PDA

View Full Version : Only one true way to legally fight confiscation


turinreza
12-24-2012, 8:07 AM
The Sheriff has been deemed the Highest Law enforcement entity in the land. He is above the Federal, State and Local branches of Law enforcement in his county. The Sheriff should believe in the Constitution and know that the enemies of the 2nd Amendment would be those who begin confiscation of the masses in his County. There is only one thing that the Sheriff can do to
fight these Domestic Enemies:

Deputization of all Citizens in his County for the sole purpose of arresting and detaining any law enforcement or even Military entities attempting to do Confiscation.

One call by Sheriff to LEO stating he and his deputies will start arresting so cease would end this right away.
The courts would be brought in right away to determine the legality of confiscation and thus LEO will get a chance
to realize that they are following illegal orders even though the 2nd Amendment tells this.

rrr70
12-24-2012, 8:10 AM
Lol

HowardW56
12-24-2012, 8:11 AM
The Sheriff has been deemed the Highest Law enforcement entity in the land. He is above the Federal, State and Local branches of Law enforcement in his county. The Sheriff should believe in the Constitution and know that the enemies of the 2nd Amendment would be those who begin confiscation of the masses in his County. There is only one thing that the Sheriff can do to
fight these Domestic Enemies:

Deputization of all Citizens in his County for the sole purpose of arresting and detaining any law enforcement or even Military entities attempting to do Confiscation.


Yea, sure...........

a1c
12-24-2012, 8:17 AM
Yeah, I'm not sure you really know how this works.

And no matter what happens, there won't be any confiscation.

SPUTTER
12-24-2012, 8:21 AM
Who said anything about confiscation?

Cnynrat
12-24-2012, 8:24 AM
Who said anything about confiscation?

Both Feinstein & Bloomberg have in the past week.

I don't see it being very likely though.

PM720
12-24-2012, 9:23 AM
Lee Baca? :rofl2: He would be leading the gun grabbers!! :(

pHredd9mm
12-24-2012, 9:25 AM
The problem is that the sheriffs of the highest populated counties tend to be anti-gun.

Wiz-of-Awd
12-24-2012, 9:25 AM
"It's the wizard, not the wand. " Harry Potter

Yeah, I'm not sure you really know how this works...

A.W.D.

Dragunov
12-24-2012, 9:37 AM
.....................................From my cold, dead, fingers.

SanPedroShooter
12-24-2012, 9:40 AM
There are Sherrifs out there that belive this. I've seen a few. I know one personally.

Dont hold your breath however.

Carnivore
12-24-2012, 9:50 AM
No need to worry, divisions of tinkle fairies will come to protect us on fire breathing unicorns. No actually this will happen before most Sheriffs will refuse to do their duty.

How about this....STOP WORRYING ABOUT CONFISCATION!!! They have to actually pass a ban FIRST...THEN we can strategies what to do if the SCOTUS doesn't over turn anything they pass.

voiceofreason
12-24-2012, 9:52 AM
I'm interested in hearing the technical details of this plan.

safewaysecurity
12-24-2012, 10:06 AM
Former Sheriff Richard Mack and maybe a few others.

AyatollahGondola
12-24-2012, 10:10 AM
The Sheriff has been deemed the Highest Law enforcement entity in the land. He is above the Federal, State and Local branches of Law enforcement in his county. The Sheriff should believe in the Constitution and know that the enemies of the 2nd Amendment would be those who begin confiscation of the masses in his County. There is only one thing that the Sheriff can do to
fight these Domestic Enemies:

Deputization of all Citizens in his County for the sole purpose of arresting and detaining any law enforcement or even Military entities attempting to do Confiscation.

One call by Sheriff to LEO stating he and his deputies will start arresting so cease would end this right away.
The courts would be brought in right away to determine the legality of confiscation and thus LEO will get a chance
to realize that they are following illegal orders even though the 2nd Amendment tells this.

No, the sheriff hasn't been designated the highest law enforcement in the land. Not here in California anyway. The Attorney General is above the sheriff. Read the California constitution. It's in there

Mullins
12-24-2012, 10:21 AM
The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights.

Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. If they come refuse to give up your second amendment!

We way have to fight for our rights again...

turinreza
12-24-2012, 10:48 AM
Recall sheriffs who wouldnt protect the 2nd against confiscation and elect those who would.

edwardm
12-24-2012, 10:52 AM
Humor on Christmas Eve?

Maybe we should deputize Santa Claus and the reindeer, too!

SilverTauron
12-24-2012, 10:59 AM
Those of you who think the same masses who voted for Obama would take up arms to oppose him need to lay off the eggnog.

tiki
12-24-2012, 11:04 AM
Those of you who think the same masses who voted for Obama would take up arms to oppose him need to lay off the eggnog.

Crap, I forgot to buy eggnog.

Carnivore
12-24-2012, 11:20 AM
Crap, I forgot to buy eggnog.

I hate eggnog, it always gives me gas.:clown:

turinreza
12-24-2012, 11:23 AM
http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/36214-the-duly-elected-sheriff-of-a-county-is-the-highest-law-enforcement-official-within-a-county/

The point is not that the sheriff has carte blanche to do anything he wants. The feds do not have authority to conduct law enforcement activities independently without the sheriff's overt or tacit approval. They are subject to his authority.

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/09/22/wyoming-sheriffs-told-federal-batf-irs-agents-to-abide-by-the-constitution-or-face-immediate-arrest/

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.” Go back and re-read this quote.

The court confirms and asserts that “the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official.” And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried — not in Wyoming, not yet.

M1Kev
12-24-2012, 11:54 AM
If feinswine or boomberg want confiscation, they should have to go door to door themselves and look the new citizen turned subject in the eye when they do it. Alone and unarmed, starting in Oakland.

GM4spd
12-24-2012, 12:11 PM
Who said anything about confiscation?

There was a person on CNN yesterday talking about "eminent domain"
(when the govt will take your land etc.) If the libs thought the slaughter of
20 children was bad can you imagine someone trying to confiscate
assault rifles? Not going to happen IMHO. Pete

lilro
12-24-2012, 12:12 PM
Here in CoCo County they won't even issue CCWs. Doubt the Sheriff would stand up against confiscation.

unusedusername
12-24-2012, 12:47 PM
:facepalm:

Kid Stanislaus
12-24-2012, 12:53 PM
Recall sheriffs who wouldnt protect the 2nd against confiscation and elect those who would.

Uhhhhhhhhhhh, time for more tinkle fairies on fire breathing unicorns!;)

AyatollahGondola
12-24-2012, 1:39 PM
http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/36214-the-duly-elected-sheriff-of-a-county-is-the-highest-law-enforcement-official-within-a-county/

The point is not that the sheriff has carte blanche to do anything he wants. The feds do not have authority to conduct law enforcement activities independently without the sheriff's overt or tacit approval. They are subject to his authority.

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/09/22/wyoming-sheriffs-told-federal-batf-irs-agents-to-abide-by-the-constitution-or-face-immediate-arrest/

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.” Go back and re-read this quote.

The court confirms and asserts that “the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official.” And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried — not in Wyoming, not yet.

You are extrapolating a bunch of jibberish from an internet posting that is picking bits and pieces of rulings to arrive at a pre-determined goal. I have no idea what the Wyoming constitution says, but California's is different, and the sheriff is beholden to the California AG, and if the feds ask her or him to sieze guns, you can bet he or she will issue orders to do so.
Not that they will, or might, but on the basis of the fear that they will, California sheriffs are not the supreme authority. They're elected officials that are still sworn to the state constitution.

HowardW56
12-24-2012, 2:12 PM
Humor on Christmas Eve?

Maybe we should deputize Santa Claus and the reindeer, too!

Santa, the Elves & Reindeer posse ..... :eek:

Merkava_4
12-24-2012, 8:17 PM
Yeah, I'm not sure you really know how this works.

