• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Number Of Nation's Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstituti

jodywy

Well-known member
From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation's sheriffs are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

In New Mexico, 30 of the state's 33 county sheriffs have reminded state lawmakers that they are under oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment.

CNSNews.com previously reported that 28 of the 29 sheriff's in Utah sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will not enforce any new gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional.

A host of Oregon sheriffs have said that they will not comply with any new unconstitutional gun regulations:
•Sheriff Craig Zanni wrote, "I have and will continue to uphold my Oath of Office including supporting the Second Amendment," in a letter to Coos County citizens.
•Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin said he would refuse to enforce any new Federal gun law he believes is unconstitutional.
•In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Grant County Sheriff, Glenn Palmer writes: "I will not tolerate nor will I permit any federal incursion within the exterior boundaries of Grant County, Oregon, where any type of gun control legislation aimed at disarming law -abiding citizens is the goal or objective."
•Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County told Biden in a letter: "Any rule, regulation, or executive order repugnant to the constitutional rights of the citizens of this County will be ignored by this office."
•Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon says his department will not participate in any overreaching and unconstitutional federal firearms restrictions.

In California, Sheriff Adam Christianson of Stanislaus County wrote to the vice president: "I refuse to take firearms from law abiding citizens and will not turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by enforcing useless gun control legislation."

A letter sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein from Sheriff Jon Lopey of Siskiyou County, California states: "Our founding fathers got it right and many politicians are getting it wrong."



In Missouri, Lawrence County Sheriff Brad Delay tells the president: "I will...rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation, or executive order that impedes, erodes, or otherwise diminishes their constitutional right to keep and bear arms."

At a town hall meeting, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky told citizens "you are never going to pull a gun from Jackson County."

Smith County, Texas Sheriff, Larry Smith has said, "I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen in Smith County. It just won't happen."

In Florida, Martin County Sheriff, Bill Snyder said that he will not enforce federal gun laws: "Local law enforcement authorities are not empowered to enforce Federal law," Snyder said.

For a list of more sheriffs who are standing up against new gun regulations, please click here.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/number-nations-sheriffs-refusing-enforce-unconstitutional-gun-laws
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
A lot of politician Sheriffs blowing smoke up their constituents arses that really doesn't mean a hill of beans... Just that - pure BS smoke....

•In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Grant County Sheriff, Glenn Palmer writes: "I will not tolerate nor will I permit any federal incursion within the exterior boundaries of Grant County, Oregon, where any type of gun control legislation aimed at disarming law -abiding citizens is the goal or objective."

Pure Smoke-- as this Sheriff has no Authority to stop Federal Authorities from entering and/or operating in his county or enforcing Federal Law....And in fact would be in violation of the US Constitution under the Supremacy Clause...

March 24, 2011 02:00 PM
As the Tea Partiers run wild in Montana, the folks with common sense start to turn away
By David Neiwert


Douglas Kennedy eagerly filed this report from the wilds of Montana this morning for Fox News, describing the exploits of a Montana Tea Party Republican legislator named Greg Hinkle, from Thompson Falls -- just coincidentally the home of the Militia of Montana ...


Hinkle is a Republican state senator from Thomson Falls, and he recently proposed a law, likely the first of its kind, asking federal law enforcement to first seek approval of county sheriffs before any federal intervention in the state of Montana. He calls it “The Sheriffs First Bill.”

“I believe that before any federal agency does any action within a county,” he explained, “they should cooperate with the sheriff, coordinate with the sheriff and go to him and say this is what we need to do in this county.”

For instance, Hinkle would want the FBI to first notify a Montana sheriff before executing a search warrant or making an arrest in the state of Montana.

At one point he allowed for arrest of any federal agent who didn’t comply, but has since taken out that language. He also reluctantly added a line that allows for federal agents to notify sheriffs “after the fact,” in order to get the bill through the Montana House of Representatives.

Nonetheless, legal observers still call Hinkle’s bill “a clear violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

“The federal government does not have to ask or even inform local law enforcement about what they are doing,” said James Cohen, a constitutional law professor at Fordham Law School in New York. “Sometimes they do because it’s convenient, but they do not have to.”


Hinkle points out that the bill has already passed the Montana State Senate (with the original language) and is expected to pass the House in the next couple of weeks.


He also says there’s a lot of support in Montana, a state which he says well remembers the deadly federal raids at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 and Waco, Texas, in 1993.

