County Sheriffs Can Block Federal Gun Control

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Attila, Jan 6, 2013.

  1. Attila

    Attila Good Old Boy

    351
    0
    This is from: http://godfatherpolitics.com/8806/county-sheriffs-can-block-federal-gun-control/#ixzz2HCh67r2J

    President Obama has given his comic sidekick the task of pushing gun control measures through Congress. Democrats and some liberal Republicans are calling for more gun control after the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Some state and municipal politicians, like the #1 anti-gun person in the nation – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, are also calling for more control.

    But did you know that no matter what gun control laws are passed by the federal government, they can only be enforced in your area if your county sheriff allows them to be.

    Most people, including politicians fail to realize that the ultimate legal authorities in the land are the county sheriffs. This was established from the time of the Founding Fathers and upheld by the US Supreme Court in the 1997 case of Printz v. United States. Initially, the case was Mack v. United States, but by the time it reached the Supreme Court it was renamed.

    The case involved new federal regulations involved with the Brady Bill and gun control. FBI agents went around to the various county sheriffs and demanded that they follow the new federal guidelines. Then Graham County (AZ) Sheriff Richard Mack and several others saw the Brady Bill as being unconstitutional and refused to impose the new federal guidelines. Part of their defense was that the county sheriff was the supreme law enforcement officer over their county and that the federal government could not supersede their legal authority.

    In the court’s decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:

    “. . . The great innovation of this design was that ‘our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other’” – “a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.” (P.920)

    Justice Scalia then quoted the man considered to be the Father of the US Constitution, President James Madison, when he wrote in the decision:

    “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist, No. 39 at 245.

    Scalia then referred to Gregory, 501 US at 458 when he wrote:

    “This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty: ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’. . .”

    Referring once again to President Madison, Scalia wrote:

    “In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (P. 922).

    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.

    Today, former Sheriff Richard Mack works with a number of county sheriffs throughout the county, helping them understand the extent of their authority and how they can legally defy the federal government. I would highly recommend that you contact your county sheriff and see if he/she is aware of their powers and duties. If not, get them in contact with Mack and urge your county sheriff to stand up against upcoming unconstitutional gun laws that the liberals are going to try to impose on us.

    If you want to learn about the Role of Law Enforcement or on gun control, From My Cold Dead Fingers, from Sheriff Mack, click on the links and share this with your county sheriff, friend, family and anyone else you can think of.

    Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/8806/county-sheriffs-can-block-federal-gun-control/#ixzz2HCh67r2J
     
  2. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    The saddest thing is so many Sheriffs have bought into the Lord Almighty Fed rules all BS, That and they get bought by the FED with new toys and thus buy into the whole power thing.

    I've said so many times that if the Sheriff down in Waco had known his business he could have stopped what amounted to nothing less then Government sponsored murder on a wholesale scale.

    I've been intending to ask the local LEO here "what if ". I hope he has an answer but I also have Mack's books I can leave for him to read, but you can take a horse etc etc.

    It's the same political BS too, A Demo Sheriff will be more likely to be a Progressive the a GOP Sheriff.

    I think all offices should be non partisan, that might break the party system.
     

  3. pawpaw

    pawpaw Well-Known Member

    387
    3
    But if you own a gun shop in one of these counties/states, you would be out of business quickly enough. The Fed would revoke or refuse to renew your FFL, then manufacturers wouldn't ship to you. Hell, there's only a hundred ways a compliance-bent government can retaliate. Any other ways I hadn't thought yet?
     
  4. IlliniWarrior

    IlliniWarrior Well-Known Member

    595
    1
    an unruly sheriff will only last as long as it takes to send the black vans full of Obammy Brown Shirts .... the sheriff along with any deputies will take a ride to the nearest Gitmo .... the Obammy drones are already circling AZ .... the white female governor shouldn't have never shook a finger at a black man ..... she's first on Obammy's hit list
     
  5. zombieresponder

    zombieresponder random gibberish

    1,061
    2
    A country sheriff can't do anything about gun control at the national level. He can't do much of anything on the subject, honestly. If a person or group desire to manufacture firearms, powder, primers, or ammunition for public sale, a "license" must be obtained from the national government. If a person or group wants to sell firearms, a "license" must be obtained from the national government. If a person or group wants to receive firearms through interstate commerce, a "license" must be obtained from the national government. If a person wants to buy a new or used firearm from a retailer, and in some states, from a private individual, he or she must obtain "approval" from the national government.

