Student Must Get Campus PD Approval for Gun License

[Comp-tech]

imported post

gsh341 wrote:

Comp-tech,

If you read my post about the Sheriff's authority you will note that I did include the fact that a Sheriff can be arrested if he breaks the law.

I think that I highlighted which of your comments that I was responding to....I stand by my comments regarding a sheriffs authority....he/she would NOT have to commit a crime to be "outranked" in their respective county....it depends on the crime/situation on just how far a sheiffs authority extends.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

Comp-tech wrote:

......as much as I'd like to see changes, I can't afford the cost of such a lawsuit.

Comp-tech, this is where having an organization of people willing to donate their time, talent, and treasure comes in handy.

It is very, very difficult for lone individuals to accomplish much of anything.

 

[Comp-tech]

imported post

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

Comp-tech wrote:

......as much as I'd like to see changes, I can't afford the cost of such a lawsuit.

Comp-tech, this is where having an organization of people willing to donate their time, talent, and treasure comes in handy.

It is very, very difficult for lone individuals to accomplish much of anything.

I agree 100%...this is why we are trying to get something started....I just hope we can accomplish something within my lifetime.....I would very much like to OC without LEO harrasment.....

 

[apjonas]

imported post

gsh341 wrote:

Once he breaks the law he has no further legal standing and is just another criminal, so any other Law Enforcement Officer can arrest him. If all else fails, the people can vote him out of office. That's the nature of being an elected official.

I don't know what you mean by "legal standing." If a LEO of any stripe commits a crime, he can be arrested, charged, etc. However, he does not automatically lose LEO powers simply by being suspected of criminal activity or being arrested. Now revocation may happen quickly (it might only require a oral order from a superior) but it requires something.

Consider it like this, the President is the leader of the country, but even he can be removed from power and sent to jail.In a highly unlikely scenario, ifthe president shot Hillary while he was in office (wouldn't that be nice?) you can bet he'd be going away for murder.

Not necessarily. It depends upon the charging. If only done under federal law, he can immediately pardon himself. In fact, he can do so in advance. Whether or not he could be held to account under a state charge is also dicey. Unless and until he is removed from power or resigns, he is not going to be arrested and any charges will be of no effect. Again, you would expect Congress to act quickly (one way or the other) but contrary to popular belief the president is above the law or more accurately has special protections under the law. Remember Bill Clinton? It took a legal battle to determine whether or not he could be required to show up at a civil deposition while president. He was only forced to because it was determined that doing so would not interfere with his ability to act as president. By the way, speaking positively about the murder of anyone, much less a United States Senator, much much less one who is a Secret Service protectee twice over is industrial strength stupid as well as rude.

How could the Sheriff committing a crime be any different?

Just remember it's the law - it doesn't have to make sense or be fair.

 

[apjonas]

imported post

gsh341 wrote:

apjonas wrote:

gsh341 wrote:

1. A state university does fall under the jurisdiction of the state financially, but the university is within the county so the Sheriff has full authority both on and off campus. Even the FBI and Secret Service is outranked by the local Sheriff within that county. This is because he is the ONLY elected law enforcement officer in the county. .........but no one can trump his legal authority.

Wanna bet? Situation: Sheriff is chasing criminal who runs into restricted area at Marshall Space Flight Center. Sheriff must stop and gain consent of federal law enforcement to enter. If he follows your advice, he will be disarmed and in federal custody in 1.3 seconds (exactly). Check out the Supremacy Clause.

Urban Legends are fun but don't always believe what you hear from Uncle Fred.

If it would be so easy to detain the Sheriff, the Sheriff will not need to be detained as he will just ask for the criminal to be handed over. After all, the crook has already been caught by the security forces that would so easily detain the Sheriff.

And this is what happened (this scenario is based on an actual incident). But it does show that the Sheriff does not "outrank" everybody else which is what you claimed.

Also, the FBI and other "national" police forces are not constitutional, as there is no provision allowing the Federal Government to create such police forces.

zzzzzzzzzzz, please take the militia nonsense elsewhere. Even if you were de jure correct you are de facto wrong.

The Supremacy Clause merely states that Federallaw supersedes conflicting State and local law, NOT State and local law enforcement agencies.

