Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: A True Patriot

  1. #1
    Regular Member linerider69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Louisburg
    Posts
    84

    A True Patriot

    Hooray for Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller. Understanding that the county sheriff is the ultimate law enforcement in his county, per the US Supreme Court, Mueller wrote a letter to Vice President Joe Biden telling him that he will not enforce any federal gun control law that he deems to be unconstitutional.
    In his letter, Sheriff Mueller wrote:

    “January 14, 2013

    Vice President Joe Biden
    1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
    Washington, DC 2050


    Dear Mr. Vice President,

    I am Sheriff Tim Mueller, elected twice by the citizens of Linn County Oregon who have entrusted me with a noble cause: to keep them and their families safe. My deputies and I take that responsibility very seriously and, like you, have sworn to support the Constitution of United States. I take that oath equally as serious as protecting our citizens. I have worked for the people of Linn County for over 28 years as a member of the Linn County Sheriff’s Office as well as serving 3 years active duty as a Military Police Officer in the U.S. Army, where I also swore a similar oath.

    In the wake of the recent criminal events, politicians are attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims by advocating for laws that would prevent honest, law-abiding Americans from possessing certain firearms and ammunition magazines. We are Americans. We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.

    Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the President offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Linn County Oregon.

    In summary, it is the position of the Sheriff that I refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians.

    Respectfully,
    Sheriff Tim Mueller I Meant A True Patriot
    Linn County Oregon”


    http://godfatherpolitics.com/9010/or...eral-gun-laws/
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 01-26-2013 at 08:44 PM. Reason: Fixed title

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.
    It would be a false premise to say there is only one arbiter of what is or isn't constitutional.

    For example, state nullification has a long history in this country. One of the more recent examples is the federal national ID and standardized drivers licenses. A number of state legislatures passed laws forbidding their state agencies to comply with the federal standards. Although some states did jump on the fedgov bandwagon (including VA, sigh), its basically dead in the water. A good book on the subject is Tom Woods Nullification.

    Also, a county sheriff is not a subsidiary of the federal government. If anything, its the other way around--the fedgov is the agent of the states, not the states as agents of the fedgov.

    And, in this particular case, Gonzales, the SCOTUS case that shot down the first GFSZ law, said among other things that it violates federalism to require a county sheriff to enforce federal criminal law.


    The idea of letting a branch of the fedgov be the only arbiter of the fedgov's power is a fool's game. History too easily proves SCOTUS has been complicit in allowing/helping the fedgov grow into the monster it has become. Its a fool's game because, if you just extend SCOTUS's trend, it won't be all that long before you won't have a constitution for them to preserve or rule on.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-17-2013 at 06:09 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.
    So when obama stacks the court with anti American leftists, you can go ahead and lead by example of what is constitutional.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by wethepeople View Post
    So when obama stacks the court with anti American leftists, you can go ahead and lead by example of what is constitutional.
    Interestingly, some would argue he would be stacking the Bench with pro-American Leftists. *shrugs*

    This rogue Sheriff spent on the lead in his pencil, and now he has none left.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.
    SCOTUS has ruled that should an unConstitutional law be passed then it is null and void the moment of its signing and may be ignored as if it was never passed. Given that the SCOTUS obviously doesn't rule on each law that is passed, someone who isn't the SCOTUS obviously has to decide if they think a law is Constitutional or not and then act accordingly. The local sheriff is simply following precedent already set by the SCOTUS regarding unConstitutional laws.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.
    I think he is giving his opinion as to why he won't enforce a law. That is indeed his prerogative and why we have 3 branches of gov't. Legislatures can pass a zillion laws ... its up the the executive branch to decide what laws need their attention.

    This happens more often than you think...

  8. #8
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I think he is giving his opinion as to why he won't enforce a law. That is indeed his prerogative and why we have 3 branches of gov't. Legislatures can pass a zillion laws ... its up the the executive branch to decide what laws need their attention.

    This happens more often than you think...
    yup, very true.
    and the opposite too, though, the problem; executive likes to enact and enforce laws that don't exist

  9. #9
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    The Linn county sheriff isn't alone in Oregon. There's a long list of sheriffs who have "signed on" to the same or a similar statement.

    Now all we have to do is get them to put their departments where their mouths (and pens) are.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  10. #10
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    It's hard for me to believe that there are people on these forums who think that what this sheriff has done is anything other than constitutional. Come on folks, he swore an oath, just like our military and our political employees, to support and defend the Constitution. They have neither the authority nor the power to do otherwise... though in the case of many (most?), they do otherwise all the time.

    There is no ambiguity or dichotomy with the Second Amendment, or any of the other articles in the Bill of Rights for that matter. Words have meaning and it says what it says. Strip out the biases of those who try to "interpret" it into something else and you are left with plain and simple English.

    This sheriff is doing not only what he should do, but what he must do if he is to remain true to his oath. Like it or not, it is not he who is the boogeyman but rather those who sit in the hallowed halls of state legislatures, the U.S. capital, and the white house. How soon they forget that with which they have been charged.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 01-21-2013 at 07:41 PM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  11. #11
    Regular Member hjmoosejaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.W. Pa.
    Posts
    406

    oathkeepers.org

    My cousin and I were talking about this on the way to the "Guns Across America" rally,this past Saturday. He turned me on to this site, and I am just learning of it. Below is the Sheriff's portion of the homepage from oathkeepers.org. Spread the word, and get in touch with your sheriff!

    http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/01/...onal-sheriffs/
    watch your top knot !

