Post by: ELKHOG on January 17, 2013, 04:15:49 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 17, 2013, 04:18:03 PM
Post by: TripleB on January 17, 2013, 04:20:47 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 17, 2013, 04:21:15 PM
From Oregon to Mississippi, President Barack Obama's proposed ban on new assault weapons and large-capacity magazines struck a nerve among rural lawmen and lawmakers, many of whom vowed to ignore any restrictions _ and even try to stop federal officials from enforcing gun policy in their jurisdictions.
"A lot of sheriffs are now standing up and saying, `Follow the Constitution,'" said Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, whose territory covers the timbered mountains of southwestern Oregon.
But their actual powers to defy federal law are limited. And much of the impassioned rhetoric amounts to political posturing until _ and if _ Congress acts.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said Wednesday it's unlikely an assault weapons ban would actually pass the House of Representatives. Absent action by Congress, all that remains are 23 executive orders Obama announced that apply only to the federal government, not local or state law enforcement.
Gun advocates have seen Obama as an enemy despite his expression of support for the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a personal right to have guns. So his call for new measures _ including background checks for all gun buyers and Senate confirmation of a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives _ triggered new vows of defiance.
In Mississippi, Gov. Phil Bryant, a Republican, urged the Legislature to make it illegal to enforce any executive order by the president that violates the Constitution.
"If someone kicks open my door and they're entering my home, I'd like as many bullets as I could to protect my children, and if I only have three, then the ability for me to protect my family is greatly diminished," Bryant said. "And what we're doing now is saying, `We're standing against the federal government taking away our civil liberties.'"
Tennessee Republican state Rep. Joe Carr wants to make it a state crime for federal agents to enforce any ban on firearms or ammunition. Carr instead called for more armed guards at schools.
"We're tired of political antics, cheap props of using children as bait to gin up emotional attachment for an issue that quite honestly doesn't solve the problem," Carr said.
Legislative proposals to pre-empt new federal gun restrictions also have arisen in Wyoming, Utah and Alaska.
A Wyoming bill specifies that any federal limitation on guns would be unenforceable. It also would make it a state felony for federal agents to try to enforce restrictions.
"I think there are a lot of people who would want to take all of our guns if they could," said co-sponsor Rep. Kendell Kroeker, a Republican. "And they're only restrained by the opposition of the people, and other lawmakers who are concerned about our rights."
Republican state Sen. Larry Hicks credited Wyoming's high rate of gun ownership for a low rate of gun violence.
"Our kids grow up around firearms, and they also grow up hunting, and they know what the consequences are of taking a life," Hicks said. "We're not insulated from the real world in Wyoming."
In Utah, some Republicans are preparing legislation to exempt the state from federal gun laws _ and fine any federal agents who try to seize guns. A bill in the Alaska House would make it a misdemeanor for a federal agent to enforce new restrictions on gun ownership.
While such proposals are eye-catching, they likely could never be implemented.
"The legislature can pass anything it wants," said Sam Kamin, a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. "The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes that clearly unconstitutional. Where there's a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme."
Kamin and other legal experts said such disdain of Obama's proposals is reminiscent of former Confederate states' refusal to comply with federal law extending equal rights for blacks after the Civil War.
The National Sheriff's Association has supported administration efforts to combat gun violence after the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings. President Larry Amerson, sheriff of Calhoun, Ala., said he understands the frustrations of people in rural areas with the federal government. But he feels his oath of office binds him to uphold all laws.
"Any sheriff who knows his duty knows we don't enforce federal law, per se," said Amerson, a longtime firearms instructor and hunter.
Some rural sheriffs view the federal government as an adversary, with gun ownership at the core of that belief.
In Minnesota, Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole sent an open letter to residents saying he did not believe the federal government had the right to tell the states how to regulate firearms. He said he would refuse to enforce any federal mandate he felt violated constitutional rights.
The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, based in Fredericksburg, Texas, encourages that point of view. Founder Richard Mack, a former sheriff of Apache County, Ariz., speaks regularly at gatherings of Tea Party groups and gun rights organizations.
