Nevada Sheriff Will Enforce Gun Confiscation Law, Faces Recall

Though he says he doesn’t support Nevada’s new red flag law, Humboldt County Sheriff Mike Allen said he will enforce it when it rolls out officially in Jan. 2020.  

Allen’s controversial stance on the legislation that allows police to confiscate firearms from individuals accused — not convicted — of being a threat to themselves or others has made him the subject of a recall campaign.  

The sheriff said in an interview with The Nevada Independent that those seeking a recall have a beef with state lawmakers, not with him.  

“They’re taking up a fight against me on something the Legislature has to do, and they think I have the authority not to follow the law,” Allen said last Wednesday. “I do oppose this law. However, it’s not my job to oppose a law; my job is to enforce the law.”

Proponents of the recall believe that Allen should follow in the footsteps of Humboldt County commissioners, who on Oct. 7, passed a “Second Amendment sanctuary” resolution that explicitly states, “Neither the United States Congress nor the Nevada legislature should entertain consideration of any legislation that would infringe on constitutionally protected rights under the Second Amendment.”

But Allen told Breitbart News that his hands are tied on the matter.  

“Where in the U.S. Constitution, or the Nevada constitution, can I pick and choose what laws I enforce?” he asked, adding, “There’s no legal basis for the sanctuary declaration, for a sanctuary basis.”

The sheriff did say that he’s “never violated anybody’s constitutional rights, nor will I” and that he supports the 2A and everyone’s constitutional rights.

Exclusive: ‘Sending People Home To Die,’ The Truth About Red Flag Laws

But if the red flag law is unjust or unconstitutional, and Allen opts to enforce it, as he plans on doing, wouldn’t that undermine his claim that he would never violate one’s right to keep and bear arms?  

Moreover, how exactly does he plan on seizing firearms when one has been flagged?  

On that second question, concerns have been raised about SWAT-team-type raids.

“What the questioning was is, ‘[Do] you get a SWAT team to go into the house?’ We do whatever we do to make it as safe as possible. And if what’s as safe as possible is to wait for that individual to leave the house, then that’s what we’ll do,” Allen explained. “Most of the time there will be other laws that we’ll be able to apply.”

Hmmm.  Maybe they’ll wait for the homeowner to leave before they confront him. Maybe they won’t. But we do know how agencies in other states conduct their gun-seizing operations. Oftentimes, tactical teams deploy in the pre-dawn hours of the day to catch the accused off guard.  Why?  Because that’s the safest approach for the officers — not the homeowner.  

One person has already been slain as a result of a red flag order.  A 61-year-old Baltimore man was fatally shot by law enforcement after police attempted to seize his guns on Nov. 5, 2018, at around 5:17 a.m. The man’s niece was confused by the incident, chalking up the initial red flag order against the man as “family being family.” 

“I’m just dumbfounded right now,” she told local media. “My uncle wouldn’t hurt anybody. They didn’t need to do what they did.”

Maybe Sheriff Allen will be more judicious when it comes to enforcing Nevada’s red flag law.  Maybe he’ll go the extra mile to ensure that the target is truly a threat to herself/himself or others.  Or maybe he’ll just follow orders, come what may.     

After filing the petition to recall Sheriff Allen, those pushing for a recall will have 90 days to collect 502 signatures.  Should they succeed, their grievance will be reviewed before a recall committee.  

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 44 comments… add one }
  • oldfuzz695 May 10, 2021, 9:37 am

    A few years ago, a poll was taken by the U.S. Army, asking soldiers if they would take up arms against citizens of the United States. The majority would not. How about another poll, Big Guy, 10%, China lacky?

  • ray April 6, 2021, 11:05 am

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
    – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

  • ray April 6, 2021, 11:04 am

    “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
    – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

  • ray April 6, 2021, 11:02 am

    “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
    – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

  • ray April 6, 2021, 10:53 am

    Just another TRAITOR!

  • UP YOURS November 20, 2020, 8:01 am

    I agree with David MA.

    If a government agent tries to seize your firearm, which is your personal property, under some bogus red-flag law or because the state or feds made owning it illegal, it would be a violation of the 5th and 14 Amendments, and Article VI of the Constitution.

    The firearm owner would have the right and perhaps even a moral duty to resist the agent – not to be called law enforcement anymore – by force and if necessary, by deadly force (see “When All Else Fails – The Ethics of Resistance to State Injustice,” by Jason Brennan. The outcome for the victim could be very poor but if enough people resist in this way then the enforcers would hopefully back off and the rule of law would be restored, if not on paper then by the action of The People. If not then the only recourse would be for the free states to secede and woe to those who would try to stop it.

    So when the tyrants come for you just spray them with some element 82. And to the scumbag government agent who gave me a hard time for saying this several years ago, SCREW YOU! Gotta love the 1st Amendment.

    • Ray April 6, 2021, 10:54 am

      I and millions of others agree!