Funny that a parachuting reporter would forget this, but in reality, Montanans remember even better the longest armed standoff with federal agents in history: the 81-day FBI standoff in Jordan with the Montana Freemen. (Yes, yours truly was there.) As Jim Lopach, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Montana, put it in a retrospective piece:


Lopach said the real legacy of the standoff could be that it gave people a reason to consider how far and how deep devotion to political individualism should go.

"It might be a moderating thing," he said. "It might be that they saw the dangers of extremism."


In reality, Hinkle's bill is one we've known about for awhile. It was one of a package of bills that Montana Patriot-movement leader Gary Marbut announced last September in Hamilton at a gathering I covered. (You can watch the video of Marbut describing it here.)


Tonight Marbut wants to talk about a new piece of sovereignty legislation he plans to promote in the state legislature, something he calls Sheriffs First. The bill would make it a crime in Montana for a federal officer to arrest, search or seize without advance written permission from the county sheriff, Marbut explains, to enthusiastic applause.

"How that will work is, the federal officers might come to your local sheriff and say, 'OK, here's our probable cause, we believe there's people at this location in your county who have a meth lab …and we wanna bust 'em,'" Marbut says. "The sheriff might look it over and say, 'Gosh, I'm glad you brought this to me, here's your advance written permission, and I will send a couple deputies to help you.'

"Or the federal officers might come to the sheriff and say, 'Here's our probable cause, it leads us to believe there's somebody in your county at this location who's manufacturing firearms without a federal license. And we want to go bust them.' The sheriff might say, 'Sorry, we have a state law in Montana that authorizes that activity, it's perfectly legal here, you may not go bust them, you do not have permission, and if you do, we can put you in Deer Lodge. We can put you behind bars in Montana for doing that.'" That brings out whoops alongside the applause.

Kennedy's fawning coverage at Fox concluded thus:


“They can’t do it,” [Fordham law professor James Cohen] said. “They can't pass a law that says the federal government, the FBI, the [Drug Enforcement Agency], whatever federal law enforcement agency, must contact the sheriff before engaging in law enforcement activities. It simply can't be done."

Of course it can, said Hinkle.

“How on earth could the states not challenge federal law?” he asked. “That's the way our system of government works.”

“The states are what created the federal government,” he added, “so the states should actually have more authority than the federal government."

This is one of the more breathtaking aspects of this legislation: It so clearly flies in the face of the Constitution as to be absurd, and yet its proponents are some of the loudest proponents of their version of so-called "constitutionalism."

These are the Tea Partiers who swept to power in Montana in the last election, and boy, are they making their mark. But it may not be the one they long for.

Longtime Montanans are well acquainted with these kooks, and the more they rant and rage and embarrass the state, they more they turn people off. An AP story from a few weeks back pointed this out:


HELENA, Mont. – With each bill, newly elected tea party lawmakers are offering Montanans a vision of the future.

Their state would be a place where officials can ignore U.S. laws, force FBI agents to get a sheriff's OK before arresting anyone, ban abortions, limit sex education in schools and create armed citizen militias.

It's the tea party world. But not everyone is buying their vision.

Some residents, Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer and even some Republican lawmakers say the bills are making Montana into a laughingstock. And, they say, the push to nullify federal laws could be dangerous.

"We are the United States of America," said Schweitzer. "This talk of nullifying is pretty toxic talk. That led to the Civil War."

A tea party lawmaker said raising the specter of a civil war is plain old malarkey.

"Nullification is not about splitting this union apart," freshman Rep. Derek Skees said. "Nullification is just one more way for us to tell the federal government: 'That is not right."

There's been a substantial influx of these extremists into the state from elsewhere in the past decade, many of them drawn by cheap land and their own internalized mythology of the Western landscape what Montanans are like (think "rugged individualism"). Perhaps no one symbolizes this influx better than Chuck Baldwin, the erstwhile presidential candidate of the Constitution Party, who recently moved to the Flathead Valley from Florida.

Baldwin held a shindig in Kalispell, where he was feted by local white supremacists and other supporters. He all but announced that he was planning to run for governor, in hopes of displacing Schweitzer. And he voiced the view of a lot of these newcomers:


Baldwin went on to state that being born in Montana does not necessarily make one a Montanan.

“There are a lot of people that were born in Montana but are not Montanans,” Baldwin said. “And there are a lot of people, like me, who were not born in Montana but we have been Montanans our whole lives.” (Baldwin arrived in the Flathead in October.)

“Real Montanans love freedom,” he said. “Real Montanans will fight and die for the principles of truth, honor and freedom.”

Here's hoping he and his fellow Montana Tea Partiers run on that kind of platform. Sounds like a surefire winner with all the lifelong Montanans I know.

I thought there was a bill in the last legislature on this- that never made it into law so I did a little searching and found this article on the Tea Party offered law in MT's last legislation...


SENATE BILL NO. 114

INTRODUCED BY G. HINKLE, BRENDEN, FLYNN, HENDRICK, HUTTON, JONES, KARY, KENNEDY, KERNS, MILLER, RANDALL, C. SMITH, SONJU, STAHL, STEINBEISSER, WARBURTON, BLASDEL, ROSENDALE, LONEY, SKEES, BUTTREY, BURNETT, ZINKE, R. OSMUNDSON



AN ACT STATING THAT FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SHOULD COMMUNICATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS BEFORE TAKING OFFICIAL ACTION IN A COUNTY; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.



BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:



Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of [sections 1 and 2] is to:

(1) enhance cooperation between federal law enforcement officers and law enforcement officers of this state;

(2) encourage federal law enforcement officers to use the knowledge and expertise of local law enforcement officers in the performance of the federal officers' official duties; and

(3) encourage federal law enforcement officers to communicate with local law enforcement officers when performing the federal officers' official duties in a local jurisdiction.



Section 2. Communication with local sheriff. (1) Before taking any official law enforcement action in a county in this state, a federal law enforcement officer should communicate with the sheriff of the county in which the action is to be taken unless the communication would impede the federal officer's official duties.

(2) If a federal law enforcement officer does not inform the sheriff before taking official action, the officer should do so as soon as practical after the fact.



Section 3. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 and 2] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 44, and the provisions of Title 44 apply to [sections 1 and 2].



Section 4. Effective date. [This act] is effective on passage and approval.

- END -

In order to get it to pass the Legislature it was watered down so much it became a "mother may I" joke... The Governor vetoed it...

And pretty much answers my question-- if there were a federal law or a court case backing even a state law- these Tea Partyiers wouldn't have had to waste so much of the taxpayers time and money working on this comical piece....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Pure Smoke-- as this Sheriff has no Authority to stop Federal Authorities from entering and/or operating in his county or enforcing Federal Law

A State, or Sheriff, may stop the Federal Authorities from enforcing an "Unconstitutional" Law in his jurisdiction. He is not the final arbiter, but until it's "Constitutionality" has been determined, he is.

If you'll read all the headlines, all of these Sheriffs are saying they will block "Unconstitutional" Laws.

If they believe these future laws are going against the 2nd Amendment, they are bound to block them, rightfully.

SCOTUS has ruled that an "Unconstitutional" Federal Law cannot and does not preempt State Law.

Read and comprehend:

Friday, January 18, 2013
Alabama Sheriff: Unconstitutional Gun Laws will not be Enforced


HUNTSVILLE, Ala.(WHNT) – A sweeping set of gun control proposals laid out by President Obama on Wednesday is adding more fuel to a growing national debate, and one local lawman is raising concerns that the proposed legislation is unconstitutional.
Madison County Sheriff Blake Dorning told WHNT News 19 that his office will not enforce new gun control legislation if he feels those laws violate the Second Amendment. Dorning said he has serious doubts about President Obama’s latest proposals, stating that any gun laws which do pass would have to be in line with the U.S. Constitution and Alabama state law in order to be enforceable.

“The federal authorities can try to enforce it,” said Dorning. “I’m the Sheriff of Madison County. I took a constitutional oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, to defend the Constitution of the State of Alabama, even if it takes my life. That is my position.”
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Pure Smoke-- as this Sheriff has no Authority to stop Federal Authorities from entering and/or operating in his county or enforcing Federal Law

A State, or Sheriff, may stop the Federal Authorities from enforcing an "Unconstitutional" Law in his jurisdiction. He is not the final arbiter, but until it's "Constitutionality" has been determined, he is.

If you'll read all the headlines, all of these Sheriffs are saying they will block "Unconstitutional" Laws.

If they believe these future laws are going against the 2nd Amendment, they are bound to block them, rightfully.

SCOTUS has ruled that an "Unconstitutional" Federal Law cannot and does not preempt State Law.

Read and comprehend:

Friday, January 18, 2013
Alabama Sheriff: Unconstitutional Gun Laws will not be Enforced


HUNTSVILLE, Ala.(WHNT) – A sweeping set of gun control proposals laid out by President Obama on Wednesday is adding more fuel to a growing national debate, and one local lawman is raising concerns that the proposed legislation is unconstitutional.
Madison County Sheriff Blake Dorning told WHNT News 19 that his office will not enforce new gun control legislation if he feels those laws violate the Second Amendment. Dorning said he has serious doubts about President Obama’s latest proposals, stating that any gun laws which do pass would have to be in line with the U.S. Constitution and Alabama state law in order to be enforceable.

“The federal authorities can try to enforce it,” said Dorning. “I’m the Sheriff of Madison County. I took a constitutional oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, to defend the Constitution of the State of Alabama, even if it takes my life. That is my position.”

All Federal laws/rules passed by the US Congress- or orders issued by the President are considered legal and Constitutional- until overturned by a FEDERAL Court...A Sheriff or States Attorney or State Judge can not make that decision- it has to be a FEDERAL COURT...

That's what makes all this smoke blowing so comical-- so if the Federal Courts overrule the law- and say its unconstitutional- then you won't have Federal Agents out enforcing it anyway.... :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
It sometimes takes years to get a case through the court system.

:roll:

It will take the Sheriffs going to court against the law to get it there. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
It sometimes takes years to get a case through the court system.

:roll:

It will take the Sheriffs going to court against the law to get it there. :lol:

So how will this Sheriff stop ATF- or Federal Marshals from enforcing a legally passed law (that the Sheriff may think could be unconstitutional)-- have a shootout on main street at high noon with the Federal Officers.. :???: :roll:
Whats so funny- is if they know they are facing an antigovernment Sheriff- they will be in and out before that Sheriff can even strap his gunbelt on... :lol:

Its a farce the rightwing has put out-- blowing smoke up whats left of the weakmindeds minds...

But that's what the KKK and white supremacists/anarchists want-- stir up more hate and discontent so they can get their civil war and return to slavery...
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
It sometimes takes years to get a case through the court system.

:roll:

It will take the Sheriffs going to court against the law to get it there. :lol:

So how will this Sheriff stop ATF- or Federal Marshals from enforcing a legally passed law (that the Sheriff may think could be unconstitutional)-- have a shootout on main street at high noon with the Federal Officers.. :???: :roll:
Whats so funny- is if they know they are facing an antigovernment Sheriff- they will be in and out before that Sheriff can even strap his gunbelt on... :lol:

Its a farce the rightwing has put out-- blowing smoke up whats left of the weakmindeds minds...

But that's what the KKK and white supremacists/anarchists want-- stir up more hate and discontent so they can get their civil war and return to slavery...

You can watch all of them, or specifically you can skip to the 1:50 mark and hear a real sheriff speaking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpOT7wR-wU

If this is not a sheriff defying a federal agency over an unconstitutional act, then please explain what it is.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
okfarmer said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
It sometimes takes years to get a case through the court system.

:roll:

It will take the Sheriffs going to court against the law to get it there. :lol:

So how will this Sheriff stop ATF- or Federal Marshals from enforcing a legally passed law (that the Sheriff may think could be unconstitutional)-- have a shootout on main street at high noon with the Federal Officers.. :???: :roll:
Whats so funny- is if they know they are facing an antigovernment Sheriff- they will be in and out before that Sheriff can even strap his gunbelt on... :lol:

Its a farce the rightwing has put out-- blowing smoke up whats left of the weakmindeds minds...

But that's what the KKK and white supremacists/anarchists want-- stir up more hate and discontent so they can get their civil war and return to slavery...

You can watch all of them, or specifically you can skip to the 1:50 mark and hear a real sheriff speaking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpOT7wR-wU

If this is not a sheriff defying a federal agency over an unconstitutional act, then please explain what it is.

Okfarmer-- you don't seem to understand-- that Sheriff can flap his lips all he wants- BUT he has NO legal authority to stop Federal Agents from operating in his jurisdiction-- and NO way to stop them from doing so...

He's blowing smoke up your rear!
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
okfarmer said:
Oldtimer said:
So how will this Sheriff stop ATF- or Federal Marshals from enforcing a legally passed law (that the Sheriff may think could be unconstitutional)-- have a shootout on main street at high noon with the Federal Officers.. :???: :roll:
Whats so funny- is if they know they are facing an antigovernment Sheriff- they will be in and out before that Sheriff can even strap his gunbelt on... :lol:

Its a farce the rightwing has put out-- blowing smoke up whats left of the weakmindeds minds...