"I will tell Mr. Obama and everybody else who wants to impose gun control in America, that whether you like it or not, it is against the law," said Mack. "Now we have good sheriffs who are standing up and defending the law against our own president."
Post by: sirmissalot on January 17, 2013, 04:27:54 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 17, 2013, 04:34:08 PM
Quote
"The legislature can pass anything it wants," said Sam Kamin, a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. "The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes that clearly unconstitutional. Where there's a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme."
Ahem. I-502. Ahem. Note that he is from Denver. He must be smoking some of that CO Amendment 64 wacky tobaccy.
Post by: TripleB on January 17, 2013, 04:57:57 PM
My love for this country is coming back!
Amen!
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2013, 05:03:33 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 05:04:18 PM
For example, we all know it is illegal for felons to possess firearms under both state and federal law. The only reason feds get involved is if they are notified of the case. So if a Trooper finds a felon in posession the only way the ATF finds out is if a) he calls them or b) a prosecutor calls the feds.
Basically many of these sherrifs are saying they wont "cooperate" with the feds. Basically meaning if they find someone in violation of the federal law, they will not contact the federal govt.
Utah is a state that has historically hated the federal govt, not surprising at all to see this.
The Josephine County Sheriff has been trying to take law enforcement authority away from BLM and USFS Officers in his county, yet they are considered peace officers under state law.
Post by: WSU on January 17, 2013, 05:07:42 PM
Post by: BullMagnet76 on January 17, 2013, 05:19:22 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on January 17, 2013, 06:48:21 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on January 17, 2013, 06:49:26 PM
Right on. It will be much tougher for the feds to enforce any ban if the state, county, and local law enforcement agencies aren't doing the leg work.
I thought that with Arizona SB1070, the Department of Injustice already made it clear that the federal government doesn't want the help of local LEAs.
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 06:52:54 PM
Right on. It will be much tougher for the feds to enforce any ban if the state, county, and local law enforcement agencies aren't doing the leg work.
I thought that with Arizona SB1070, the Department of Injustice already made it clear that the federal government doesn't want the help of local LEAs.
That case was solely immigration.
Federal agencies work with local LEAa all the time. As an example, WDFW Officers are commissioned as federal officers by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marines Fisheries Service, and some others. And that is status quo with all coastal states, inland states don't have the NMFS commissions.
Post by: Bean Counter on January 17, 2013, 07:05:33 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 07:09:08 PM
Yep, but its up to the local jurisdiction. Some feds don't have local law enforcement authority per the desire of the respective sheriff.
It is up to the jurisdiction if they call the feds.
The fact that a sheriff doesn't grant local law enforcement authority to a federal officer doesn't matter in federal firearms or other serious crimes. For example, ATF Special Agents have authority over all federal firearms crimes doesn't matter what the sheriff says. But a USFS Officer doesn't have authority off federal lands unless granted to them under state law or the local sheriff.
Post by: Gamblin Guy on January 17, 2013, 07:34:10 PM
Right on. It will be much tougher for the feds to enforce any ban if the state, county, and local law enforcement agencies aren't doing the leg work.
I thought that with Arizona SB1070, the Department of Injustice already made it clear that the federal government doesn't want the help of local LEAs.
The feds only want what they want, they dont give a rip about what the states and the people want. I find it quite humerous that the "shoe" is on the other foot now and this administration is being challenged (again) by those who are in support of the Constitution. One can only hope that the "shoe" gets firmly inserted in the appropriate place of the obummer administration.
Post by: csaaphill on January 17, 2013, 09:33:23 PM
just hope the legislaters has the balls to stand up to Obama on this one.
loved that article though Molon Labe!
Post by: bigtex on January 17, 2013, 09:38:42 PM
I could see armed sherriffs at state lines or airports if feds think they can just walk in.This will for sure be for the one who blinks first.
just hope the legislaters has the balls to stand up to Obama on this one.
loved that article though Molon Labe!
And for the federal officers that live in the state and in the county? Utah Sheriffs through the years have already told numerous federal agencies they have no authority...and nothing has come of it.
Post by: csaaphill on January 17, 2013, 10:05:34 PM