Abraham wrote:" we have to understand that we'll have to give up some of our liberties as a trade off for safety"
I'd really want clarification on this statement.
Is he alluding to something like martial law?
If so, I'd tell him to take flying leap at a rolling donut.
We're not Cuba, Russia, China, etc...
A local state rep is supposed to have a recording of the meeting as it was public. I've requested it from him so that I can hear it in context. FWIW, that rep has not endorsed either sheriff candidate yet.
I added all of the qualifiers to be fair to Sheriff Anderson, I almost didn't add it to my post, but we all know that there are some LEO leaders (chiefs / sheriffs) who are very pro-2A, and others who have an "as long as the police are armed, the citizens don't need them."
I mentioned Bloomberg's approach of getting mayors and political-minded LEO chiefs on his side. In that dialogue, Waybourn talked about the efforts he undertook to reassure LEO leaders in his personal circles that CHL (and later OC) would not cause problems for the LEO community. I tend to believe him because he part of the CHL instructor community as well.