Umm...what (or who) do you think creates federal agencies and instills power in them?

If your view of the Supremacy Clause made Federal agenciesauthority greater than the Sheriffs, who could possibly hope to arrest a FBI agent that murdered a citizen? The FBI would merely have to state that it was acting in accordance with its authority and we, the citizens, would become powerless against the FBI, ATF, IRS or any otherFederal agency.

Stop acting stupid. I know that you know the answer to your question.

However, the Tenth Amendment states that those powers notdelegated to the Federal Government by the constitution are held by the States and the people. Since the Constitution does not specifically authorize a Federal police agency, the feds are trumped by the Sheriff, as he has been elected by the people to act as the chief law enforcement officer in his county.

Look, I know you would like this fantasy world of yours to become real and I don't disagree with everything that you say. But if reading the text of the constitution were the be all and end all, there would be no need for statutory law or courts. We could just hire some temps to "look it up." There is no need to resort to silliness to support your point. A sheriff is normally the chief law enforcement officer of a county and has wide ranging powers. However he is not God (despite his own delusions) nor Superman. For 99% of what he does your concept may hold true. However it only takes that 1% (or .000000000001% for that matter) to demonstrate a counterexample that makes your claim untrue. Q.E.D.

 

[apjonas]

imported post

Comp-tech wrote: .

apjonas.....your comment here is not even relevant....Marshall SFC is FEDERAL PROPERTY not county property and therefor not under the jurisdiction of the sheriff.....and the Supremacy Clause deals with laws not LEOs.

It may not be owned by the county but it is IN the county (or city, I don't know where the lines are drawn - some cities are independent of any county. Baltimore and St. Louis for example). The claim was that the sheriff "outranks" everybody when it comes to law enforcement IN the county. A private residence is not "county property" either - does that mean the homeowner cannot be subjected to an arrest warrant at home? Do you think the sheriff in this case had to extradite the criminal? He had law enforcement power on federally owned property. However this power was subject to federal control. The same is true even off of federal property. Let's say a couple of FBI agents are observing a person they believe to be a terrorist. In doing so, they illegally park. Can the sheriff arrest them or enforce a citation if they refuse to move? Lastly, since LEO's derive their power from laws, my reference to the supremecy clause is spot on.

 

[Comp-tech]

imported post

apjonas wrote:

Comp-tech wrote: .

apjonas.....your comment here is not even relevant....Marshall SFC is FEDERAL PROPERTY not county property and therefor not under the jurisdiction of the sheriff.....and the Supremacy Clause deals with laws not LEOs.

It may not be owned by the county but it is (1)IN the county (or city, I don't know where the lines are drawn - some cities are independent of any county. Baltimore and St. Louis for example). (2)The claim was that the sheriff "outranks" everybody when it comes to law enforcement IN the county. (3)A private residence is not "county property" either - does that mean the homeowner cannot be subjected to an arrest warrant at home? Do you think the sheriff in this case had to extradite the criminal? He had law enforcement power on federally owned property. However this power was subject to federal control. The same is true even off of federal property. Let's say a couple of FBI agents are observing a person they believe to be a terrorist. In doing so, they illegally park. Can the sheriff arrest them or enforce a citation if they refuse to move? Lastly, since LEO's derive their power from laws, (4)my reference to the supremecy clause is spot on.

(1) Just because it's "IN the county" doesn't give "auto-authority" to the sheriff......there are federally owned properties all over the U.S. that a sheriff can't even enter, let alone have any authority over.
(2) I never made any such claim.....
(3) YOU understand the difference in "county property" and "federal property" where it concerns jurisdiction....a private residence WOULD be considered "county property" on matters of jurisdictional authority.
(4) Horse-shit!...you must be one of those "make it up as you go" sheriffs like we have around here.....read it again, and again, and again untill you understand.....it concerns LAWS, not LEOs

 

[apjonas]

imported post

1. No, it is not "auto-authority" but rather agreements between the feds and the locals. The sheriff does have authority everywhere in the territorial bounds of his county (sometimes beyond). Whether or not he may exercise that authority is determined by who controls the property. In the case of federal property, he must obtain the consent of some federal authority. This is because the federal government is superior to the local government via the supremacy clause.