And no matter what happens, there won't be any confiscation.

They're already confiscating your weapons one law at a time. The government would like nothing more than to confiscate all your weapons.

A population with no weapons is a lot easier to control. Don't think it can't happen, because I'm here to tell you that it CAN happen.

GREASY357
12-24-2012, 8:39 PM
And no matter what happens, there won't be any confiscation.

:troll:

bigfrank
12-24-2012, 9:13 PM
No need to worry, divisions of tinkle fairies will come to protect us on fire breathing unicorns. No actually this will happen before most Sheriffs will refuse to do their duty.

How about this....STOP WORRYING ABOUT CONFISCATION!!! They have to actually pass a ban FIRST...THEN we can strategies what to do if the SCOTUS doesn't over turn anything they pass.

It happened in New Orleans during Katrina and there was no ban in effect at the time. Never say it can't happen.

Having said that, I believe a widespread confiscation would be met with major force from the average gun owner.

bohoki
12-24-2012, 9:36 PM
the sheriff's first duty is to repo houses for the bank anything else they do is optional

Meplat
12-24-2012, 9:55 PM
No need to worry, divisions of tinkle fairies will come to protect us on fire breathing unicorns. No actually this will happen before most Sheriffs will refuse to do their duty.

How about this....STOP WORRYING ABOUT CONFISCATION!!! They have to actually pass a ban FIRST...THEN we can strategies what to do if the SCOTUS doesn't over turn anything they pass.

No way will SCOTUS act timely enough to be of any use in preventing confiscation. Door to door confiscation will not happen anyway. They will simply make possession a felony and then set back and see how many people want to roll the dice.

Google “Sundown at Coffin Rock.”

cantcme
12-24-2012, 9:59 PM
The majority of americans and an even larger majority of californians vote liberal. Its a trend that is accelerating quickly.

turinreza
12-25-2012, 9:53 AM
You are extrapolating a bunch of jibberish from an internet posting that is picking bits and pieces of rulings to arrive at a pre-determined goal. I have no idea what the Wyoming constitution says, but California's is different, and the sheriff is beholden to the California AG, and if the feds ask her or him to sieze guns, you can bet he or she will issue orders to do so.
Not that they will, or might, but on the basis of the fear that they will, California sheriffs are not the supreme authority. They're elected officials that are still sworn to the state constitution.

a FEDERAL District Court ruled that any Sheriff in any county in any state is the highest law enforcement in the County. The Sheriff can't be removed by the State unless he did something criminally wrong or a commission finds a reason unrelated to the sheriff preventing confiscation. The Sheriff has the power to disapprove State, Federal, local police action like Confiscation.

HowardW56
12-25-2012, 9:56 AM
a FEDERAL District Court ruled that any Sheriff in any county in any state is the highest law enforcement in the County. The Sheriff can't be removed by the State unless he did something criminally wrong or a commission finds a reason unrelated to the sheriff preventing confiscation. The Sheriff has the power to disapprove State, Federal, local police action like Confiscation.

Which court is that, do you have a link? I'd like to read that...

Sutcliffe
12-25-2012, 10:08 AM
Lee Baca? :rofl2: He would be leading the gun grabbers!! :(

And raise you Laurie Smith. It seems if you refinance her mortgage you can get CCW from her. Nobody else can.

donw
12-25-2012, 10:11 AM
The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights.

Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. If they come refuse to give up your second amendment!

We way have to fight for our rights again...

i have a feeling that "If they come"..they'll come in a very unfriendly fashion, fully armored up...

i would like to believe that LE, in this country, would simply refuse to partake in such a thing...

Dantedamean
12-25-2012, 10:15 AM
The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights.

Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. If they come refuse to give up your second amendment!

We way have to fight for our rights again...

Only problem is if they give "fair compensation" then it's legal. I can see them saying they'll give 200 for ARs, 100 for AKs and 50-150 for pistols. All they will have to argue is its a fair price for the scrap metal. I guarantee a lot of gun owners will jump on that. I would hope more gun owners would fight, but I fear not.

RugerFan777
12-25-2012, 10:19 AM
No need to worry, divisions of tinkle fairies will come to protect us on fire breathing unicorns. No actually this will happen before most Sheriffs will refuse to do their duty.

How about this....STOP WORRYING ABOUT CONFISCATION!!! They have to actually pass a ban FIRST...THEN we can strategies what to do if the SCOTUS doesn't over turn anything they pass.

Your forgetting that Odduma is going to be able to stack the Scotus with 2 maybe 3-4 of Ruth Bater-Ginsberg types.

kcstott
12-25-2012, 10:28 AM
Those of you who think the same masses who voted for Obama would take up arms to oppose him need to lay off the eggnog.

:rofl2::rofl2: It's funny because it's true.

Look the lawyers here that founded CalGuns have a very well planed, well thought out fight if a ban should be passed.
I for one fully understand why this information is being kept under wraps until the time comes to spring it on them. It's like a good football play book, you don't go blabbing you best plays all over the internet.

But the gist of it is to give these monkeys enough rope to hang themselves with, then go for the throat.

turinreza
12-25-2012, 10:32 AM
Apparently it never made it to the Federal District Appeals Court which would
have been more powerful if such a ruling happened there.

If I were a Sheriff however, In order to sound the alarm "The British Are Coming" for a coming confiscation I would just Deputize the entire Militia
in my county. Let the Courts decide later if it's legal or not to do so.
Give our government a taste of their own medicine of doing things regardless
if it is legal or not and finding out later. At least if the Sheriff gave the militia the okay and authority to fight back that would give defenders of the 2nd amendment some ground to not give a second thought as to what they are about to do.

I wish the FBI appealed so we can truly know the Sheriff's power.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread768297/pg1

chris
12-25-2012, 1:15 PM
Both Feinstein & Bloomberg have in the past week.

I don't see it being very likely though.

it is their ultimate goal. they want only police and military to have them. if they get their wish the US will cease to exist.

Carnivore
12-25-2012, 3:44 PM
No way will SCOTUS act timely enough to be of any use in preventing confiscation. Door to door confiscation will not happen anyway. They will simply make possession a felony and then set back and see how many people want to roll the dice.

Google “Sundown at Coffin Rock.”Oh please, yes they can. They have in the past. You are acting as though if something like this passes that they will implement it the next day. Not going to happen. Do as you please but there isn't enough police to be able to go house to house gabbing peoples guns.

B Strong
12-25-2012, 6:13 PM
The Sheriff has been deemed the Highest Law enforcement entity in the land. He is above the Federal, State and Local branches of Law enforcement in his county. The Sheriff should believe in the Constitution and know that the enemies of the 2nd Amendment would be those who begin confiscation of the masses in his County. There is only one thing that the Sheriff can do to
fight these Domestic Enemies:

Deputization of all Citizens in his County for the sole purpose of arresting and detaining any law enforcement or even Military entities attempting to do Confiscation.

One call by Sheriff to LEO stating he and his deputies will start arresting so cease would end this right away.
The courts would be brought in right away to determine the legality of confiscation and thus LEO will get a chance
to realize that they are following illegal orders even though the 2nd Amendment tells this.

One step away from Freemen On The Land nuttiness.

SWalt
12-25-2012, 6:33 PM
Santa, the Elves & Reindeer posse ..... :eek:

Better to have Santa on our side. I don't know of anyone else who can enter a home and no one knows about it! Hell......get him to do covert surveillance on 2A enemies, bet he comes back with a few gems on how hypocritical they are!

Flipdude
12-25-2012, 9:07 PM
The problem with the SCOTUS is that they are all hand picked by the president and have the same mindset. I'm afraid that they could come unannounced as UN troops.

glbtrottr
12-25-2012, 9:12 PM
Sandy Sue in Orange County said not long ago: "If you're about Concealed Carry and the 2nd Amendment, vote for the other candidates".

She won.

Sandy Sue came from Los Angeles County, and we all know how gun unfriendly Lee Moocow is.

During a recent friendly chat with one of the SEB / OCSO Swat guys, in talking what they do all day:

"We go door to door serving warrants all day".

The militarization of the County Sheriff is here, and they are not your friend. Confiscating weapons would be ...just another day in the life.

Gryff
12-25-2012, 10:11 PM
The Sheriff has been deemed the Highest Law enforcement entity in the land. He is above the Federal, State and Local branches of Law enforcement in his county.

Huh? Do you seriously believe that?

motorhead
12-25-2012, 11:40 PM
NFS! "ruby ridge" gore defending my guns?:rofl2:

Dr.Lou
12-26-2012, 1:31 PM
No, the sheriff hasn't been designated the highest law enforcement in the land. Not here in California anyway. The Attorney General is above the sheriff. Read the California constitution. It's in there

True, the AG is the only person who can investigate/spank a sheriff.

newbee1111
12-26-2012, 3:05 PM
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

zhyla
12-26-2012, 3:09 PM
Where do these people come from? How do they work a computer?

Gray Peterson
12-26-2012, 3:12 PM
Sheriffs in California are the biggest civil rights violators in re carry. I can't believe people think the OP is correct.

Manolito
12-26-2012, 3:44 PM
So if all the rancher quit killing coyotes and live trapped them because we don't have guns and then dropped them off in town when we went shopping how would that work for the liberals.

The Sheriff in my county is very pro 2nd. I don't know how he would react to an order to confiscate gun. Are we talking all guns or are we talking only certain types of guns?

Look at the systems today they can't keep up with the calls of violent crimes to 911. Look at cross bows quiet and very powerful. Pneumatic spear guns very powerful and deadly at close range. Where do we stop calling it a gun??

Look at the liberator pistol only made to kill one person so you could capture their weapon.

Just try to put your arms around the logistics. Confiscation isn't workable in my opinion.

Making it a felony with ten years automatic prison term and sitting back and waiting is the only answer that could work logistically.

Just my opinion.

TreeHugger
12-26-2012, 6:13 PM
Deputization of all Citizens in his County for the sole purpose of arresting and detaining any law enforcement or even Military entities attempting to do Confiscation.

Yeah, sure, you and ONLY you against five to ten other LEOs with AR15s! Too much science fiction stuff. Most LEOs are going to do what they are ordered to, to keep their job and not get into any unnecessary issues, sad, but true (IF it ever comes to that and I damn well hope not...)

Mullins
12-29-2012, 2:08 AM
I wonder how many of us answer the door ready for the S to htf?

Like I have read in other threads they may not even come door to door. They will ban whatever they want and make is illegal to own that firearm.

They will use gun buy backs and after that just wait for the rest us once legal citizens to **** up so they can arrest us or take our guns.

mrdd
12-29-2012, 4:35 AM
The sheriffs in CA are loose cannons with few restrictions on their activities. In fact, all the AG can do is investigate the activities of the sheriff for failure to enforce the laws in his jurisdiction and take over investigations that are not being handled correctly, or where there is a conflict of interest on the part of the sheriff.

A sheriff does not work for the AG, they are really peers at the state level, along with the governor.

Tarn_Helm
12-29-2012, 6:12 AM
Sheriffs in California are the biggest civil rights violators in re carry. I can't believe people think the OP is correct.

People will believe anything.
:facepalm:

:(

AyatollahGondola
12-29-2012, 6:35 AM
The sheriffs in CA are loose cannons with few restrictions on their activities. In fact, all the AG can do is investigate the activities of the sheriff for failure to enforce the laws in his jurisdiction and take over investigations that are not being handled correctly, or where there is a conflict of interest on the part of the sheriff.

A sheriff does not work for the AG, they are really peers at the state level, along with the governor.

