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

They liked the sheriff

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Another speaker Owen enjoyed was Sheriff Richard Mack from Arizona. “He and two other sheriffs took the Brady Bill all the way to the Supreme Court and won,” Owen said. “He discussed ways we can work through our county sheriffs to deal with overreaching federal laws. He was probably the most popular speaker there.” Owen mentioned that the Sheriff’s presentation was useful not only to cattle producers but to anyone concerned with “big government in their lives.”

http://www.tsln.com/home/7701995-111/federal-bundy-nevada-area
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Another speaker Owen enjoyed was Sheriff Richard Mack from Arizona. “He and two other sheriffs took the Brady Bill all the way to the Supreme Court and won,” Owen said. “He discussed ways we can work through our county sheriffs to deal with overreaching federal laws. He was probably the most popular speaker there.” Owen mentioned that the Sheriff’s presentation was useful not only to cattle producers but to anyone concerned with “big government in their lives.”

http://www.tsln.com/home/7701995-111/federal-bundy-nevada-area


Go read the Printz/Mack case... I knew Jay Printz for years and served with him on the Board of Directors of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Assn. .... The contention/argument in that case ended up to be that the county did not have enough employees or the money to hire more employees to do background checks- so these 3 Sheriffs refused to do them (which made the folks of his county unable to buy firearms)...

The SCOTUS ruled that the Feds could not mandate a duty with a cost on local government like that without providing funding... That's all...It didn't do anything else to the background check law...Background checks are still necessary...
The people that suffered were the folks of the county of those Sheriff's the refused to do the background check as they were unable to buy a firearm... A lot of folks of those counties did not consider it a "win"...
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Another speaker Owen enjoyed was Sheriff Richard Mack from Arizona. “He and two other sheriffs took the Brady Bill all the way to the Supreme Court and won,” Owen said. “He discussed ways we can work through our county sheriffs to deal with overreaching federal laws. He was probably the most popular speaker there.” Owen mentioned that the Sheriff’s presentation was useful not only to cattle producers but to anyone concerned with “big government in their lives.”

http://www.tsln.com/home/7701995-111/federal-bundy-nevada-area


Go read the Printz/Mack case... I knew Jay Printz for years and served with him on the Board of Directors of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Assn. .... The contention/argument in that case ended up to be that the county did not have enough employees or the money to hire more employees to do background checks- so these 3 Sheriffs refused to do them (which made the folks of his county unable to buy firearms)...

The SCOTUS ruled that the Feds could not mandate a duty with a cost on local government like that without providing funding... That's all...It didn't do anything else to the background check law...Background checks are still necessary...
The people that suffered were the folks of the county of those Sheriff's the refused to do the background check as they were unable to buy a firearm... A lot of folks of those counties did not consider it a "win"...

Did you happen to notice that Mack was a hit at the R Calf convention?

They think he's just the greatest. He is also the one calling for women to be put on the front line of the Bundy dispute. :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I don't like the way Mack puts the toilet paper on the holder. He puts his on with the loose sheet on the bottom...I like mine on the top, so I don't support any of his opinions...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Another speaker Owen enjoyed was Sheriff Richard Mack from Arizona. “He and two other sheriffs took the Brady Bill all the way to the Supreme Court and won,” Owen said. “He discussed ways we can work through our county sheriffs to deal with overreaching federal laws. He was probably the most popular speaker there.” Owen mentioned that the Sheriff’s presentation was useful not only to cattle producers but to anyone concerned with “big government in their lives.”

http://www.tsln.com/home/7701995-111/federal-bundy-nevada-area


Go read the Printz/Mack case... I knew Jay Printz for years and served with him on the Board of Directors of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Assn. .... The contention/argument in that case ended up to be that the county did not have enough employees or the money to hire more employees to do background checks- so these 3 Sheriffs refused to do them (which made the folks of his county unable to buy firearms)...

The SCOTUS ruled that the Feds could not mandate a duty with a cost on local government like that without providing funding... That's all...It didn't do anything else to the background check law...Background checks are still necessary...
The people that suffered were the folks of the county of those Sheriff's the refused to do the background check as they were unable to buy a firearm... A lot of folks of those counties did not consider it a "win"...

Did you happen to notice that Mack was a hit at the R Calf convention?

They think he's just the greatest. He is also the one calling for women to be put on the front line of the Bundy dispute. :roll:

Yep- I saw that--- someone to really accept as a hero - EH!

I still have that challenge out there for someone to find me a court ruling or law that gives a county Sheriff authority over a Federal Agent or Federal Judge as Mack likes to preach to the extremists and gives them that warm and fuzzy feeling down their legs... :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Former Arizona Sheriff Reveals Chilling Strategy to Put Women ‘Up at the Front’ During Bundy Ranch Standoff
Apr. 14, 2014 4:06pm Jason Howerton


Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack revealed on Monday that he and other organizers who traveled to Clark County, Nev., to support Cliven Bundy during his land dispute with the feds planned to put women on the front lines in case the “rogue federal officers” started shooting.

Mack made the chilling revelation on Fox News’ “The Real Story” Monday, two days after the tense standoff between Bundy and the federal government came to a peaceful end.

We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

Yep now that is the kind of guy people should be associated with. :mad:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Tam said:
Former Arizona Sheriff Reveals Chilling Strategy to Put Women ‘Up at the Front’ During Bundy Ranch Standoff
Apr. 14, 2014 4:06pm Jason Howerton


Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack revealed on Monday that he and other organizers who traveled to Clark County, Nev., to support Cliven Bundy during his land dispute with the feds planned to put women on the front lines in case the “rogue federal officers” started shooting.

Mack made the chilling revelation on Fox News’ “The Real Story” Monday, two days after the tense standoff between Bundy and the federal government came to a peaceful end.

We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

Yep now that is the kind of guy people should be associated with. :mad:

I can't respect a person that adopts Liberal tactics either.
 

Tam

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Tam said:
Former Arizona Sheriff Reveals Chilling Strategy to Put Women ‘Up at the Front’ During Bundy Ranch Standoff
Apr. 14, 2014 4:06pm Jason Howerton


Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack revealed on Monday that he and other organizers who traveled to Clark County, Nev., to support Cliven Bundy during his land dispute with the feds planned to put women on the front lines in case the “rogue federal officers” started shooting.

Mack made the chilling revelation on Fox News’ “The Real Story” Monday, two days after the tense standoff between Bundy and the federal government came to a peaceful end.

We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

Yep now that is the kind of guy people should be associated with. :mad:

I can't respect a person that adopts Liberal tactics either.

ANd who is doing that Hyp :?
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
To paraphrase Judge Scalia:

In other words, the county sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county and he does not have to bow to the tyranny of the federal government if he deems such actions to be unconstitutional or unlawful. In essence, the county sheriff has more legal authority within his county than the governor or the state or even the president of the United States.

However, it does take "BALLS".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TexasBred said:
To paraphrase Judge Scalia:

In other words, the county sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county and he does not have to bow to the tyranny of the federal government if he deems such actions to be unconstitutional or unlawful. In essence, the county sheriff has more legal authority within his county than the governor or the state or even the president of the United States.

However, it does take "BALLS".

Would you please provide the link to the case file and the part where Scalia says those exact words...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
TexasBred said:
To paraphrase Judge Scalia:

In other words, the county sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county and he does not have to bow to the tyranny of the federal government if he deems such actions to be unconstitutional or unlawful. In essence, the county sheriff has more legal authority within his county than the governor or the state or even the president of the United States.

However, it does take "BALLS".

Would you please provide the link to the case file and the part where Scalia says those exact words...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html

We note, in this regard, that both CLEOs before us here assert that they are prohibited from taking on these federal responsibilities under state law. That assertion is clearly correct with regard to Montana law, which expressly enjoins any "county . . . or other local government unit" from "prohibit[ing] . . . or regulat[ing] the purchase, sale or other transfer (including delay in purchase, sale, or other transfer), ownership, [or] possession . . . of any . . . handgun," Mont. Code §45-8-351(1) (1995). It is arguably correct with regard to Arizona law as well, which states that "[a] political subdivision of this state shall not . . . prohibit the ownership, purchase, sale or transfer of firearms," Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-3108(B) (1989). We need not resolve that question today; it is at least clear that Montana and Arizona do not require their CLEOs to implement the Brady Act, and CLEOs Printz and Mack have chosen not to do so.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
TexasBred said:
To paraphrase Judge Scalia:



However, it does take "BALLS".

Would you please provide the link to the case file and the part where Scalia says those exact words...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html


I have read Scalia's opinion several times and again now- I cannot find where Scalia says these words
In other words, the county sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county and he does not have to bow to the tyranny of the federal government if he deems such actions to be unconstitutional or unlawful. In essence, the county sheriff has more legal authority within his county than the governor or the state or even the president of the United States.
anywhere in the ruling......


Actually the Printz rule that said that Congress can not pass unfunded federal mandates for local government law enforcement to enforce/do is what led to more of these 40+ federal agencies developing/expanding their own law enforcement agencies...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Would you please provide the link to the case file and the part where Scalia says those exact words...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html


I have read Scalia's opinion several times and again now- I cannot find where Scalia says these words
In other words, the county sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county and he does not have to bow to the tyranny of the federal government if he deems such actions to be unconstitutional or unlawful. In essence, the county sheriff has more legal authority within his county than the governor or the state or even the president of the United States.
anywhere in the ruling......


Actually the Printz rule that said that Congress can not pass unfunded federal mandates for local government law enforcement to enforce/do is what led to more of these 40+ federal agencies developing/expanding their own law enforcement agencies...

What part of the word "Paraphrase" do you not understand? :roll:

We note, in this regard, that both CLEOs before us here assert that they are prohibited from taking on these federal responsibilities under state law. That assertion is clearly correct with regard to Montana law, which expressly enjoins any "county . . . or other local government unit" from "prohibit[ing] . . . or regulat[ing] the purchase, sale or other transfer (including delay in purchase, sale, or other transfer), ownership, [or] possession . . . of any . . . handgun," Mont. Code §45-8-351(1) (1995). It is arguably correct with regard to Arizona law as well, which states that "[a] political subdivision of this state shall not . . . prohibit the ownership, purchase, sale or transfer of firearms," Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-3108(B) (1989). We need not resolve that question today; it is at least clear that Montana and Arizona do not require their CLEOs to implement the Brady Act, and CLEOs Printz and Mack have chosen not to do so.

What Prinze actually says is that the County Sheriff (CLEO) shall not pre-empt state law with Federal Law.

Try not to do so much reading. Clearly, you do not have such menial tasks mastered. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html


I have read Scalia's opinion several times and again now- I cannot find where Scalia says these words
In other words, the county sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county and he does not have to bow to the tyranny of the federal government if he deems such actions to be unconstitutional or unlawful. In essence, the county sheriff has more legal authority within his county than the governor or the state or even the president of the United States.
anywhere in the ruling......


Actually the Printz rule that said that Congress can not pass unfunded federal mandates for local government law enforcement to enforce/do is what led to more of these 40+ federal agencies developing/expanding their own law enforcement agencies...

What part of the word "Paraphrase" do you not understand? :roll:

We note, in this regard, that both CLEOs before us here assert that they are prohibited from taking on these federal responsibilities under state law. That assertion is clearly correct with regard to Montana law, which expressly enjoins any "county . . . or other local government unit" from "prohibit[ing] . . . or regulat[ing] the purchase, sale or other transfer (including delay in purchase, sale, or other transfer), ownership, [or] possession . . . of any . . . handgun," Mont. Code §45-8-351(1) (1995). It is arguably correct with regard to Arizona law as well, which states that "[a] political subdivision of this state shall not . . . prohibit the ownership, purchase, sale or transfer of firearms," Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-3108(B) (1989). We need not resolve that question today; it is at least clear that Montana and Arizona do not require their CLEOs to implement the Brady Act, and CLEOs Printz and Mack have chosen not to do so.

What Prinze actually says is that the County Sheriff (CLEO) shall not pre-empt state law with Federal Law.

Try not to do so much reading. Clearly, you do not have such menial tasks mastered. :lol:

Yep- that's what I thought....I know the rightwingernut groups want the ruling to say that it gives Sheriffs and state officials authority over the Feds-- but there still hasn't been a Judges ruling or Court ruling that I have seen that backs that so called "paraphrasing".... And we had some of the top attorneys in the country (some very conservative) say the rightwinggroups interpretation is wrong-- and the belief that Sheriffs have authority over Federal Judges/Authorities is bunk....

GW's attorney who handled much of his election case in the SCOTUS-- Marc Racicot (one of the most intelligent attorneys I ever knew) - vetoed a "Sheriffs First" bill while he was Governor that the 1995 Legislature passed that would require any federal law enforcement agent to get permission from a local elected sheriff before confronting a Montana citizen.

Racicot, after consulting with numerous Sheriffs and Judges knew that under the U.S. Constitution- and specifically Article VI, Clause 2 it would be ruled unconstitutional and would be a waste of the taxpayers funds to try and enact...


Article VI, Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)

The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate
 

Mike

Well-known member
Conclusion

The most important effect of Printz was not on handgun sales. Post-Printz, many local law enforcement officials chose to continue doing handgun checks voluntarily. More and more states are setting up their own "instant-check" system for handgun buyers (similar to a credit card verification), and thereby exempting themselves from the Brady Act. Yet Printz was still a very important case.

Hanging in the balance in the Printz case was the survival of states as states, rather than as administrative subdivisions of the federal government.

"No one will take the Constitution seriously if Congress and the courts refuse to do so," observes Professor Merritt. The Brady Act's unprecedented assault on the states and on constitutional federalism was the result of decades of Supreme Court refusal to take federalism seriously. Printz, like Lopez and other 1990s cases in which a slender Court majority has begun to enforce constitutional limits on federal power, is welcome not just because an unconstitutional law was stricken. Just as the Supreme Court's consistent and commendable attention to the First Amendment has raised popular consciousness about the importance of free speech, the Court's renewed attention to the limits of federal power will remind both citizens and legislators that the powers that the People granted to Congress in the Constitution are specific and finite. And those powers surely do not include the power to dragoon state employees into federal service.
 

Mike

Well-known member
and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby

Guess you missed the part above that DOES NOT include local law enforcement, only judges, just as Scalia said................. :roll:

Again:
mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

Not CLEO. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby

Guess you missed the part above that DOES NOT include local law enforcement, only judges, just as Scalia said................. :roll:

Again:
mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

Not CLEO. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Also nowhere in that ruling does it say state and local law enforcement or CLEO can interfere with or stop Federal Agents from enforcing a law or carrying out a Federal Judges Court Order as some rightwinger groups try to make out....

And like I said earlier - that ruling actually backfired if you believe in States rights- because by saying that state/local CLEO's don't have to enforce Federal law it meant that many of the Federal Agencies had to build up their own law enforcement departments to take care of the federal laws they were being asked by Congress to enforce....
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
OT, my brother was the county attorney here for 2 different hitches...totalling over 25 years. In that time he ordered officers from the Nebraska State Patrol, the FBI, Game & Parks, DEA, and various other agencies (state & federal) who imagined they had unparalleled authority in my county...OUT of my county. At one point he had to threaten to arrest our county sheriff and throw his azz in jail until he got his mind right.

I've got a pretty fair idea what he would think of your interpretation of legal briefs...especially since you seem to think that since you've been a LEO & a JP that that equates to having a law degree... :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
loomixguy said:
OT, my brother was the county attorney here for 2 different hitches...totalling over 25 years. In that time he ordered officers from the Nebraska State Patrol, the FBI, Game & Parks, DEA, and various other agencies (state & federal) who imagined they had unparalleled authority in my county...OUT of my county. At one point he had to threaten to arrest our county sheriff and throw his azz in jail until he got his mind right.

I've got a pretty fair idea what he would think of your interpretation of legal briefs...especially since you seem to think that since you've been a LEO & a JP that that equates to having a law degree... :roll:

Yep-- and I ordered the Montana Highway Patrol out of the county until they got their sh*t together- BUT we aren't talking about local authority versus state ...
Ask him what would have happened if he told a Federal Judge to stick it :???: Or told the FBI or IRS they couldn't continue to do investigations or serve Federal Court Orders signed by Federal Judges in his county ?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
loomixguy said:
OT, my brother was the county attorney here for 2 different hitches...totalling over 25 years. In that time he ordered officers from the Nebraska State Patrol, the FBI, Game & Parks, DEA, and various other agencies (state & federal) who imagined they had unparalleled authority in my county...OUT of my county. At one point he had to threaten to arrest our county sheriff and throw his azz in jail until he got his mind right.

I've got a pretty fair idea what he would think of your interpretation of legal briefs...especially since you seem to think that since you've been a LEO & a JP that that equates to having a law degree... :roll:

Yep-- and I ordered the Montana Highway Patrol out of the county until they got their sh*t together- BUT we aren't talking about local authority versus state ...
Ask him what would have happened if he told a Federal Judge to stick it :???: Or told the FBI or IRS they couldn't continue to do investigations or serve Federal Court Orders signed by Federal Judges in his county ?

Nothing would happen if he told a Federal Judge to stick it. Nothing at all.
 
Top