2. I never said that you made the claim. I said that the claim was made. gsh341 said "Even the FBI and Secret Service is [sic] outranked by the local Sheriff within that county."

3. As in one, the sheriff has "jurisdictional authority" over your home. That is to say that if you summon law enforcement the sheriff of your county shows up not Andy Taylor. Or a better example is the serving of process.

4. I cannot give you a short course on constitutional law. You may not like the reality but it is what it is. All government officials derive their power from law, whether it be a constitution, statute or regulation. The supremacy clause says, in effect, if there is a conflict federal trumps state. If you want to pretend that the long list of court decisions supporting this interpretation doesn't exist, I can't help you.



Comp-tech wrote:

apjonas wrote:

Comp-tech wrote: .

apjonas.....your comment here is not even relevant....Marshall SFC is FEDERAL PROPERTY not county property and therefor not under the jurisdiction of the sheriff.....and the Supremacy Clause deals with laws not LEOs.

It may not be owned by the county but it is (1)IN the county (or city, I don't know where the lines are drawn - some cities are independent of any county. Baltimore and St. Louis for example). (2)The claim was that the sheriff "outranks" everybody when it comes to law enforcement IN the county. (3)A private residence is not "county property" either - does that mean the homeowner cannot be subjected to an arrest warrant at home? Do you think the sheriff in this case had to extradite the criminal? He had law enforcement power on federally owned property. However this power was subject to federal control. The same is true even off of federal property. Let's say a couple of FBI agents are observing a person they believe to be a terrorist. In doing so, they illegally park. Can the sheriff arrest them or enforce a citation if they refuse to move? Lastly, since LEO's derive their power from laws, (4)my reference to the supremecy clause is spot on.

(1) Just because it's "IN the county" doesn't give "auto-authority" to the sheriff......there are federally owned properties all over the U.S. that a sheriff can't even enter, let alone have any authority over.
(2) I never made any such claim.....
(3) YOU understand the difference in "county property" and "federal property" where it concerns jurisdiction....a private residence WOULD be considered "county property" on matters of jurisdictional authority.
(4) Horse-shit!...you must be one of those "make it up as you go" sheriffs like we have around here.....read it again, and again, and again untill you understand.....it concerns LAWS, not LEOs

 

[vmathis12019]

imported post

Just to clarify something. I am a college student at a public university in Alabama as well (Troy University), and I had to go through no such process to recieve my license. The kicker here is that Alabama is in practice a "may issue" state. It is completely up to the Sheriff's discretion to grant, deny, revoke, or reinstate a pistol permit. If you disrespect his mama, he has the authority to take away your gun permit. It is unfortunate for this kid, however, there really is nothing he can do about it. It is just the way things are in Alabama. I would suggest to him that he try to get a permit in his home county (assuming that he did not grow up in Tuscaloosa), if the sheriff of Tuscaloosa County still won't issue him a permit or if the campus police chief denies his request.

 

[kurtmax_0]

imported post

Actually a sheriff is required to issue a permit in 'appropriate situations'.

What are 'appropriate situations'? Nobody knows. Just gotta sue and let the courts sort it out....

 

[vmathis12019]

imported post

Exactly. Unfortunately, as long as the laws remain vague and "appropriate situations" remain undefined, there will continue to be problems.

 

[acrimsontide]

imported post

apjonas wrote:

1. No, it is not "auto-authority" but rather agreements between the feds and the locals. The sheriff does have authority everywhere in the territorial bounds of his county (sometimes beyond). Whether or not he may exercise that authority is determined by who controls the property. In the case of federal property, he must obtain the consent of some federal authority. This is because the federal government is superior to the local government via the supremacy clause.

You are correct that the federal authority retains control of the sheriff.Marshall Space Flight Center is located on Redstone Arsenal which is a US Army installation. Marshall, a government facility, is a guest of the US military. Local law enforcement officers , including the sheriff, cannot even carry their weapons onto Redstone Arsenal unless the Military Police allow them to. As a courteousy, the Military Police normally do not enforce that restriction and local LEOs who have official business on the military installation are permited to keep their firearms.