Your state constitution disagrees

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 5 EXECUTIVE


SEC. 13. Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the
Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It
shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the
State are uniformly and adequately enforced. The Attorney General
shall have direct supervision over every district attorney and
sheriff and over such other law enforcement officers as may be
designated by law, in all matters pertaining to the duties of their
respective offices, and may require any of said officers to make
reports concerning the investigation, detection, prosecution, and
punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions as to the
Attorney General may seem advisable. Whenever in the opinion of the
Attorney General any law of the State is not being adequately
enforced in any county, it shall be the duty of the Attorney General
to prosecute any violations of law of which the superior court shall
have jurisdiction, and in such cases the Attorney General shall have
all the powers of a district attorney. When required by the public
interest or directed by the Governor, the Attorney General shall
assist any district attorney in the discharge of the duties of that
office.

mrdd
12-30-2012, 2:35 AM
Your state constitution disagrees

But if you read that section carefully, it only applies "as may be designated by law".

SEC. 13. Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced. The Attorney General shall have direct supervision over every district attorney and sheriff and over such other law enforcement officers as may be designated by law, in all matters pertaining to the duties of their respective offices, and may require any of said officers to make reports concerning the investigation, detection, prosecution, and punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions as to the Attorney General may seem advisable. Whenever in the opinion of the Attorney General any law of the State is not being adequately enforced in any county, it shall be the duty of the Attorney General to prosecute any violations of law of which the superior court shall have jurisdiction, and in such cases the Attorney General shall have all the powers of a district attorney. When required by the public interest or directed by the Governor, the Attorney General shall assist any district attorney in the discharge of the duties of that office.

The law that applies in this case is Government Code sections 12560 & 12561. It only applies to "investigation, detection and punishment of crime". There is no general supervisory function of the AG over the sheriffs.

GC 12560. The Attorney General has direct supervision over the sheriffs of the several counties of the State, and may require of them written reports concerning the investigation, detection and punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions. Whenever he deems it necessary in the public interest he shall direct the activities of any sheriff relative to the investigation or detection of crime within the jurisdiction of the sheriff, and he may direct the service of subpenas, warrants of arrest, or other processes of court in connection therewith.

GC 12561. Whenever he deems it necessary in the public interest, the Attorney General may appoint some competent person to perform the duties of sheriff with respect to the investigation or detection of a particular crime and cause the arrest of persons in connection therewith. Any person so appointed has all the powers of a sheriff with respect to the particular matter.

Gray Peterson
12-30-2012, 3:49 AM
This is hilarious. If the feds give a confiscation order to a state government, they cannot be mandated to do so. Thus is the decision in Printz v United States. Printz says that the federal government cannot mandate that a state or local official do anything. Feds would have to do the work themselves.

Sheriffs arresting feds? Guys who stomp puppies & kittens have no qualms about shooting a backwoods sheriff in the face with a FN P90.

AyatollahGondola
12-30-2012, 7:39 AM
This is hilarious. If the feds give a confiscation order to a state government, they cannot be mandated to do so. Thus is the decision in Printz v United States. Printz says that the federal government cannot mandate that a state or local official do anything. Feds would have to do the work themselves.
.

This is California though. This state doesn't have to be forced into something like that, but rather given a green light that it will not be prohibited from doing so. I don't think it makes that much difference to those concerned over confiscation, whether it's a state or federal agency that puts that effort into practice. The OP had this thought that there were some sacred sentinel duties in the county sheriff's office that would thwart that. Like you said, the sheriff could easily be overcome by federal forces. I'd contend that the sheriff's would mainly be looking for any legal reason to keep their respective hearts beating, all the while hanging on to the voters faith.
The bad news is, the feds have already jumped in to local law enforcement's friendship ring. They've thought way ahead on this, however whether it's over a nefarious plot to sieze weapons is not yet supported by facts or evidence. But just like other facets of state and local government, the feds have created opportunities for funds that in turn create job security for bureaucrats and agencies at the local level, and those respective agencies get addicted to the power, influence, and income from the feds. Point being, the sheriff's are not going to be any salvation if there was a federal coup. I think it would be the other way around really. They'd end up being like traffic cops directing civillian cars around military convoys

SilverTauron
12-30-2012, 7:51 AM
The Feds won't need P90s to put an uppity Sherrif in their place.Thats what Obstruction of Justice & Perjury charges in Federal Court will do.We'll see just how many Sherriffs are willing to risk being Federal fugitives for the sake of the Constitution.If history is a guide, any Pro-2A bluster will end the moment a Deputy US Marshall shows up with a Federal Court summons.

bwolcott
12-30-2012, 8:26 AM
They dont need to go door to door to confiscate guns, majority of people will turn then in regardless of what they say, as soon as it becomes illegal to own them.Just look at how they have taken them in many other countries already, they are already pulling the same tactics, a shooting happens, they make people anti gun, they ban certain ones, then ban more then require registration then require you to turn them in and they give you a small portion of your own tax money back for them.

QQQ
12-30-2012, 8:36 AM
Why are we so worried about the feds?

It's the state government we have to worry about. Remember, Congress is still not under the control of BHO.

Our state legislature and governor's office, however, are controlled with a supermajority by the party that tends not to support gun rights.

EXTREMEOPS1
12-30-2012, 8:41 AM
Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.

We aren’t alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.

In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.

Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.

After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber.

Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.

The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself. So more gun control or gun confiscation programs do nothing to stop violent crime commuted by the deranged.

Gunlawyer
01-12-2013, 1:48 AM
http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/36214-the-duly-elected-sheriff-of-a-county-is-the-highest-law-enforcement-official-within-a-county/

The point is not that the sheriff has carte blanche to do anything he wants. The feds do not have authority to conduct law enforcement activities independently without the sheriff's overt or tacit approval. They are subject to his authority.

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/09/22/wyoming-sheriffs-told-federal-batf-irs-agents-to-abide-by-the-constitution-or-face-immediate-arrest/

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.” Go back and re-read this quote.

The court confirms and asserts that “the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official.” And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried — not in Wyoming, not yet.


Wyoming is looking more appealing all the time. Wish it wasnt so damn cold and had an ocean by it though.lol

The whole state has a population less than my little city here. lol True freedom still exists I think in some parts of the nation.

sarabellum
01-12-2013, 11:03 AM
Wyoming is looking more appealing all the time. Wish it wasnt so damn cold and had an ocean by it though.lol

The whole state has a population less than my little city here. lol True freedom still exists I think in some parts of the nation.

Do you have the citation for the case to which the following proposition is attributed, "the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official?" I can understand that the federal government's power is limited to the matters enumerated in the constitution, such as interstate commerce under Art. 1, section 8; while a generalized police power over health, safety, and morals is held by the states, e.g. U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

However, this case may contain some doctrine I may have missed. Thank you.

turinreza
04-02-2013, 5:38 PM
http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/state-grants-secret-service-vast-new-powers/

sunaj
04-02-2013, 5:43 PM
I think you must be comatose if you don 't believe our government is capable of gun confiscation-it already happened during Katrina
wake up
sunaj

desertjosh
04-02-2013, 8:44 PM
Look at SB 755. It will create a whole new set of law abiding citizens banned from owning firearms in Cali.

JimWest
04-02-2013, 10:27 PM
Any government that steps outside of the authorization of the people shall by the right of the people be dismantled. Only a few more steps to go, then. See my post on the 2nd Amen. And the right of revolution in separate post if you care to delve into the extent of over reach we are seeing today. (Strange. Yesterday's tin foil hats are starting to look like proper headwear today)

kimber_ss
04-02-2013, 11:31 PM
Well, I blame SB-13-013 on him...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aj6bVCKwv6c/Skv4EsOQt8I/AAAAAAAAAPo/zyBzKs5LyNc/s1600/bracket_taxi.jpg

waffmaster
04-03-2013, 3:33 AM
Lets not get there ( confiscation) by legally opposing/obstructing any politician that supports gun control.