    A couple of years ago, several states attempted to get around the interstate commerce clause by manufacturing firearms in that state and then only allowing the sale of them within that state. The case went all the way to SCOTUS, who ruled that they could not do so because the materials used to make the firearms had been involved in interstate commerce. That was, at least to me, the expected outcome. A similar ruling was issued decades ago, though it did not involve guns.

    We have an illusion of freedom and liberty in this country, when it has in fact, already been stolen from us.
     
  6. PrepN4Good

    PrepN4Good BORN PESSIMIST; we are doomed

    1,284
    3
    If all parties involved (manufacturer, distributor, seller, buyer) "refused to comply", it might be a different story, but that's a big "if". Many people assume the Holocaust might have turned out differently if a few more Jews had refused to get in the boxcar. :coffee:
     
  7. zombieresponder

    zombieresponder random gibberish

    1,061
    2
    Then they go to jail. It takes much more than just the manufacturers and the distribution chain ignoring the government to make it work...it takes the majority of a society. We do not have a society that will support such refusals to comply.

    In courtrooms, judges instruct the jury that they are to judge the facts of the case and not the law itself. That line of instruction destroys the entire purpose of a trial by jury, and that is the reason it is given.
     
  8. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    There seems to be some of you who can't grasp the fact that the local Sheriff is a very powerful figure, Read on, it's a bit tongue in cheek but it gets the point right.




    THE SHERIFF
    MORE POWER THAN THE PRESIDENT

    By: Alan Stang

    For many years, the people’s attention in the Battle for America has been directed toward the federal government and its offices. Candidates stand for the House and the Senate. Patriotic groups publish voting records of incumbents. Considerable time, effort and money are expended in support of candidates for President. After decades of such commendable activity, the record shows it is an utter failure. The danger to the nation is worse than it ever was.

    For many of those years, Republicrud bosses whined that if the people would only give them control of the federal government, they would undo Democrud damage and restore Free Enterprise. Finally, the people gave it to them. Remember? The Republicruds controlled the House, the Senate and the Oval Office long enough to turn the country around. What happened? The Republicruds made our problems much worse. Their spending made the profligate drunken sailor look like Scrooge. They deserved it when the people kicked them out. They lost all credibility.

    Yes, there is Dr. Ron Paul. But Dr. No is a political aberration. Time and again, he stands alone. He has neither men’s room problems nor woman problems. He doesn’t take congressional retirement. He actually returns "money" (computer entries) to the federal treasury. He proposes abolishing the Fed and the income tax and replacing them with nothing. In foreign affairs he suggests that we mind our own business. Imagine! But, again, he is an aberration.

    Why? Certainly one reason has to be that we ship the successful congressional candidate off to the District of Corruption. However good the new congressman may have been when he or she boarded the plane to the District; he is subjected to intoxicating blandishments when he arrives in the enemy camp.

    Soon, he succumbs to the blandishments, maybe even making himself blackmailable, and begins to vote as the party boss says, without even reading the bills. Instead of representing the people of his congressional district in the District of Criminals, he represents the D.C. to the C.D. He or she now is one of the boys or the girls. It has happened hundreds of times.

    So, if the long, heroic effort to elect federal legislators has failed, does there remain any governmental Horatius who can stand in the gap; who can lead the Battle for America and restore the Constitution? There is. Lock and load, mount up and prepare for the return of the sheriff.

    My guess is that in the minds of many Americans the sheriff is an antiquated figure who lives in the movies. In the older movies he is the hero; he is Gary Cooper in "High Noon," awaiting the train that will bring killer Frank Miller back to town. In the new ones, he is the southern sheriff, even bigger than Rosie O’Donnell, sneering, sadistic, racist, violent, etc. He has no modern relevance.