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    To add,

    The Sheriffs certainly have no duty to aid federal officials ... but to take an active role in preventing them from performing their acts (illegal or not - knowing that laws are presumed constitutional until shown otherwise) may get the sheriffs into legal trouble.

    They'll be putting their butts on the line IMO ... like any others who defend the constitution..

  13. #13
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    To add,

    The Sheriffs certainly have no duty to aid federal officials ... but to take an active role in preventing them from performing their acts (illegal or not - knowing that laws are presumed constitutional until shown otherwise) may get the sheriffs into legal trouble.

    They'll be putting their butts on the line IMO ... like any others who defend the constitution..
    There is an obligation when one takes an oath. An obligation to not follow/enforce/enable illegal actions. Unconstitutional actions are illegal and therefore the duty of any oath taker to defend against.

    The guards at Auschwitz did not need a "supreme court" rulling that their actions were illegal, they were expected to know it. The same holds for oath takers in this country. Will they be OATH KEEPERS??
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  14. #14
    Regular Member linerider69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Louisburg
    Posts
    84
    +2

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Corryton
    Posts
    85
    So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS.
    They are the local constitution officer, and they do make judgement calls like this all the time. They are of course guided by SCOTUS rulings though. However, in the absense of a SCOTUS ruling they do have the authority to use their best judgement.
    Last edited by Z1P2; 01-26-2013 at 08:04 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member badkarma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Duvall, Washington
    Posts
    330
    And all this time I thought my home town cop was an anti. I was wrong and I apologize.
    WA Guns
    "There is no such thing as a free lunch, but there is always free cheese in a mousetrap."

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa.
    Posts
    5

    Re: A True Patriot

    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.
    Officer discretion.... its exercised all over the US every day. There are a number of laws that I do not agree with that I will not enforce. This sheriff is just another example...but a nice to see top down example.


    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

  18. #18
    Regular Member Adam A Farley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Hinckley Utah
    Posts
    20

    Sheriff stand

    We also have had several sheriffs here say the same.

    Federal government fires back with legislation that takes away the sheriffs authority in such cases.

    Make no mistake about it, this will not end well.

    Sheriff says in Colorado that they had no right, only the courts decide what's unconstitutional .

    So tell me who decides when the courts are in the governments control ?

    Control the courts and control the nation

    Even courts make bad calls

  19. #19
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.
    Perhaps you're ignorant of the fact the US established the principal of the individual responsibility not to follow illegal orders at the Nuremberg Trials, A bunch of men went to the gallows who were "only following orders".

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Out by Pendleton
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.
    Perhaps reading the Constitution would help? At least, if nothing else, you can point out to everyone here the part where it says that only the Supreme Court can decide on issues of what's constitutional and what isn't.


  21. #21
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunhobbit View Post
    Perhaps reading the Constitution would help? At least, if nothing else, you can point out to everyone here the part where it says that only the Supreme Court can decide on issues of what's constitutional and what isn't.

    That's not exactly true. The Sheriff is the elected (i.e. executive) representative of the people of his county and in most jurisdictions is the one who runs the incarceration facility for the county. If the Sheriff doesn't arrest someone because he believes his oath prevents him from enforcing a law, then what's going to happen? I suppose the fed's could come in and try to take the suspect but if the Sheriff stands up to them then what? Armed confrontation? I think not, sheeesh I hope not!!!!

    But hey, there's another elected position that can protect the people. The District Attorney. If he doesn't prosecute for a violation of state law, is the state Attorney General going to step in? Then are we right back to the question of will there be armed confrontation (between county and state officials this time)?

    And there is always the JURY, the FINAL decider of the propriety of the law. Regardless of what the Supremes say, it is THE JURY that has the ultimate power to nullify a law for being unconstitutional (or even just because they don't like it). Since the trial has to be in the jurisdiction, if the people of a jurisdiction decide they don't like a law, then how is the prosecutor going to get a jury conviction?

    The Supremes are NOT the final decider, the PEOPLE, in the form of the JURY are.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Out by Pendleton
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    The Supremes are NOT the final decider, the PEOPLE, in the form of the JURY are.
    Presuming, of course, that you can get enough jurors through the voir dire process to have them actually nullify something.

  23. #23
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.
    In your opinion, who determines if an act you foresee being ordered to do or are ordered to do is constitutional? I'll give you a hint from my military days: individual soldiers can refuse to perform an unlawful order. PERIOD. The directive wasn't "you can refuse to perform an unlawful order as long as SCOTUS said it's unlawful".

    In Nazi Germany, people carried out their orders mindlessly. The Fuhrer said it's lawful, so gee it's lawful and now I'm going to carry out my orders given to me.

    We're Americans, not Nazis. We have the sense to know (at least many of us do) that it is an ethical right and responsibility to individually make a determination if an order is not lawful and refuse to carry it out.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •