White House Demands American Sheriffs Enforce Gun Control

[Red James Cash]

White House Demands American Sheriffs Enforce Gun Control

March 30th, 2013

(FreedomOutpost) – The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) has the support of at least 381 sheriffs and the cooperation of at least 15 state sheriff associations stating that they will not enforce federal or state gun laws they consider unconstitutional.

At a press conference on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked by CNSNews.com, “There have been 381 sheriffs that have signed on saying they would not enforce gun laws they believed were unconstitutional. Would the administration have a problem if local law enforcement did not enforce whatever gun package were to pass?”

While Carney said he had not seen the list of sheriffs, probably like he claimed a video was responsible for Benghazi, he did say, “I think as a general proposition we think that people ought to follow the law. As an absolute matter of fact in my view, and I think many other constitutional experts, there’s not a single measure in this package of proposals the president has put forward that in anyway violates the Constitution. In fact, they reflect the president’s commitment to our Second Amendment rights.”

Obviously releasing documents to the people regarding Fast and Furious, bringing forth the survivors of Benghazi to testify to Congress about what took place and other scandals in this administration have nothing to do with following the law for this White House.

Richard Mack, a former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, who now educates American sheriffs on the law, was one of seven sheriffs in 1994 that challenged the constitutionality of the provision in the federal Brady bill that require sheriffs to perform background checks. They won that argument in a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court.

Mack contends against Carney’s claim that people ought to just follow the law. He says people shouldn’t follow the law when it contradicts the Bill of Rights

“When Rosa Parks didn’t give up her seat on the bus, should she have been arrested or should the police have escorted her home?” Mack said. “The law was to arrest her. It was a stupid, unconstitutional law.”

In referencing new legislation being considered, Barack Obama’s demands and the Supreme Court, Mack said, “Every one of the sheriffs is going to follow the Constitution, not follow the president or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has already ruled twice for the Second Amendment. The federal government has no right to tell me how many magazines I can have, how many guns I can have and how much ammunition I can have.”

Not only have sheriffs stood up against the tyrannical Obama administration on this issue, but so have state officials.

This comes as Texas State Representative Yvonne Davis (D-Dallas) has proposed legislation that would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal law. The text of Ms. Davis’ bill (HB no 2167) reads in part:

Sec. 66.004. FAILURE TO ENFORCE STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. (a) For purposes of Section 66.001, a person holding an elective or appointive office of this state or of a political subdivision of this state does an act that causes the forfeiture of the person’s office if the person:

(1) wilfully fails to enforce a state or federal law in the course of the person’s official duties;

(2) directs others subject to the person’s supervision or control as a public official not to enforce a state or federal law; or

(3) states orally or in writing that the person does not intend to enforce a state or federal law in the course of the person’s official duties.

(b) For purposes of this section, “law” includes any rule, regulation, executive order, court order, statute, or constitutional provision.

(c) This section does not apply to a law:

(1) that has been held to be invalid by a court with jurisdiction over the territory served by the officer; or

(2) the validity of which is currently being challenged in a court with jurisdiction over the territory served by the officer.

(d) The attorney general or appropriate county or district attorney shall file a petition under Section 66.002 against an officer to which Subsection (a) applies if presented with evidence, including evidence of a statement by the officer, establishing probable cause that the officer engaged in conduct described by Subsection (a). The court in which the petition is filed shall give precedence to proceedings relating to the petition in the same manner as provided for an election contest under Section 23.101, Government Code.

(e) If the person against whom an information is filed based on conduct described by Subsection (a) is found guilty as charged, the court shall enter judgment removing the person from office and disqualifying the person from public office for a period of 10 years.

Keep in mind that sheriffs are elected officials. They are put into office by the people and serve at their consent, not at the bidding of bureaucrats. So do these pompous representatives in Washington and at the State level. Under this legislation, a law enforcement officer or sheriff found guilty would be removed from office and not allowed back in office for a period of ten years. Seriously, this should be applied to Ms. Davis and those who think like her, not upstanding sheriffs who are dismissing unlawful laws.

Tim Brown is the editor of Freedom Outpost and a frequent contributor to The D.C. Clothesline. To visit Freedom Outpost please click here.

Source: Freedom Outpost

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

Obama can demand all he wants, he can pitch a fit or what ever, but the Supreme Court has already ruled feds can not force state employees to do work for federal government....

Supreme Court case Printz v. U.S. from 1997 that protected state officers from a federal law that attempted to mandate Brady bill participation.

Judge Scalia’s summary states:

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.”
​

 

[Red James Cash]

I guess thats goes to show how much the idiots in power pay attention to what the supreme court says lol.

 

[Dano Sverige]

As a famous RJC battlecry goes...."I guess time will tell...won't it?"

 

[0121stockpicker]

Obama can demand all he wants, he can pitch a fit or what ever, but the Supreme Court has already ruled feds can not force state employees to do work for federal government....

Supreme Court case Printz v. U.S. from 1997 that protected state officers from a federal law that attempted to mandate Brady bill participation.

Judge Scalia’s summary states:“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.”

But I thought the Supreme Court ruling didnt mean anything. What happens if they voted for slavery or to do away with freedom of speech? I think I've heard that argument before somewhere? Funny how the Supreme Court is the tool of the devil or useless until there is a ruling that you agree with? Then you are more than happy to quote them away. Which is it?

 

[Chadeaux]

As a famous RJC battlecry goes...."I guess time will tell...won't it?"

Actually TH quoted the precedent that applies here, regardless of what you think of RJC. It is accurate, and it is public record.

You don't have to like it, but the precedent should not be ignored . . . unless you have changed the balance of the court to a point where "the fix is in."

 

[0121stockpicker]

Actually TH quoted the precedent that applies her, regardless of what you think of RJC. It is accurate, and it is public record.

You don't have to like it, but the precedent should not be ignored . . . unless you have changed the balance of the court to a point where "the fix is in."

This is a great quote we will be using it often I believe - "You don't have to like it, but the precedent should not be ignored".

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Obama can demand all he wants, he can pitch a fit or what ever, but the Supreme Court has already ruled feds can not force state employees to do work for federal government....

Supreme Court case Printz v. U.S. from 1997 that protected state officers from a federal law that attempted to mandate Brady bill participation.

Judge Scalia’s summary states:

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.”
​

Obama's such a hypocrite...he demands the laws he favors be upheld, but ignores the ones that hurt him politically...like sealing the border, or upholding the laws on illegal immigration, or upholding the laws broken by his political allies like Jon Corzine, who completely screwed the people who invested in his hedge fund, lining his pockets the whole way.
Now, all of a sudden, it's important that everybody get onboard the Obama "upholding the law" train. Give me a break.
Jim

 

[0121stockpicker]

Obama's such a hypocrite...he demands the laws he favors be upheld, but ignores the ones that hurt him politically...like sealing the border, or upholding the laws on illegal immigration, or upholding the laws broken by his political allies like Jon Corzine, who completely screwed the people who invested in his hedge fund, lining his pockets the whole way.
Now, all of a sudden, it's important that everybody get onboard the Obama "upholding the law" train. Give me a break.
Jim

A hypocritical prez - boy that's somethin new. Just about as rate as one that doesn't keep a campaign promise, etc.

Name the last prez who WASN'T a hypocrite?