    But now here comes Sheriff Richard Mack, elected and re-elected in Graham County, Arizona, where he served for eight years. During his tenure, three federal agents came to a meeting of Arizona sheriffs and told them in certain terms how they would be dragooned as unpaid federal bureaucrats and administer the new, federal Brady gun registration law.

    The law was named of course for Ronald Reagan’s press secretary, who was severely wounded in the immensely suspicious attempt to assassinate the President. Since then, Mrs. Brady has become a leader of the campaign for Nazi gun confiscation. I don’t know whether she was as crazy before the shootings as she is now. Just one more increment of lunacy and they would have to lock her up.

    Richard Mack and the other Arizona sheriffs at the meeting rebelled. Sheriff Richard says the language he heard – in which he did not participate – could not be repeated in the presence of genteel Christian ladies, so we can’t tell you here what the sheriffs said. But Sheriff Mack did take the government to court. He sued the United States, and Sheriff Jay Printz of Montana joined him as plaintiff.

    On June 27th, 1997, the sheriffs won; in Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898) the U.S. Supreme Court struck Brady down. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the ruling for the Court, in which he explained our system of government at length. The justly revered system of checks and balances is the key:

    ". . . The great innovation of this design was that ‘our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other’" – "a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it." (P. 920)

    Scalia quotes President James Madison, "father" of the Constitution: "[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist, No. 39 at 245.

    Again and again, Justice Scalia pounds the point home (page 921): "This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty: ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’. . ." Gregory, 501 U.S. at 458.

    He quotes President Madison again: "In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." (P. 922)

    No one could make this any clearer. The primary purpose of the Fathers was to prevent someone from grabbing all the power. When that happens, they knew, the result is arbitrary, confiscatory, government, the kind Tom Jefferson described in the Declaration of Independence. We would call it totalitarian.

    Madison explains: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788.

    To prevent that from happening, they divided the power. First, they divided the federal power into three parts: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. They would bicker among themselves, so that no one of them could seize all the power the Constitution grants to the federal government.

    The Founders divided the power even more. They set the limited power the Constitution grants the "general authority," Madison’s term for the federal government, against the vast residual powers of the states. Each sphere of government, state and federal, would be supreme in its own sphere. Neither could control the other. Each protects itself from intervention by the other. Each has its own laws and rules.

    Madison says this: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." Loc. Cit.

    What does all this mean today in the Battle for America? Sheriff Mack says it proves that the sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county. Within that jurisdiction – inside his county – the sheriff has more power than the governor of his state. Indeed, the sheriff has more power in his county than the President of the United States. In his county, he can overrule the President and kick his people out. Remember, the President has few and limited powers.

    What? The sheriff can do that? He’s not just a character in a movie? That’s right. Not only can the sheriff do that; sheriffs have already done that, more than once. Most Americans are not aware of that because lying, conspiracy scumbags like Rush Humbug, Shallow Sean Hannitwerp and Hugh Blewitt (a lawyer) etc., haven’t told them.

    Remember, the office of sheriff has a pedigree so long, we are not positive about when it was created. We think it was in the Ninth Century in England. We do know that each land district, or "shire," was governed by a "reeve." The sheriff of Nottingham became famous. At first, the king appointed them. With few exceptions, our American shire reeves are elected by the people.

    In 1997, in Nye County, Nevada, federal agents arrived to seize cattle that belonged to rancher Wayne Hage. The sheriff gave them a choice: skedaddle or be arrested. They skedaddled. The cows stayed where they were. Wyoming sheriffs have told federal agencies they must check with the respective sheriff before they serve any papers, make any arrests or confiscate any property.

    In Idaho, a 74-year-old rancher shot an endangered gray wolf which had killed one of his calves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sent three armed agents to serve a warrant. Lemhi County Sheriff Brett Barslou said that was "inappropriate, heavy-handed and dangerously close to excessive force." More than 500 people turned out for a rally in the small towns of Challis and Salmon to support the sheriff and the rancher and to tell the federal government to back off.