      • ray April 6, 2021, 10:59 am

        “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
        – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

  • David in MA August 21, 2020, 9:07 am

    If a legal law is under the discretion of a police officer as to whether or not to enforce it, that puts the officer in the place of being a police officer, judge and jury, violating a citizens right to due process.
    Can such an officer be subject to any law for such action? AND, can an officer be subject to a court complaint for enforcing an illegal law?

  • John Kaline November 4, 2019, 1:51 pm

    No government at any level, state or federal, has been given the authority to alter or amend any provision of the US Constitution. All public officers are required by law to swear a solemn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution and doing otherwise is committing perjury of oath. No law enforcement agency may evade their sworn duty by enforcing any regulation that infringes the Law of the Land.

    • David in MA August 21, 2020, 8:59 am

      And, all state constitutions are to be in compliance with the federal constitution. “gun laws” are not legal without a constitutional amendment, and I doubt anything like that will not be voted into law by the people/states.

  • David November 4, 2019, 1:46 pm

    Our govt. Keeps trying to weaken our 2nd rights. They do this out of fear as the 2nd amendment is what protects us from bad govt. It is what gives us the right to take back our govt from those who would destroy it. Learn from our past so we are not doomed to repeat it.

  • Kurt November 4, 2019, 12:41 pm

    So Sheriff Mike Allen, you are also not in favor of due process. You are a traitor and need to take your worthless ass and move to kalifornia, new york or new joisey. You are part of the political problem in Nevada.

  • Kelly Awtrey November 3, 2019, 11:34 pm

    You are NOT obligated to uphold an illegal law. Being the SHERIFF you should know that. You are going to get innocent police officers hurt or killed. Why should a law abiding citizen give up their ability to protect themselves based on a non proven accusation from an unknown and vengeful source? This is the same thing as the Salem Witch Hunts, the imprisonment of Japanese Americans and the hysteria of Communism in America. It is a trial without evidence, representation or due process. You are NOT the Gestapo and your illegal actions will be resisted. Is THAT what you REALLY want???

  • Ean November 3, 2019, 11:20 am

    What bs. I can’t pick and choose what laws to enforce. It’s called discretion a hole and also the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. I’m sure he forgot that and his oath to the constitution not his oath to law makers. Bs. Fire his ass.

  • Zach November 3, 2019, 8:56 am

    So, there is your answer if you think law enforcement will be on the side of the people when a tyrannical government gives orders…

    • John Rogers November 5, 2019, 11:33 am

      In all fairness, some have been brave enough to publicly announce that they won’t play stupid games. I mean, how many people (on either side) should die in the enforcement of an unconstitutional gun grab? Because you know, it isn’t going to always be the gun owner who catches the bullet in these red flag raids.

      Isn’t it nice when the bad ones “out” themselves ahead of time though? Now the people of that county know exactly where he stands. I guess the next question would be, where do his deputies stand?

  • Michael J November 2, 2019, 10:39 pm

    It’s a law, but is it a legal law? One could argue that Adolf had the law on his side and everyone went along, after all it was law.
    What we forget is most politicians are former lawyers and it’s those that make the laws seem to know how to circumvent the old ones. For law enforcement to blindly follow them are equally guilty as those that passed them.

  • e November 2, 2019, 11:48 am

    At least the citizens there are still not sheeple and stupid. In places like L.A., no one even cares because they have been beholden to socialist/communist type policies for several decades. And now given the demographics and kinds of people groups that inhabit L.A., especially immigrants and illegals (who can illegally vote), places like Humbolt County stand in contrast to socialist filth like L.A. Many immigrant groups come from countries where big government is their god. They continue to be that way after immigrating to other countries.

    • F November 3, 2019, 6:58 am

      I believe you are blaming the wrong group for California’s stupidity. Most immigrants are fleeing oppressive, corrupt governments and know very well that they are not there to protect them. The problem demographic in your socialist LA, if any, are the wealthy and established. Do you really think an illegal immigrant is concerned with trying to vote? They have many more serious problems, like trying to survive. Put the blame where it belongs.

  • Michael R Stuhr November 1, 2019, 4:44 pm

    “They’re taking up a fight against me on something the Legislature has to do, and they think I have the authority not to follow the law,”

    I call B.S. on his excuse as I bet he took an oath to enforce the constitution of the United States of America when he took office.

    • D.J. November 5, 2019, 9:54 am

      I believe it important to point out that members of congress
      also take said oath , yet a majority pay no heed to it , on almost
      a daily basis .

  • Frank Romo November 1, 2019, 3:12 pm

    What a TOOL!!!!

  • Mike November 1, 2019, 2:01 pm

    They took my Bump Stock away! I’m upset and there is nothing I can do about it.