But that's what the KKK and white supremacists/anarchists want-- stir up more hate and discontent so they can get their civil war and return to slavery...

You can watch all of them, or specifically you can skip to the 1:50 mark and hear a real sheriff speaking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpOT7wR-wU

If this is not a sheriff defying a federal agency over an unconstitutional act, then please explain what it is.

Okfarmer-- you don't seem to understand-- that Sheriff can flap his lips all he wants- BUT he has NO legal authority to stop Federal Agents from operating in his jurisdiction-- and NO way to stop them from doing so...

He's blowing smoke up your rear!

So are you saying that the BLM didn't threaten to take the cattle?

Did they take the cattle?

If they threatened, which they did, and they didn't take the cattle, which they didn't.. Why not? They did it previously.... why not now?

I'll tell you what. I'll give you 24 hours to prove that you are correct and that what was stated in the video didn't occur...... That the BLM didn't threaten to round up the cattle and then fail to do so, or that the BLM rounded up the cattle during DeMeo's time in office.

If you can't, then you will by default be admitting that you are wrong. There are admissions of commission and omission. Since you can't actively admit it, I will give you the opportunity by which you can't refuse.

Your welcome :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
okfarmer said:
Oldtimer said:
okfarmer said:
You can watch all of them, or specifically you can skip to the 1:50 mark and hear a real sheriff speaking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpOT7wR-wU

If this is not a sheriff defying a federal agency over an unconstitutional act, then please explain what it is.

Okfarmer-- you don't seem to understand-- that Sheriff can flap his lips all he wants- BUT he has NO legal authority to stop Federal Agents from operating in his jurisdiction-- and NO way to stop them from doing so...

He's blowing smoke up your rear!

So are you saying that the BLM didn't threaten to take the cattle?

Did they take the cattle?

If they threatened, which they did, and they didn't take the cattle, which they didn't.. Why not? They did it previously.... why not now?

I'll tell you what. I'll give you 24 hours to prove that you are correct and that what was stated in the video didn't occur...... That the BLM didn't threaten to round up the cattle and then fail to do so, or that the BLM rounded up the cattle during DeMeo's time in office.

If you can't, then you will by default be admitting that you are wrong. There are admissions of commission and omission. Since you can't actively admit it, I will give you the opportunity by which you can't refuse.

Your welcome :D

I agree that the Sheriff was right in demanding they get a court order from a Judge- but beyond that he could not stop the action...Pretty much a standing rule in law enforcement to demand a court order...And that type of decisions are made every day on take downs or property seizures... We had a standing rule that we would not assist in any seizure of property (like lien seizures) unless it was court ordered... We were once involved in the largest seizure of cattle (over 750 head) in Montana- but had a court order (altho we had the reverse question of whether a state court order was good on the Indian Reservation- and whether the BIA law enforcement had to or even could assist)..

Was there even Federal Law Enforcement there? Or was it just BLM employees?...

My contention is still the same- what would you do if the BLM had not backed down- gunfight at the OK corral :???: .. Local law enforcement trying to arrest Federal law enforcement-- and they shoot it out :???:
Just what the anarchists are trying to bring about with their preachings about the authority of Sheriffs...


The Sheriff has NO authority over duly empowered Federal Agents who are acting within their legal authority...Nor do they have to notify local authorities of what they are doing... And all these blowing smoke that they can decide what is legal/constitutional or not-- are doing exactly that... Just blowing smoke...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I've been reading about states hoping that their new laws, regarding the arrest of Federal agents, when it comes to gun control, reaches SCOTUS

They have been specifically writing them, so as to have the Feds. challenge them.

"The Firearms Protection Act bill would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state's boundaries. Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal," reads Steve Toth's website announcement.

"We can no longer depend on the Federal Government and this Administration to uphold a Constitution that they no longer believe in. The liberties of the People of Texas and the sovereignty of our State are too important to just let the Federal Government take them away. The overreach of the federal administrations executive orders that are do not align with the Constitution, are not very popular here in Texas."

http://www.house.state.tx.us/news/press-releases/?id=4157&district=15&bill_code=2825
 

smalltime

Well-known member
Talk is cheap and easy.I'll believe it when I see it.If a cop doesnt do what he's told to do ,he gets no payycheck.End of story.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
In this state, it's the County Attorney who is the highest ranking LEO, not the County Sheriff. Push comes to shove, the Sheriff acts at the County Attorney's discretion, and can be relieved of duty by the County Attorney.
 
Top