    While Richard Mack was sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, a bridge washed out. Parents had to drive twenty six miles to get their kids to school half a mile across the river. But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wouldn’t fix it. First they had to do an "environmental impact study," to replace a bridge already there. They were in no hurry. The study would take a mere ten years.

    The people’s suffering reached the board of supervisors. The board voted to dredge the river and fix the bridge. The feds warned that they would be fined $50,000 per day if they tried. The supervisors hesitated. Sheriff Mack promised them and the workers protection and pledged to call out a posse for the purpose if necessary. They built the bridge and the Corps of Engineers faded. The board never paid a dime.

    So the long dormant spirit of America is reviving. The states are beginning to adopt Tenth Amendment resolutions, using powers they have always had. The people are restoring our long unbalanced constitutional system. There is something "blowin’ in the wind," but it isn’t what Bob Dylan thought it was. Recently, Sheriff Mack addressed 570 people in Fredericksburg, Texas. He reports that the reception was "beyond fantastic."

    What can you do? For once we are not just complaining. There is a plan. I do not argue that you should forget about Congress. Not at all; if you see an opportunity there, take it. Always remember that right now it is run by people like Barney the Bugger of Taxachusetts, who will be elected by moronth in hith dithtrict until he dieth of AIDS.

    Most of the time, when you approach your congressman, you come to complain. In the new crusade, you will approach your sheriff and tell him that he is not only handsome, charming and overwhelmingly masculine, but also that he has powers he may not be aware of. You have come to tell him what they are and to back him up. My guess is, when you tell him that, he will not kick you out.

    Tell him you expect him to return the courtesy when the Nazis come from the District of Criminals to get the guns. Tell him you are ready in a minute to serve under his direction in a posse. He will not move to Washington and be corrupted. He will stay there with you. Show him the ten orders the Oath Keepers will not obey. The Oath Keepers are retired and active duty military and police. Their web site is oath-keepers.blogspot.com. The first order they promise to disobey is an order to disarm you.

    Put him together with Sheriff Mack. You will find him at sheriffmack.com. His telephone numbers are 928 792-4340 and 928 792-3888. Bring the sheriff to your town to speak. He will explain all this. Invite your own sheriff. At the meeting I attended, the local sheriff and chief of police were there and loved what they heard. No one dislikes hearing how important he is.

    What if your sheriff is stupid or a federal factotum? That is what you will find in many big cities. I once interviewed Los Angeles County Sheriff Peter Pitchess, who said no one should have a hand gun. I asked him how a five foot lady alone in bed could defend herself from a rapist. Realizing he was perilously close to making himself look even dumber than he did usually, Pitchess conceded she could have a long gun.

    I brightened. A street sweeper isn’t really the best weapon for close quarters, but it would give the lady a chance. Unfortunately, Pitchess added the word, "unloaded." I asked him what that five foot lady with an unloaded shotgun could do against a six foot rapist. A police captain sat beside Pitchess during the interview. His job was to extricate Peter from the jams he persisted on getting himself into. The police captain extruded a barrage of miasma. It was effective. I did not get an answer.

    In such cases, says Sheriff Mack, move to a county where the sheriff is receptive. Many more will be. For instance, in Texas there are 254 counties. Each has a sheriff. If it is feasible to do so, run for sheriff yourself. Even your wife will be impressed when she sees you with a hog leg on your hip and a star on your vest. Imagine the intense joy of meeting IRS Communists or BATFE Nazis at the county line and denying them admission.

    The Battle for America will be decided in your county at your front door. If you act now, later you will not need to "fill your hand."
     
