Relevance? The sherriffs and the police are both local police agencies. Neither is inherently superior in their training and neither dictate how constitution is to be interpreted.

You are correct, they are similar.  Except that Sheriff is an elected position.  But not in Hawaii I guess.

Do you wonder why multiple Sheriffs departments from across the nation have made statements on not to enforce your favorite red flag laws and PD have been quiet?  The chief of PD is a political position, Sheriff is not because it's voted on by the people.  Well everywhere except Hawaii.  This is why they have said they would not enforce an unconstitutional law.  Also PD have been given orders to stand down in many rioting cities, and Sheriff's have deputized local PD.

You are correct, they are similar.  Except that Sheriff is an elected position.  But not in Hawaii I guess.

Do you wonder why multiple Sheriffs departments from across the nation have made statements on not to enforce your favorite red flag laws and PD have been quiet?  The chief of PD is a political position, Sheriff is not because it's voted on by the people.  Well everywhere except Hawaii.  This is why they have said they would not enforce an unconstitutional law.  Also PD have been given orders to stand down in many rioting cities, and Sheriff's have deputized local PD.

The Hawaii Sheriff's Department is under the Hawaii State Department of Public Safety.  They are not used in a law enforcement capacity the way most states' County Sheriffs are.

Most other states have County Sheriffs and City Police.  They may also have State Police (Highway Patrol/State Troopers).  This is because there are "gaps" in jurisdictions.  Not all county residents reside within city limits, and not all parts of the state, specifically highways, lie within a single city or county jurisdiction.

Hawaii is unique.  Each Island is assigned a county, and the county incorporates all the cities of the island.   Since there are no gaps between city and county jurisdictions, one local law enforcement entity is sufficient.

Our Sheriff Deputies do things like security at the state capital, airports and courthouses, serve warrants and subpoenas, and certain law enforcement tasks -- some of which require statewide jurisdiction, like narcotics investigations.

Here's their mission statement:

Narcotics Enforcement Division
The Narcotics Enforcement Division (NED) serves and protects the public by enforcing
laws relating to controlled substances and regulated chemicals. They are responsible for the
registration and control of the manufacture, distribution, prescription, and dispensing of controlled
substances and precursor or essential chemicals within the State.

Sheriff Division
The Sheriff Division carries out law enforcement services statewide. Its mission is to preserve
the peace by protecting all persons and property within premises under the control of the
Judiciary and all State facilities; providing process services and execution of court documents;
handling detained persons; and providing secure transportation for persons in custody. It also
provides law enforcement services at the Honolulu International Airport.

https://dps.hawaii.gov/about/divisions/law-enforcement-division/

Bottom line:  Hawaii's Sheriff Department is not like in most other states.  They won't be the ones enforcing, or choosing not to enforce, unconstitutional gun laws.

You are correct, they are similar.  Except that Sheriff is an elected position.  But not in Hawaii I guess.

Gotcha, though we can end up with gun hating liberal sherrifs in liberal states too.

Do you wonder why multiple Sheriffs departments from across the nation have made statements on not to enforce your favorite red flag laws and PD have been quiet?  The chief of PD is a political position, Sheriff is not because it's voted on by the people.  Well everywhere except Hawaii.  This is why they have said they would not enforce an unconstitutional law.  Also PD have been given orders to stand down in many rioting cities, and Sheriff's have deputized local PD.

Gotcha, I see what you are getting at. However when it boils down to it each individual officer or Sherriff's deputy is going to have to make a personal decision on how they believe any given law relates to a constitutional protection (or just follow orders without thinking it through). My point was that just because a LEO follows an order doesn't mean they did so blindly, disregarding the constitution, they may believe the order not to violate the constitution. Such an individual would not be a mindless drone or intentionally violating the constitution.

Gotcha, though we can end up with gun hating liberal sherrifs in liberal states too.

