 and 2015, the FBI denied 556,496 gun purchases following background checks. During that time period, the report shows that only 254 false statements were even considered for prosecution, amounting to a 0.04 percent prosecution rate."

    Prosecutions for Lying on Gun Background Checks Fall to New Low - Washington Free Beacon

    It would help what? It would help background checks better prevent violence? Prove it. What percentage of people who fail background checks would later go on to use a firearm for harm. Don’t assume facts not in evidece. Do the math. Show your work.

    ETA: I’m not saying people who break the law by lying on the 4473 shouldn’t be prosecuted. They broke the law. I’m saying you can’t assume that they would have used the firearm for harm.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom