Oaths of Office and Enemies of the Constitution

imported post

"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter...

Califorina Constitution Article XX Section III

Click to expand...

So, being elected to the office of Sheriff, one would take this oath- swearing (or affirming) that they will defend the Constitution, which even the California Constitution recognizes as the Supreme Law of the land... Swear (or affirm) that they would bear true faith and allegience to the same... and faithfully discharge their duties...Which would include the administration of justice as outlined by various State and local codes.

How then, does a sworn official conduct themselves when California law is clearly in conflict with the Supreme Law of the land?

When a Sheriff or a Police Cheif adheres to the code governing the issuance of licenses to carry, it seems to me that they have violated their oaths of office by laying a tax and other regulationson an activity that according to the Supreme Law "shall not be infringed".

In my opinion, this forces Sheriffs and Police Chiefs into making a conscious choice to either serve bad law or take a stand on principle upholding their oath of office. It is impossible to do both. You either violate your oath of office or violate the code as written by incompetent, self-serving legislators.

Think about it.

Is 12050 in concert with the U.S. Constitution? Does the regulation of concealed carry through licensing encourage the exersize of liberty... or bind it? So as a Sheriff or a Police Chief, how can you issue a license to carry a firearm (a form of abridgement to a Constitutionally affirmed right) and not violate your oath of office as a domestic enemy to the Constitution of the United States?

imported post

+1

Even 'shall-issue' violates the US Constitution. An honest sherriff would not issue a single permission slip. Instead, he would make it publicly clear that 12025 would not be enforced by any of his deputies.

Unfortunately, there are few honest politicians. I wonder if CA has even 1...

imported post

What then would a person in this position do? He can't uphold the local law as he was elected to do, and he can't go with the supreme law of the land without loosing the job he was elected to and having any of that good work overturned by his appointed replacement when the county supervisors remove him from office.

Electing a Sheriff alone would not get the job done. It might be a start, but you would also need to replace his bosses with 2-A supporters on the same page.

imported post

I'm not too savvy on politics, but I don't imagine it's easy for an elected official to be removed without the approval of the voters.

imported post

Theseus wrote:

What then would a person in this position do? He can't uphold the local law as he was elected to do, and he can't go with the supreme law of the land without loosing the job he was elected to and having any of that good work overturned by his appointed replacement when the county supervisors remove him from office.

Electing a Sheriff alone would not get the job done. It might be a start, but you would also need to replace his bosses with 2-A supporters on the same page.

Click to expand...

I tend to believe that anyone elected Sheriff worth their salt would have the integrity to honor their oath even if it meant they may be falling on their own sword. But because men and women of law enforcement fight amongst themselves and step on their brothers backs to get what I believe is the highest elected office in the land, they esteem the political clout of their positionfar more than the responsibility of doing the right thing.

Just how a Sheriff keeps their job while maintaining their oath to defend the Constitution against bad law escapes me. Maybe Joe Arpaio has some suggestions. I do know that I will not easily cast a vote for anyone whom I suspect would compromise the Constitution in favor of local law.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

+1

Even 'shall-issue' violates the US Constitution.  An honest sherriff would not issue a single permission slip.  Instead, he would make it publicly clear that 12025 would not be enforced by any of his deputies.

Unfortunately, there are few honest politicians.  I wonder if CA has even 1...

Click to expand...

Would he be dishonest if he did both? After all, this wouldn't help residents when they were in another county.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

CA_Libertarian wrote:

+1

Even 'shall-issue' violates the US Constitution. An honest sherriff would not issue a single permission slip. Instead, he would make it publicly clear that 12025 would not be enforced by any of his deputies.

Unfortunately, there are few honest politicians. I wonder if CA has even 1...

Click to expand...

Would he be dishonest if he did both? After all, this wouldn't help residents when they were in another county.

Click to expand...

I stand by my statement. Any taxation, testing, or licensing required to exercise a right is unconstitutional and morally apalling.

Shall-issue looks good compared to what we have, but that doesn't make it moral or just.

imported post

Same goes four our military as well. Those who KNOW they are doing something illegal should have issues as well. Just because someone orders you to do something you still have free will to do what is right.

I respect anyone in the military but sometimes it is hard to always take their side with the "they are doing what they are told" response......

I would love all of our troops to wake up and come home and line up on our borders like our navy does when leaving. We WILL be protected...

ON the sheriff and police thing, I totally agree as well. We are ALL looked at like criminals UNTIL they decide we are not and our entire system is backwards.

We don't have many honest politicians, police or military as far as I can tell. Everyone always blames it on the person above them OR the policy in which they are FORCED to deal with....

imported post

I did have a post in here, but it seems to have disappeared.

The problem with any of this is as Fresno says. . .People today don't have the integrity, pride, or honor that Citizens of the USA once had.

Electing a Pro 2A Sheriff would not solve the problem. Even if the Sheriff wanted to simply make CCW easier by reinterpreting the definition of "good cause" then the other police forces could smiply decide not to accept the CCW permit and punish those with them. If a Sheriffs office won't enforece laws, but the Police will, nothing will change.

Any changes we wan't may be helped by a pro 2A sheriff, but if we wanted any real change we need to change legislators. I am almost certain that the MAJORITY of LA DO want guns and the right to bear them, they are just trying to keep their head low because they don't know the law.

So if we could rally enough electable people to our legislature, perhaps our govenator, and a few sheriffs. . .then we will be all set!