  9. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    It may be that there has been action on this that I'm unaware of but to the best of my knowledge this issue hasn't been settled as of now but it will no doubt head for SCOTUS.

    http://www.ammoland.com/2011/06/bri...a-montana-firearms-freedom-act/#axzz2HMFZ03zF
     
  10. zombieresponder

    zombieresponder random gibberish

    1,061
    2
    Weird, I thought that one had already been decided. I may have misread or misremembered a lower court's ruling as being SCOTUS. This is more recent: http://firearmsfreedomact.com/updates/MSSA%20v.%20Holder%20-%2061.%20Order%20Staying%20Proceedings%20Pending%20En%20Banc%20Hrg%20in%20Nordyke%20-%20122011.pdf

    Looks like Nordyke v King has already been decided? Sort of confusing with how they wrote this: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Nordyke_v._King OTOH, maybe it will be decided this year....

    I'm actually quite confused as to why the MSSA case would be postponed for Nordyke when incorporation was decided in McDonald. :scratch Anyway...for MSSA to win, SCOTUS would have to overturn previous decisions regarding the same issue and interstate commerce.
     
  11. oldvet

    oldvet Well-Known Member

    1,615
    10
    If and to my mind (it's a great big if) here in the Southern and some of the Western States, the County Sheriff's do allow the Federal "bully boys" to pull a Waco or Ruby Ridge, the Citizens will eventually say enough. I will say it (what I honestly believe) again, all it is going to take for folks like me and literally millions of others to say "from my cold dead hands" is for word to get out that a "gun grab" by the Feds is taking place.

    I Imagine quite a few of the members of this forum are unaware that a host of Militias are on condition orange and some on red, and are combining forces, training, and gearing up as quickly as they can.

    I truly have a very hard time believeing that the Military and most LEO's will either sit quietly by or even participate during a "gun grab" attempt. I also have a hard time believe that the majority of Federal agents aren't aware of how millions of Americans feel about giving up their firearms without a fight.

    This is just my opinion and is in no way intended to be the last word on this or any other subject.
     
  12. TheAnt

    TheAnt Aesops Ant (not Aunt)

    1,499
    5
    Oldvet, as much as I respect you (I seriously do and I think you know that) here is what is wrong with what you said.

    a "gun grab" by the Feds is taking place

    It IS taking place and HAS BEEN taking place since before you or I was born. The problem is that by the time they are coming to take your guns you will probably only be armed with a BB gun because you (editorially) didnt stand up and demand all of your rights years ago.

    All of these requirements for registration, permission to purchase, permission to sell, permission to carry, the NFA, etc. etc. are "infringements" on our rights to defend ourselves from an increasingly tyrannical government. You know this and I know this but most folks either dont want to admit it or actually believe the concept is antiquated and silly.

    As to the OP, I agree wholeheartedly. We have been fooled to believe that the only way to protect our freedom and liberty is from the top down and perhaps the best way is from the bottom up. Sheriffs are our last line of (elected) defense against tyranny from above.

    I wonder if there are any Sheriffs (or knowledgeable active/former LEO) out there that can give advice/wisdom on what it takes to be a Sheriff. What would need to occur if, for example, I wanted to run for Sheriff?

    EDIT: Oldvet, you are probably more active than the average citizen when it comes to doing what you can to further the cause of liberty within your sphere of influence (voting, advocating, educating, etc) so I am not saying you arent doing enough. I am just saying that so many dont even realize that the "gun grabbing" has already started. If they dont believe it ask them to see what it takes to get a gun that would compete with their military and see how much "infringement" they run into. We need more folks like you that WILL stand up for their rights... even at risk to life and fortune.
     
  13. PrepN4Good

    PrepN4Good BORN PESSIMIST; we are doomed

    1,284
    3
    Re-read my post. I said :

    When the local jails start filling up with average folks that refuse to comply, we might see a change, but I don't know if enough "average folks" have the backbone to flout the law.

    Back in the 80's, the town I lived in had been over-run with out-of-state anti-abortion protesters (remember Randall Terry?). Chaining themselves to the gates of the local clinic, blocking traffic, etc. The local jail was so stuffed to capacity by these folks, they were given a quick hearing, a slap on the wrist, & sent on their way.

    I guess we need more folks like that. :D