Gotcha, I see what you are getting at. However when it boils down to it each individual officer or Sherriff's deputy is going to have to make a personal decision on how they believe any given law relates to a constitutional protection (or just follow orders without thinking it through). My point was that just because a LEO follows an order doesn't mean they did so blindly, disregarding the constitution, they may believe the order not to violate the constitution. Such an individual would not be a mindless drone or intentionally violating the constitution.

Not unless the leadership takes an opposite stance.

If the Sheriff decides the law is unconstitutional, and he sets policy that the department will not enforce it, then all of his Deputies will (must) adhere to that policy.  If they don't, they won't be deputies for very long.

No different than a Police Chief deciding they will no longer make arrests for pot, even though it's still illegal in their city. 

Individual officers can only disobey their leaders for so long before they are caught letting people go who should be arrested -- or vice versa.  If they persist, they will be looking for work.

Law Enforcement leadership has the responsibility to set policy on how they will perform enforcement.  If the mayor appointed the Sheriff, and he doesn't like the policies, and the Sheriff won't make changes, then the mayor can fire him.  If the Sheriff is elected by the residents, and they like his policies, nothing the Mayor can do about it.

Basically, the leadership (Sheriff) has the power to enforce or ignore laws.  Generally, his Deputies will follow his position, whether or not they disagree with him.  If it comes down to an opinion on the Constitutionality of a law, then a deputy MIGHT decide to ignore that law.  More often than not, they would not be working for a Sheriff with values they disagree with anyway.

I do think that the government needs to allow (and actually issue) concealed carry permits here in Hawaii.

I have mixed feelings on firearm registration, there are positives and negatives to firearms registration. When it comes to the constitutionality, I do not believe registration inherently violates the 2nd amendment.

If I don’t register my firearms can I “keep and bear them”?

If I don’t register my firearms can I “keep and bear them”?

The constitution doesn't mention criminals or felons ability to keep and bear arms....we go down a dark rabbit hole with that. 

.

Born in Alabama, raised in Nuuanu.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

If I don’t register my firearms can I “keep and bear them”?

Registration doesn't preclude you from owning the firearm, it is just something you are required to do if you chose to own them.

If you want to go much deeper into this subject, might I suggest starting a new thread. Don't want to get too far off track here.

I do think that the government needs to allow (and actually issue) concealed carry permits here in Hawaii.

I have mixed feelings on firearm registration, there are positives and negatives to firearms registration. When it comes to the constitutionality, I do not believe registration inherently violates the 2nd amendment.

I beg to differ, you can't purchase a firearm in Hawaii if you don't have a permit and you can't own it (legally) if you don't register it.

I beg to differ, you can't purchase a firearm in Hawaii if you don't have a permit and you can't own it (legally) if you don't register it.

The test of a gun law is whether it has any effectiveness at preventing or solving gun-related crimes.

In Maryland, they went a step further and registered not just serial numbers, but they also kept a fired casing from each gun and created a searchable database.  Their "dream" was to have a way to match the spent casings found at a crime scene (i.e. inside a dead body) and identify whose gun fired it.

After FIFTEEN YEARS and $5M to setup and run the program, the system didn't solve a single crime.  So, they scrapped it.

Firearm registration, likewise, might be a convenient research tool for Cops when tracking down owners of given firearms that may have been used in crimes, but there's little the registration system does to PREVENT any crime.

There is legal precedence where courts decided that a person ineligible to legally own a firearm can't be charged for failing to register the firearm as required by law.  To do so violates the Constitution's 5th Amendment against self-incrimination.  So, criminals can LEGALLY abstain from gun registrations, whereas legal gun owners cannot.

The ONLY FUNCTION of a registration system is for (1) confiscations, and (2) enforcing background check laws for private sales.

Confiscations can be unconstitutional sweeping confiscations or just individual owner confiscations -- e.g. someone is adjudicated no longer permitted to own guns, authorities will know what guns to search for.

When someone sells a gun on the private market, and if there's a law requiring background checks for the private buyers, the seller could just ignore the law if the buyer wasn't required to report the sale to the state via registration.  Therefore, only law-abiding owners will register guns.  No crimes were prevented, other than compliance with gun registration laws.