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/o...ot-enforce-unconstitutional-federal-gun-laws/

So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.

beebobby said:

So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.

Click to expand...

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.

beebobby said:

So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.

Click to expand...

So when obama stacks the court with anti American leftists, you can go ahead and lead by example of what is constitutional.

wethepeople said:

So when obama stacks the court with anti American leftists, you can go ahead and lead by example of what is constitutional.

Click to expand...

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.

beebobby said:

So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.

Click to expand...

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.

beebobby said:

So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.

Click to expand...

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...

davidmcbeth said:

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...

Click to expand...

yup, very true.
and the opposite too, though, the problem; executive likes to enact and enforce laws that don't exist

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.

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.

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/2013/01/19/25-constitutional-sheriffs/

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..

davidmcbeth said:

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..

Click to expand...

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??

+2

So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

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.

And all this time I thought my home town cop was an anti. I was wrong and I apologize.

beebobby said:

So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.

Click to expand...

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

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

beebobby said:

So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.

Click to expand...

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".

beebobby said:

So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.

Click to expand...

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.

:lol: