Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Law would fire sheriffs defying gun control measures. Paul Bedard Washington Examiner

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150

    Law would fire sheriffs defying gun control measures. Paul Bedard Washington Examiner

    Supporters of the 380 sheriffs in 15 states who so far have vowed to defy new state and federal gun control laws claim that legislation is starting to pop up around the nation to fire any state elected or appointed law enforcement official who doesn't obey federal orders.
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/law-wo...rticle/2525518

    http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/
    South Carolina Charleston Al Cannon
    http://www.ccso.charlestoncounty.org...p=/videos.html

    Al Cannon has been a good friend and teacher for thirty years, since our military days.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 03-27-2013 at 03:07 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    That does not meet the smell test, a law requiring a sheriff to violate constitutional rights would not hold up even in a liberal court. I wonder if the progressive liberals realize how really stupid to suggest such a law is.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150

    Bill Title: Relating to the removal of a state or local officer for refusing or direc

    http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB2167

    Bill Text: TX HB2167 | 2013-2014 | 83rd Legislature | Introduced

    There's one.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150

    Colorado State Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, said sheriff should step down.

    http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...-within-letter
    State Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, Senate sponsor of the universal-background-checks bill, said a sheriff unwilling or unable to fulfill the duties of the position should step down.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB2167

    Bill Text: TX HB2167 | 2013-2014 | 83rd Legislature | Introduced

    There's one.
    So they have to enforce the entire CFR too? Oh, I stubbed my toe at work ... I'm not calling OSHA, I'm calling the Sheriff


    Separation of powers/branches ...

  6. #6
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post

    Supporters of the 380 sheriffs in 15 states who so far have vowed to defy new state and federal gun control laws claim that legislation is starting to pop up around the nation to fire any state elected or appointed law enforcement official who doesn't obey federal orders.
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/law-wo...rticle/2525518

    http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/ http://www.ccso.charlestoncounty.org...p=/videos.html

    Al Cannon has been a good friend and teacher for thirty years, since our military days.
    SOOOO; are they going to start firing all my state's officials who are ignoring the federal pot laws???????????????????
    Last edited by F350; 03-27-2013 at 04:16 PM.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The federal government cannot fire an official elected by the local citizenry.

    If he breaks federal law, they can send federal cops to try to arrest him. If they do, it won't be pretty.

    However, local sheriffs not enforcing federal laws is not, AFIK, a federal crime.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    54
    The hypocrisy of the federal government. They want to sue Arizona and others, claiming that local law enforcement can't enforce federal laws, when it comes to Immigration laws. Now they want to fire/punish local law enforcement if they don't enforce federal laws, when it comes to gun laws.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150

    White House Carny to Sheriffs: Follow Law in Enforcing Gun Control Measures.

    Obama's mouthpiece
    “I think as a general proposition we think that people ought to follow the law,” Carney told CNSNews.com. “As an absolute matter of fact in my view, and I think many other constitutional experts, there’s not a single measure in this package of proposals the president has put forward that in anyway violates the Constitution. In fact, they reflect the president’s commitment to our Second Amendment rights.”
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/whit...ntrol-measures

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by HyDef View Post
    The hypocrisy of the federal government. They want to sue Arizona and others, claiming that local law enforcement can't enforce federal laws, when it comes to Immigration laws. Now they want to fire/punish local law enforcement if they don't enforce federal laws, when it comes to gun laws.
    I hadn't yet made that connection. Thanks for the insight.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    They ought to be fired. They are an arm of the State; and if they are not working for the interest of the State, the State ought to be able to cut it's arm off. It's not their job to pick-and-choose what laws they want to obey, and what laws they don't.

    Talk about a slippery slope...where is the line drawn. First it's not obeying a Federal firearms Law, next, it's pulling people over because of the color of their skin, or arresting a couple in an interracial marriage.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 03-27-2013 at 06:57 PM.
    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...

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Hey Carroll .... a song for u

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tah9BKZbR_s

    A perfect song for this guy
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 03-27-2013 at 08:51 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    ... I wonder if the progressive liberals realize how really stupid to suggest such a law is.
    No. They are so stupid that they don't know what stupid looks like.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Forty-five View Post
    No. They are so stupid that they don't know what stupid looks like.
    Once you've been wringed-out of anything substantive to offer, call them "stupid."
    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...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    They ought to be fired. They are an arm of the State; and if they are not working for the interest of the State, the State ought to be able to cut it's arm off. It's not their job to pick-and-choose what laws they want to obey, and what laws they don't.

    Talk about a slippery slope...where is the line drawn. First it's not obeying a Federal firearms Law, next, it's pulling people over because of the color of their skin, or arresting a couple in an interracial marriage.
    NO! County Sheriffs work for the people that elect them not the state not the federal government. Local Sheriffs are not legally or other wise required to enforce federal law see Printz v US for starters.

    Law Enforcement choosing to not enforce a law does not equate to not obeying that law, that is a new high mark for your convoluted thinking IMHO.

  16. #16
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    They ought to be fired. They are an arm of the State; and if they are not working for the interest of the State, the State ought to be able to cut it's arm off. It's not their job to pick-and-choose what laws they want to obey, and what laws they don't.

    Talk about a slippery slope...where is the line drawn. First it's not obeying a Federal firearms Law, next, it's pulling people over because of the color of their skin, or arresting a couple in an interracial marriage.


    Never heard of that little town in Germany have you??????

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    NO! County Sheriffs work for the people that elect them not the state not the federal government. Local Sheriffs are not legally or other wise required to enforce federal law see Printz v US for starters.

    Law Enforcement choosing to not enforce a law does not equate to not obeying that law, that is a new high mark for your convoluted thinking IMHO.
    Yep. The feds must stop thinking that they are in charge of everything and everybody. The People are. The People elect the sheriff. He is answerable to them, not to the feds.

    The governmental structure in this country is not a hierarchy.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    NO! County Sheriffs work for the people that elect them not the state not the federal government. Local Sheriffs are not legally or other wise required to enforce federal law see Printz v US for starters.

    Law Enforcement choosing to not enforce a law does not equate to not obeying that law, that is a new high mark for your convoluted thinking IMHO.
    So, we're going to break up this finding into two parts:

    Let's take a look-see, part 1:

    No. The Court constructed its opinion on the old principle that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. The Court explained that while Congress may require the federal government to regulate commerce directly, in this case by performing background-checks on applicants for handgun ownership, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not empower it to compel state CLEOs to fulfill its federal tasks for it - even temporarily.
    Good, good...yes, I see...oh, yes...that makes sense.

    Now let's take a gander at number 2:


    The Court added that the Brady Bill could not require CLEOs to perform the related tasks of disposing of handgun-application forms or notifying certain applicants of the reasons for their refusal in writing, since the Brady Bill reserved such duties only for those CLEO's who voluntarily accepted them. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1478
    Hold-up, what do we have here! The Brady Bill reserved such duties only for those who voluntarily accept them.

    So, basically, it was a waste of time to run this through SCOTUS, because the BB didn't require CLEOs to do such a thing, even temporarily.

    But back to what we're discussing here...we aren't talking about the Federal Government compelling Sheriffs to do background checks. The SCOTUS finding stated nothing about the Federal Government compelling LEO's, by enacted Law, to do things other than background checks, such as: Arresting someone who is possession of marijuana; arresting someone who has a federal felony arrest warrant; arresting someone in possession of a surface to air missile.

    There is a difference between a Federal Task, meaning, something the Federal Government is by Law empowered to do; and enforcement of Federal Law. Task=background check; Enforcement=arresting someone who has broken a Federal Law.
    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...

  19. #19
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    They ought to be fired. They are an arm of the State; and if they are not working for the interest of the State, the State ought to be able to cut it's arm off. It's not their job to pick-and-choose what laws they want to obey, and what laws they don't.

    Talk about a slippery slope...where is the line drawn. First it's not obeying a Federal firearms Law, next, it's pulling people over because of the color of their skin, or arresting a couple in an interracial marriage.
    No, it's nothing alike.

    one is a law enforcement agency taking a policy of not taking action. current federal caselaw already says 1) the officers of the 50 states cannot be compelled by congress to enforce federal law becuase enforcing federal law is the job of the federal executive (Printz v. United States)

    2) Police are under no obligation to take enforcement action on any law or to protect any individual (Gonzales v. Castle Rock, Warren v. District of Columbia)


    Stopping citizens due to skin color or disrupting a lawful marriage is not a policy of non-enforcement, it's an act against someone's rights. you have a RIGHT not to be unreasonably stopped and seized, you don't have a constitutional right to be arrested every single time you violate the law... see the difference?
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  20. #20
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Do these guys read the crap they write

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB2167

    Bill Text: TX HB2167 | 2013-2014 | 83rd Legislature | Introduced

    There's one.
    Sec. 66.004. FAILURE TO ENFORCE STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.

    (a)For purposes of Section 66.001, a person holding an elective or appointive office of this state or of a political subdivision of this state does an act that causes the forfeiture of the person's office if the person:

    (1) wilfully fails to enforce a state or federal law in the course of the person's official duties;
    (2) directs others subject to the person's supervision or control as a public official not to enforce a state or federal
    law; or
    (3) states orally or in writing that the person does not intend to enforce a state or federal law in the course of the
    person's official duties.

    (b) For purposes of this section, "law" includes any rule, regulation, executive order, court order, statute, or constitutional provision.



    [wilfully not my spelling error]

    I want to see them force a district judge to forfeit office. How would one court find another guilty and subsequently removed from office?

    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  21. #21
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    I think we should all email her and thank for proposing a law to end sanctuary cities and thanking for the mass deportation of illegal immigrants by state authorities, make it sound authentic, and just flood this reps inbox with "thank yous" always citing the purpose as arresting illegal immigrants and see how long it takes for the bill to be pulled.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I would actually love to see a law passed that would make it a felony if they did not enforce every law ... first one to enforce: treason for the people who vote to infringe our 2nd amendment rights.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    They ought to be fired. They are an arm of the State; and if they are not working for the interest of the State, the State ought to be able to cut it's arm off. It's not their job to pick-and-choose what laws they want to obey, and what laws they don't.

    Talk about a slippery slope...where is the line drawn. First it's not obeying a Federal firearms Law, next, it's pulling people over because of the color of their skin, or arresting a couple in an interracial marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    NO! County Sheriffs work for the people that elect them not the state not the federal government. Local Sheriffs are not legally or other wise required to enforce federal law see Printz v US for starters.

    Law Enforcement choosing to not enforce a law does not equate to not obeying that law, that is a new high mark for your convoluted thinking IMHO.
    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Yep. The feds must stop thinking that they are in charge of everything and everybody. The People are. The People elect the sheriff. He is answerable to them, not to the feds.

    The governmental structure in this country is not a hierarchy.
    +1

    The slippery slope is the law to begin with, this is why we have jury nullification, it is not the duty of the people to follow unconstitutional laws. I say it is not even the duty of the people to follow "consitutional law" if it is immoral, some northern states effectively nullified constitutional law by refusing to comply with it on slavery issues.

    She also comes from the stand point that the state is supreme and not the servant. It is the laws and government involvement that creates the moral hazard for "racial profiling" or a bigoted approach to same sex unions.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    NO! County Sheriffs work for the people that elect them not the state not the federal government. Local Sheriffs are not legally or other wise required to enforce federal law see Printz v US for starters.

    Law Enforcement choosing to not enforce a law does not equate to not obeying that law, that is a new high mark for your convoluted thinking IMHO.
    Yep. And, that case involved a federal gun control law and whether that local sheriff could be dragooned in enforcing federal laws. The Fedcoats lost that case.

    Also, such a statute violates impeachment and recall elections. Basically violates the federal constitutional provision that all states are guaranteed a republican form of government, and separation of powers.
    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.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    That does not meet the smell test, a law requiring a sheriff to violate constitutional rights would not hold up even in a liberal court. I wonder if the progressive liberals realize how really stupid to suggest such a law is.
    Well of course they do. Its not a matter of stupidity. Its a matter of deliberate, willful imposition of their desires on others. For them, there are no rules. Only what you can get away with in their quest to control others and leech off the produce of decent folks.
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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