Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Northern Calif, Sheriffs stand tall for the Constitution

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Northern Calif, Sheriffs stand tall for the Constitution

    Hi all,

    I found out about this today, from a patriot friend.
    The new question for us would be, will they enforce AB 144 when it takes effect ?
    This is a long video, but its worth watching, and just might give us some hope
    in our OCing.
    Robin47

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4RuWK2Ww-4

  2. #2
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Wishful thinking. Our Sheriff, while a 'professing' pro-gun member of the NRA has made it evident to me that he isn't as supportive of the Second Amendment as he would like his constituents believe. I guarantee you, he and his deputies will enforce 26350 if a violation should occur and be reported in areas of his jurisdiction.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Wishful thinking. Our Sheriff, while a 'professing' pro-gun member of the NRA has made it evident to me that he isn't as supportive of the Second Amendment as he would like his constituents believe. I guarantee you, he and his deputies will enforce 26350 if a violation should occur and be reported in areas of his jurisdiction.
    I think if a few OCers, went and talked to the so called Constitutional Sheriffs, and ask if they were going to challenge
    the Governor Brown, on the un-constitutionality of this new law AB144, and that all law biding citizens
    would be denied their rights, and that the Sheriff would not enforce such un-constitutional laws
    I wonder what the Governor could do ?

    In other words where does that Governor get the authority to deny citizens God given rights Guaranteed by
    the B of R in the U.S. Constitution and backed by the Supreme Court.

    Remembering Sheriffs do not have to fallow unlawful laws contrary to their oath. Robin47

  4. #4
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    Sheriffs **could** choose to exercise their discretion under PC 12050 et seq by adopting - and adhering to - a few very simple principles: All persons who are (1) a resident of their county be issued a license to carry for (2) any stated "good cause", including self-defense, (3) upon their successful DOJ background check. Accept application, take fingerprints via Live Scan, wait for results, notify applicant of success and direct to train, accept proof of training, and issue license. Done. Little administrative burden.

    While the above is certainly not the end objective, it would go a long way to respecting the right to bear arms.

    In the final analysis, however, even these "Constitutional Sheriffs" refuse to take the most basic steps to, well, act constitutionally.

    -Brandon

    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    I think if a few OCers, went and talked to the so called Constitutional Sheriffs, and ask if they were going to challenge
    the Governor Brown, on the un-constitutionality of this new law AB144, and that all law biding citizens
    would be denied their rights, and that the Sheriff would not enforce such un-constitutional laws
    I wonder what the Governor could do ?

    In other words where does that Governor get the authority to deny citizens God given rights Guaranteed by
    the B of R in the U.S. Constitution and backed by the Supreme Court.

    Remembering Sheriffs do not have to fallow unlawful laws contrary to their oath. Robin47
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    Remembering Sheriffs do not have to fallow unlawful laws contrary to their oath. Robin47
    That said, there would be no stopping city police, school district police, highway patrol, and other law enforcement officers from taking up where sheriffs refuse

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    That said, there would be no stopping city police, school district police, highway patrol, and other law enforcement officers from taking up where sheriffs refuse
    That's why its called a "Police State" ! Robin47

  7. #7
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
    Sheriffs **could** choose to exercise their discretion under PC 12050 et seq by adopting - and adhering to - a few very simple principles: All persons who are (1) a resident of their county be issued a license to carry for (2) any stated "good cause", including self-defense, (3) upon their successful DOJ background check. Accept application, take fingerprints via Live Scan, wait for results, notify applicant of success and direct to train, accept proof of training, and issue license. Done. Little administrative burden.

    While the above is certainly not the end objective, it would go a long way to respecting the right to bear arms.

    In the final analysis, however, even these "Constitutional Sheriffs" refuse to take the most basic steps to, well, act constitutionally.

    -Brandon
    They also **could** exercise their discretion to use licensing as a punitive measure to quash an individuals rights even having previously satisfied residency, good cause and good moral character. Such people arent inclined to pick and choose which laws they will enforce, particularly when it is against their political interests to do so.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  8. #8
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    That's why its called a "Police State" ! Robin47
    No; that's why it's called "state law" instead of county or sheriff's law

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    No; that's why it's called "state law" instead of county or sheriff's law
    Exactly ! That's why it is a "Police State" who enforce the states law.
    A Constitutional Republic, which is on our flag by the way, recognize the individual rights of citizens.
    So these "Sworn protectors of our Liberty", are really not working for us anymore ?

    Sheriff's whom we elected, are to work for "We the People", not a law contrary to our God given rights.
    Has any one ever taken the 1st Amendment to court along with the 2-A, as
    a violation of ones right to self- protection, as is also taught in the Bible ?
    PC 12031 e and AB 144 which I guess is the new PC 26350.
    So the violations are 1st,2ed, 4th, and 5th.
    So yes I would think that many violations of ones God given Unalienable rights that
    this is really a Police State.
    If this was a free state, we would have the 2A RKBA to keep our state free, and secure.
    Its sad how California has sunk so low. Robin47

  10. #10
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    Exactly ! That's why it is a "Police State" who enforce the states law.
    A Constitutional Republic, which is on our flag by the way, recognize the individual rights of citizens.
    So these "Sworn protectors of our Liberty", are really not working for us anymore ?

    Sheriff's whom we elected, are to work for "We the People", not a law contrary to our God given rights.
    Has any one ever taken the 1st Amendment to court along with the 2-A, as
    a violation of ones right to self- protection, as is also taught in the Bible ?
    PC 12031 e and AB 144 which I guess is the new PC 26350.
    So the violations are 1st,2ed, 4th, and 5th.
    So yes I would think that many violations of ones God given Unalienable rights that
    this is really a Police State.
    If this was a free state, we would have the 2A RKBA to keep our state free, and secure.
    Its sad how California has sunk so low. Robin47
    There was an attempt to add a second amendment to the California constitution by Senator Don rogers back in the 90's. He started an initiative which didn't gain the needed traction, nor the signatures. I remember getting those petitions and displaying them for signatures in my business back then. Actually didn't get many signatures there either, but no big shock there since so many of my customers were basically foreigners. If you really want a 2A in California without crawling before the federal government on hands and knees, another initiative would be the only pathway.
    Actually, Californian's don't have that many inalienable rights left. They are still declared, but the list of them that get dismissed, weakened, or just "alienated" is getting larger all the time:

    Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
    her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
    this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
    press.
    this one is under assault, and the opposition to it has won several important battles lately. Displaying a noose, burning a cross, displaying a swastica, have been outlawed. this year they banned mobile billboards where the publicized message might disturb the teaching environment. Muni's can now restrict mobile billboards to the point of extinction

    Marriage only between a man and a woman
    this one is in and out. Looks more out than in now

    A person may
    not be imprisoned in a civil action for debt or tort, or in peacetime
    for a militia fine
    .
    A debt for child support can get one imprisoned. One of the few times I was jailed, there were two other men in there for not paying child support

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
    houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and
    searches may not be violated;
    Lots of exceptions in this one now. The supreme court of California has let the supreme court of the US write the interpretation of this one because it reads too much like the 4th amendment. Hard to know we even have our own constitution sometimes

    Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured
    to all,
    This one stopped growing with the state back in 1849. Small claims court took the basic breath out of it in more modern times, and administrative law has been taking a hunk. It's certainly not an absolute, and it gets violated all the time for the purposes of expediency and economics

    The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
    the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof,
    I'm going to quit here, because it's depressing, but the right to fish was added to the state constitution by initiative in 1910, and somehow changed from a right to a privilege by legislation. Simply amazing how the fight for the right was so engaging, and it had more than popular support at the vote. But there was nary a wimper from anyone as the senate drew up the bill a few years later and quietly declared fishing a privilege. Why did we let them do that?
    Last edited by Save Our State; 11-02-2011 at 02:03 AM.

  11. #11
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    Why did we let them do that?
    Because the majority of those that are left are lacking the stern resolve to remove them from office and tar and feather the bastards like they did with tax men of old.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  12. #12
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    I do believe I smell a new revolution coming to America soon. I wouldn't want to be one of those in office that tried to repress freedom.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    There was an attempt to add a second amendment to the California constitution by Senator Don rogers back in the 90's. He started an initiative which didn't gain the needed traction, nor the signatures. I remember getting those petitions and displaying them for signatures in my business back then. Actually didn't get many signatures there either, but no big shock there since so many of my customers were basically foreigners. If you really want a 2A in California without crawling before the federal government on hands and knees, another initiative would be the only pathway.
    Actually, Californian's don't have that many inalienable rights left. They are still declared, but the list of them that get dismissed, weakened, or just "alienated" is getting larger all the time:



    this one is under assault, and the opposition to it has won several important battles lately. Displaying a noose, burning a cross, displaying a swastica, have been outlawed. this year they banned mobile billboards where the publicized message might disturb the teaching environment. Muni's can now restrict mobile billboards to the point of extinction



    this one is in and out. Looks more out than in now

    .
    A debt for child support can get one imprisoned. One of the few times I was jailed, there were two other men in there for not paying child support



    Lots of exceptions in this one now. The supreme court of California has let the supreme court of the US write the interpretation of this one because it reads too much like the 4th amendment. Hard to know we even have our own constitution sometimes



    This one stopped growing with the state back in 1849. Small claims court took the basic breath out of it in more modern times, and administrative law has been taking a hunk. It's certainly not an absolute, and it gets violated all the time for the purposes of expediency and economics



    I'm going to quit here, because it's depressing, but the right to fish was added to the state constitution by initiative in 1910, and somehow changed from a right to a privilege by legislation. Simply amazing how the fight for the right was so engaging, and it had more than popular support at the vote. But there was nary a wimper from anyone as the senate drew up the bill a few years later and quietly declared fishing a privilege. Why did we let them do that?
    Yeah SOS,
    I knew about the right to fish in our Constitution back in the late 1970's. Article 1 Section 25. Cal - Constitution.
    that right goes back to 1879, in 1910 is when they stated the F & G codes, however there code also reads
    1-89 number 3 said's any laws that were prior to this F & G code are still valid.
    By there own code the 1879 right to fish is still valid.
    However as corrupt as things are, we have lost the Cal - Constitution and the Federal one also 2-A.
    Yes your right it is very Depressing I agree.
    HEY time to start looking at the Free States in America. That's the good news. Robin47

  14. #14
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    Yeah SOS,
    I knew about the right to fish in our Constitution back in the late 1970's. Article 1 Section 25. Cal - Constitution.
    that right goes back to 1879, in 1910 is when they stated the F & G codes, however there code also reads
    1-89 number 3 said's any laws that were prior to this F & G code are still valid.
    By there own code the 1879 right to fish is still valid.
    The constitution is still valid. The action the senate took several years after 1910 in declaring it a privilege does not superscede the declared rights in article 1, sec.25.
    that's what I was trying to understand about the mindset of the people at the time. After fighting to make fishing a constitutional right, there was no resistance when the senate decided to ignore what the constitution said. There were many fish and game laws, as the legislature began realizing fish and game were a finite resource. Those laws were all shepherded under first one commission, and then another, and finally they created the Fish and Game department. before that, sheriffs and such were the enforcement arm, and they were just "laws" not fish and game laws. So that's why they made reference to keeping previous laws in effect.

    But this should highlight something in relation to right to carry, right to own, right to bear, etc, and that's that we can work our butts off to make it a right, only to see it changed back by sleight of hand.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Posts
    135
    Sheriff Mack fought the Brady Bill, refused to enforce it, and won a judgment in the Supreme Court of the United States. Demand your Sheriff put their support of 2nd Amendment rights, in writing, or VOTE them OUT!

    BTW: If you suspect they may have committed any felonies, you can also post them to ArrestWanted (for free) and offer Rewards for their arrest/conviction. The posts are searchable on Google. It may be easier to drag them out

    http://ArrestWanted.com/
    Last edited by steele; 11-03-2011 at 02:00 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by steele View Post
    Sheriff Mack fought the Brady Bill, refused to enforce it, and won a judgment in the Supreme Court of the United States. Demand your Sheriff put their support of 2nd Amendment rights, in writing, or VOTE them OUT!

    BTW: If you suspect they may have committed any felonies, you can also post them to ArrestWanted (for free) and offer Rewards for their arrest/conviction. The posts are searchable on Google. It may be easier to drag them out

    http://ArrestWanted.com/
    Yeah I believe your right.
    An example would be, as far as a charge goes.

    Fraud in public office, "Taking public money under false pretenses", That's the best one I've found.
    That would also go for those who have sworn an oath, and did the opposite,by not keeping their oath of office.
    The filing would be in Federal Court, I believe there is one in California.
    They would have to answer in Fed Court to the charge as an Individual.
    This is very much a OC issue, as it effects our Right to Keep and "Bear" arms. Functional arms ! LOC

    Robin47

Posting Permissions

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