  • skipNclair November 1, 2019, 1:32 pm

    The law sir is the constitution, the very thing you swore an oath to protect. Any thing that goes against the Constitution is not law and you are obligated to not enforce it and keep your oath. Most things called laws are not laws, as most go against the Constitution. most are statutes not law, again the only law is the Constitution. Man up do what God almighty who you also swore an oath to would have you do, and do what the people would have you do that you swore the oath to and again the Constituiton. You are being a traitor if you enforce anything that goes against the Constitution, but you do whay you do so you can keep your paycheck and that makes you not only a traitor but a weak man for profit.

  • Russ November 1, 2019, 12:06 pm

    His hands aren’t tied. He has chosen to be a coward and not take a stand against that imbecilic law. RECALL HIM NOW!!!!

  • Frank Zolp November 1, 2019, 11:53 am

    I’m surprised that Obama’s idea of a Civilian Security Force that was to be just as well armed as the military, wasn’t formed but that doesn’t mean that it won’t be formed sometime if the Leftist get in power and they won’t be shy about using it to illegally confiscate our guns and throw anyone that disagree with their ideology into a concentration camp or worse. People didn’t think that could happen in Europe, but as we all know…they did do it.

    • David in MA August 21, 2020, 9:14 am

      There is a whole bunch of “civilian security force” member right now, in, I believe, MN, they came as obama’s “guests, his private army. They are called “refugees”, I call them muslim terrorists. And they are waiting for obama’s call to action. (And, if Trump gets re-elected, we vary well may see that action.

  • Alan November 1, 2019, 11:37 am

    Where? In the very Constitution itself, as well as the Declaration of Independence. Both these documents make clear the Natural right of not only self defense, but that of righteous resistance to anyone or any Govt. that thwarts that right.

  • Robert C Stewart November 1, 2019, 10:59 am

    Did he take an oath to uphold the law or to uphold and defend the constitution? As we all know the US Constitution is the ‘law of the land’ the state constitution is the foundation and law of the state under the US Constitution and all state laws are subject to those constitutions. Thus all law enforcement personnel are subject to defending the constitution regardless of the law, if that law is unconstitutional. There are cops in eastern WA that have declared their counties as ‘sanctuary counties’ in regard to gun control laws until those laws are deemed constitutional. as well as in a few ofther areas of other states. So he is without excuse.

  • Peter Brown November 1, 2019, 10:22 am

    Incoming sheriff…..take note of your predecessor’s mindset and lack of retirement planning.

  • JoshO November 1, 2019, 9:28 am

    “I was just following orders” didn’t hold any water at Nuremberg. Neither will it here.

  • Larry C November 1, 2019, 9:22 am

    At the war crimes trial at Nuremberg Germany after WWII, the chief judge stated, “The person that carries out an immoral order is just as guilty as the person that gave the order.”

  • Robert J. Lucas November 1, 2019, 9:19 am

    This Sheriff is no different than the Nazi’s who claimed they were only following orders. This SOB took an Oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against Foreign and Domestic Enemies’. This ass is saluting the Hitler’s of our time… Just another Socialist/Communist. Get this POS out of office…

  • Dilsia Martinez November 1, 2019, 9:16 am

    It’s not ok that when for example if I’m at my home sleeping a Swat like team tears down my door to take what the Second Amendment grants me.
    What are the premises used to know a person is a danger to others? because these laws enable people to tell lies about another person. Many people will die because of this.

  • Cliff November 1, 2019, 8:07 am

    Lots of Nazi law enforcement people said “my hands are tied I have to follow the law” as they dragged people from their homes because they were Jewish or mentally impaired. He needs to be recalled because his job is to protect people’s rights, period.

  • Buster Smith November 1, 2019, 8:00 am

    When they leave there will be other laws WE CAN APPLY ????

  • Tom H November 1, 2019, 7:40 am

    So I take it that he routinely issues speeding violations for 2 mph over the limit? No? Then he already selectively enforces the law. Just more CYA from another politician.

  • Alan1018 November 1, 2019, 7:35 am

    Your oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of CO. As this “law” violates both enforcing it means you must break your oath. If you admit your oath means nothing the recall is more than justified it it necessary.

  • cjk November 1, 2019, 6:46 am

    Will he and other LEO’s use the Nazi war criminals used during Nuremberg ?? I was just following orders ??
    People will die enforcing these ignorant laws…………..

  • Jerry Jones November 1, 2019, 6:33 am

    Nazis, when interrogated after WWII, replied that “they were only following orders”…Elected Law Enforcement Officers’ Main Concern should be that of the citizens’ safety and well being, NOT enforcing a law with questionable Constitutionality.

  • SeppW October 30, 2019, 7:05 pm

    Good for nothing liberals have infested the last bastions of freedom and liberty of a great country and now they are destroying it. Liberals destroy everything they touch.

    • Kris November 1, 2019, 3:44 am

      They are not liberals but communists working to destroy what is left of our republic. Civil war is inevitable and if police are stupid enough to carry out orders without question then they lost my respect and obedience.

      • Peter Brown November 1, 2019, 10:23 am

        communists, yes!

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend