Post by: NumaJohn on December 21, 2013, 09:05:16 AM
FYI, here's an article from today's Spokesman-Review that some of you might find of interest/ripe for critiquing:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/dec/21/shawn-vestal-kootenai-county-sheriff-ben/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/dec/21/shawn-vestal-kootenai-county-sheriff-ben/)
John
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 21, 2013, 09:40:18 AM
One sheriff stood before news cameras holding two magazine clips – one that violates Colorado’s new law and one that doesn’t – and noting that they were virtually impossible to distinguish. Therefore, he won’t even try. A strange spectacle indeed – can you recall the last time a cop stood up with, say, a baggie of cocaine and a baggie of baking powder and said it was just too dang hard to figure out the difference?.............................................
..........................People who pay attention may recall that the last attempt to pass even wildly popular gun control legislation, closing the gun-show loophole, couldn’t overcome the loyalty to the National Rifle Association among Congress-lackeys."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks more like an editorial than a news story, loaded with opinion as usual for urban Washington media
Post by: Special T on December 21, 2013, 09:46:06 AM
Post by: actionshooter on December 21, 2013, 02:45:39 PM
Do they uphold their oath to the constitution or do they enforce laws (which is their job) some of which violate the constitution.
Sounds like the author of the editorial (not news) and the Sheriff have made their choice.
Post by: washelkhunter on December 21, 2013, 03:05:43 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 21, 2013, 04:03:35 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 21, 2013, 04:27:52 PM
He has sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution. It's not his job to interpret the Constitution or object to laws which he thinks violate the Constitution. That's the court's job.
:yeah:
We all remember last year/early this year when several sheriff's spoke out against gun control. Many people on here were happy "their sheriff" spoke out. However, most sheriff's associations, including the National association and the Idaho Sheriff's Association essentially said what Pianoman said, it is not the sheriff's job to determine what is constitutional and what is not.
The Sheriff's who spoke out were doing it for the votes. Almost all in WA that spoke out were newly elected Sheriff's. Most of the Sheriff's on the Westside went along the lines of the National Association.
And besides the point, state and local officers do not enforce federal laws, unless those laws are then adopted into state law. So when Sheriff's came out and said "my deputies will not enforce new federal gun laws" they should have said "my deputies never have enforced federal gun laws, and don't have the authority to." And some sheriff's actually did say they don't enforce federal laws, but not many.
Post by: Bob33 on December 21, 2013, 04:59:20 PM
He has sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution. It's not his job to interpret the Constitution or object to laws which he thinks violate the Constitution.If a sheriff were asked to selectively target and harass black people, would you take the same position?
Does a sheriff not have any obligation to his conscience?
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 21, 2013, 05:09:24 PM
He has sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution. It's not his job to interpret the Constitution or object to laws which he thinks violate the Constitution.If a sheriff were asked to selectively target and harass black people, would you take the same position?
Does a sheriff not have any obligation to his conscience?
There is no law to harass and target black people. If the sheriff's conscience tells him to ignore the law, he's breaking his oath. His job isn't political activism. It's to uphold laws. If he said he was not going to go after rapists, would you have a problem with that? A rapist is just pursuing his own happiness as promised in the Constitution. Don't forget, I wouldn't agree with further gun control laws. It's not LEs job to decide Constitutionality, only to enforce laws.
Post by: Bob33 on December 21, 2013, 05:33:54 PM
He has sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution. It's not his job to interpret the Constitution or object to laws which he thinks violate the Constitution.If a sheriff were asked to selectively target and harass black people, would you take the same position?
Does a sheriff not have any obligation to his conscience?
There is no law to harass and target black people.
There isn't, but there was a time when it considered not only acceptable but desirable. Throughout history there have been immoral laws. Germany in WWII is just one of many examples.
I believe there is a time and place for not obeying laws. This may not be one, but there are valid cases.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 22, 2013, 05:06:34 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 22, 2013, 05:54:57 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 22, 2013, 05:55:52 AM
Obama ignores the constitution and makes up laws to suit himself, so why can't a sheriff choose ?
Do you want all of our sheriffs to emulate Obama?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 22, 2013, 06:01:11 AM
Obama ignores the constitution and makes up laws to suit himself, so why can't a sheriff choose ?
Do you want all of our sheriffs to emulate Obama?
God no, that would be even more disastrous. Don't forget, we're always guilty until proven innocent in the country.
Post by: Bob33 on December 22, 2013, 07:06:58 AM
Post by: huntrights on December 25, 2013, 04:01:55 PM
Richard Mack: The Untouchable Bill of Rights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4ygEk7lvvg
Here is something else to ponder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
Post by: bigtex on December 27, 2013, 03:44:55 PM
When the sheriff is ordered to go door to door and confiscate all 870 shotguns, will you welcome and support him because he is upholding "the law"?
The Sheriff wouldn't be ordered by the president. The only officers the president has authority over is the federal LEOs.
Post by: Bob33 on December 27, 2013, 04:01:20 PM
I didn't make any reference to the president.When the sheriff is ordered to go door to door and confiscate all 870 shotguns, will you welcome and support him because he is upholding "the law"?
The Sheriff wouldn't be ordered by the president. The only officers the president has authority over is the federal LEOs.
Post by: Special T on December 27, 2013, 05:29:09 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2013, 04:09:36 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2013, 04:10:53 AM
The current administration and congress have continually degraded and overridden our constitutional rights, slowly more and more people are waking up to this fact. My vote has and will continue to go to those running for office who stand by our constitution. People around the world are in disbelief as they watch Americans complacently throw away the greatest system and document ever created.
Post by: bigtex on December 28, 2013, 11:06:28 AM
When was the last time you have heard of a Sheriff arresting and holding a federal agent? I bet you can point to several where the Fed has Arrested and held a Sheriff.
And this is what I love about some of these sheriff's. The gun control issues brought it to the forefront, but Sheriff's for probably 30 years now have been threatening to arrest BLM and Forest Service Officers. For the most part this has been in Utah, as well as some parts of Nevada and then every once in awhile you hear about a random sheriff in California, Colorado, and Oregon saying it.
It is always something along the lines of "the feds cant enforce the state law without my authority, and if they do I will arrest them" well that's false. Congress has passed a bill for every land management agency that allows those agencies to create their own regulations. Very similar to how WDFW, DNR, Parks can create their own regulations for their lands. Well these land management agencies create their own regulations for their lands, and in some cases say it is unlawful to violate certain state laws (such as fish and wildlife, traffic, etc). Congress gave these agencies the authority to create those regulations and the Supreme Court has upheld that authority. But then these Sheriff's will say that Congress themselves didn't approve of BLM adopting state traffic laws, true, but Congress did give BLM the authority to create the regulations that apply to their lands. It would be like saying fishing seasons aren't lawful because they aren't set by the legislature, true, but the legislature gives the WDFW Commission the authority to adopt/create fishing seasons. And this is why any lawsuit by a sheriff is quickly dismissed.
How many BLM and Forest Service Officers have been arrested by a Sheriff for doing their federal duties? ZERO. It is all talk to get the votes :twocents:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 28, 2013, 11:18:53 AM
The current administration and congress have continually degraded and overridden our constitutional rights, slowly more and more people are waking up to this fact. My vote has and will continue to go to those running for office who stand by our constitution. People around the world are in disbelief as they watch Americans throw away the greatest system and document ever created.:yeah: And so many agree with it :dunno:
respectfully bigtex.............. boiling a live frog..........BABY steps is the only way
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2013, 11:23:57 AM
Post by: Special T on December 28, 2013, 07:07:31 PM
With the attitude of our State Gov i don't think Sheriffs can get a way with ANY kind of power Play. I bet they MAY in Utah if the state is backing a Sheriffs swat team. I think it would be REALLY bad if we resorted to banana republic version of politics where i seize your lieutenants and you seize mine to score points. I don't know ANY State or Sheriffs Deputy that wants to be the one to make an armed arrest of a federal agent.
I do think that moving into states/counties of like minded individuals will be even more important as time goes on. If a state and/or a County has NO interest in enforcing/complying with Federal laws then it will be a lot easier to get away with it on a personal level.
Post by: Windwalker on December 29, 2013, 12:21:51 PM
Arizona Sheriffs Smack Down Feds Over UnConstitutional Demands regarding Public Land
As the saying goes, “along with tremendous power comes tremendous responsibility.” I cannot think of any person in public service who fits that saying more than a county sheriff. However, the major networks have spent many years brainwashing the populace into thinking that Federal Agents are the top cops.
How many times have you seen a cop show on TV where the Feds show up, flash their badge and relieve the local sheriff? Then, local sheriff storms off in frustration because the Feds took over the case. That, good people, is brainwashing.
What many people are unaware of is that your sheriff is the top law enforcement official in your county. He or She has jurisdiction, even over the Feds. There are many people, with whom I have spoken, who believe that the only chance that this country has is for good, honest sheriffs to stand up and assert their power. Perhaps not a silver bullet, but if every sheriff of every county found their constitutional spine, it would set the Feds plan of dominating the population back 25 years.
The first thing that we could do is kick the Feds off of our lands. But, I digress.
In Arizona, the Arizona Sheriffs Association is asserting their power over the Feds… or at least their power not to comply. When the Feds “ruled by decree” that any trailers left in the National Forest in AZ would be towed if left more than 72 hours, the ASA shot back.
Read ASA resolution: http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2013-Sheriffs-Resolution-AZ-copy.pdf (http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2013-Sheriffs-Resolution-AZ-copy.pdf)
The document bears the signature of ASA President Joseph Dedman, Jr. and it concludes with the following resolve:
That the Arizona Sheriffs are opposed to the policies of the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests limiting the parking of trailers on National Forests limiting the parking of trailers on National Forests to a 72 hours period during hunting season and will not enforce any federal government regulation imposed on our citizens depriving them of their right to utilize their public lands.
Take note of this resolution and hold your own county sheriff to the same Constitutional standards that the ASA have adopted for themselves.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/arizona-sheriffs-smack-feds-unconstitutional-demands-regarding-public-land/#IC3A3p5euj2JsiLX.99 (http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/arizona-sheriffs-smack-feds-unconstitutional-demands-regarding-public-land/#IC3A3p5euj2JsiLX.99)
Post by: huntrights on December 29, 2013, 04:17:39 PM
This is an excellent discussion that should be happening around the country. It is a discussion that is happening because of the tidal wave of anti-gun legislation we recently experienced and continue to experience. Much of this legislation is obviously on the fine line between Constitutional and unconstitutional. Frankly, any legislators that insist on continuously pushing Constitutional boundaries to see what they can get away with should be fired ASAP. Their job is to protect the rights and freedoms guaranteed to all Americans by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
A typical Oath of Office is shown below. Some oaths may include references to state constitutions and statutes, but the basic content and oath/promise to the People is the same. These aren’t just words that are stated when an elected official/representative/President takes office; it is their solemn oath and promise to their constituency. They cannot take that Oath of Office and then do whatever they wish to do. If they will not uphold their Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, they should be removed from their position.
Typical Oath of Office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Here is a question to ponder:
Who are the guardians of our rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights if not our elected representatives and officials that swore an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution?
It seems that many people have become very cavalier, apathetic, and complacent about the rights and freedoms we enjoy in this country. Our rights and freedoms came at great cost; to allow them to be chipped away a little at a time by those with Socialist leanings or worse should be very troubling to all Americans. It isn’t just our gun rights; we are seeing violations of private property rights, more restrictions on access to our public lands, more and more regulations and laws passed and imposed on us that control and restrict nearly every aspect of our lives.
Although it was implied earlier that “… any lawsuit by a sheriff is quickly dismissed”, we should note that Sheriffs can file law suits and they have been successful. A notable case was the one involving Sheriff Richard Mack and Chief Law Enforcement Officer Jay Printz; they won their case in the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States
“Petitioners Jay Printz and Richard Mack, the Chief Law Enforcement Officers for Ravalli County, Montana, and Graham County, Arizona, represented by Stephen Halbrook and David T. Hardy respectively, filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act's interim provisions. They objected to the use of congressional action to compel state officers to execute Federal law.”
“The majority of five justices ruled that the interim provisions of the Brady Bill are unconstitutional. In his opinion, Justice Scalia states that, although there is no constitutional text precisely responding to the challenge, an answer can be found “in historical understanding and practice, the structure of the Constitution, and in the jurisprudence of this Court.””
A significant point made by Sheriff Richard Mack in some of his public communications was that individuals typically do not have the time or resources to fight the legal battles against laws that may be unconstitutional; although, individuals are most affected by these laws.
Here is that question again:
Who are the guardians of our rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights if not our elected representatives and officials that swore an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution?
What happened to the rights and freedoms of the citizens in Nazi Germany? They were people that were no different than all of us. Think about it.
Since we, as individuals, typically do not have the time or resources to fight the very significant legal battles over the constitutionality of the many unnecessary and repressive anti-gun laws, who do we turn to? We should be able to depend on, and trust our elected officials/representatives/President to uphold their Oath of Office to ensure we are not subjected to such questionable laws. That dependency and trust seems to be in question in light of recent assaults on our rights and freedoms.
For example, below is a link to an article about some very unconstitutional legislation that was being pushed in Washington State earlier in 2013:
Sheriffs can inspect homes for safe gun storage in Washington State under Democratic weapon bill
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/19/democrats-gun-bill-lets-washington-state-sheriffs-/
Do the citizens of this country have to be subjected to unconstitutional laws until someone or some organization that believes in the Constitution and Bill of Rights steps forward to take on the very expensive and time-consuming task of challenging such laws? We should never be placed in this position.
A good way to correct this growing problem of threats to our rights and freedoms is to vote only for officials, representatives, and a President that will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights per their Oath of Office. Regardless of their party affiliation, if they will not uphold their Oath of Office, Do not vote for them!
In the meantime, we are faced with many court battles that will challenge the constitutionality of many anti-gun laws that were unfortunately passed in an emotional flurry brought on by the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. Elected representatives from the President on down to local Commissioners and City Councils that had any anti-gun sentiment took advantage of the emotional pain felt at a national level and pushed every bit of anti-gun legislation and regulations they could squeeze in. The very well-orchestrated assaults on our right to keep and bear arms at the national, state, and local levels were, and continue to be a travesty within the executive, legislative, and regulatory bodies of this country. Vote the perpetrators out of office!
Please join and support the organizations that will fight these legal battles for us. A few of the primary organizations are listed below:
National Rifle Association (NRA)
http://home.nra.org/
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp (https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp)
Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)
http://www.saf.org/
http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=safdonation (http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=safdonation)
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)
http://www.ccrkba.org/
http://www.ccrkba.org/?page_id=3252 (http://www.ccrkba.org/?page_id=3252)
U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA)
http://www.ussportsmen.org/
Note: To use the online “Join” webpage, you will need to allow all cookies.
http://www.ussportsmen.org/join/individual-membership/
Gun Owners of America (GOA)
http://gunowners.org/
http://gunowners.co/new-annual-membership (http://gunowners.co/new-annual-membership)
Safari Club International (SCI)
http://www.scifirstforhunters.org/home/
http://member.scifirstforhunters.org/join/ (http://member.scifirstforhunters.org/join/)
National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF)
http://www.nssf.org/
http://www.nssf.org/join/ (http://www.nssf.org/join/)
Freedom Foundation
http://myfreedomfoundation.com/
https://donate.myfreedomfoundation.com/ (https://donate.myfreedomfoundation.com/)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 29, 2013, 04:31:33 PM
More along those lines-:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :tup: :yeah:
Arizona Sheriffs Smack Down Feds Over UnConstitutional Demands regarding Public Land
As the saying goes, “along with tremendous power comes tremendous responsibility.” I cannot think of any person in public service who fits that saying more than a county sheriff. However, the major networks have spent many years brainwashing the populace into thinking that Federal Agents are the top cops.
How many times have you seen a cop show on TV where the Feds show up, flash their badge and relieve the local sheriff? Then, local sheriff storms off in frustration because the Feds took over the case. That, good people, is brainwashing.
What many people are unaware of is that your sheriff is the top law enforcement official in your county. He or She has jurisdiction, even over the Feds. There are many people, with whom I have spoken, who believe that the only chance that this country has is for good, honest sheriffs to stand up and assert their power. Perhaps not a silver bullet, but if every sheriff of every county found their constitutional spine, it would set the Feds plan of dominating the population back 25 years.
The first thing that we could do is kick the Feds off of our lands. But, I digress.
In Arizona, the Arizona Sheriffs Association is asserting their power over the Feds… or at least their power not to comply. When the Feds “ruled by decree” that any trailers left in the National Forest in AZ would be towed if left more than 72 hours, the ASA shot back.
Read ASA resolution: http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2013-Sheriffs-Resolution-AZ-copy.pdf (http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2013-Sheriffs-Resolution-AZ-copy.pdf)
The document bears the signature of ASA President Joseph Dedman, Jr. and it concludes with the following resolve:
That the Arizona Sheriffs are opposed to the policies of the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests limiting the parking of trailers on National Forests limiting the parking of trailers on National Forests to a 72 hours period during hunting season and will not enforce any federal government regulation imposed on our citizens depriving them of their right to utilize their public lands.
Take note of this resolution and hold your own county sheriff to the same Constitutional standards that the ASA have adopted for themselves.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/arizona-sheriffs-smack-feds-unconstitutional-demands-regarding-public-land/#IC3A3p5euj2JsiLX.99 (http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/arizona-sheriffs-smack-feds-unconstitutional-demands-regarding-public-land/#IC3A3p5euj2JsiLX.99)
Post by: JLS on December 29, 2013, 04:43:13 PM
You guys need to realize some very simple and important distinctions here. A sheriff does not have power over the feds when it comes to enforcing federal law. The feds don't have power over the sheriff enforcing state or county law.
And, it is not up the sheriff to interpret the constitutionality of a law. That is up to the appellate courts. Just like a sheriff cannot write law, that is up to the state legislature. For one to try and encroach upon the others role is as unconstitutional is it comes. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on December 29, 2013, 05:06:22 PM
I doubt the feds really care what the ASA feels about the Forest Service's decision. Regardless of my personal thoughts on the USFS decision, it is not up the local sheriff's office to enforce the decision unless they are under contract with the USFS to provide law enforcement services. If they were, and chose not to, that's their call.
You guys need to realize some very simple and important distinctions here. A sheriff does not have power over the feds when it comes to enforcing federal law. The feds don't have power over the sheriff enforcing state or county law.
And, it is not up the sheriff to interpret the constitutionality of a law. That is up to the appellate courts. Just like a sheriff cannot write law, that is up to the state legislature. For one to try and encroach upon the others role is as unconstitutional is it comes. :twocents:
:yeah:
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Post by: bigtex on December 29, 2013, 05:10:26 PM
I don't know ANY State or Sheriffs Deputy that wants to be the one to make an armed arrest of a federal agent.
I know of Sheriff's that sent their deputy to go arrest a fed. Did the deputy do it? Nope.
And that's the thing, Deputies don't hate the feds, its the Sheriff themselves.
Years ago the Chelan County Sheriff at the time told two deputies to arrest a NPS LE Ranger at Lake Chelan, the deputies went up and contacted the Ranger and basically said their BS Sheriff told them to arrest the Ranger. Deputies went back down and told the Sheriff they couldn't find the NPS LE Ranger... And that is what happens every time "well sir we couldn't find him, blah blah"
Post by: Special T on December 29, 2013, 06:43:26 PM
Big Tex, What was the "reason" to slap irons on the NPS LE Ranger
We will NOT see a Sheriff deputy and a federal agent going toe to toe with guns drawn instigated by the sheriff. Just like the 2nd amendment issues what kind of situation(s) could you see forcing a lawsuit by the sheriff or State? I think you have a great chance of seeing a state throwing the yoke of the Feds than one county. :twocents:
While it may not be up to the Sheriffs dept to determining law, LIBERAL enforcement in cites like Seattle and else where have set the precedence of "non enforcement" on issues ranging from Weed drug enforcement to illegal immigrants. If a more "Conservative" Sherrif wants to puff his chest back at the feds he isn't doing anything different than Those lead by others.
Post by: bigtex on December 29, 2013, 07:03:43 PM
Big Tex, What was the "reason" to slap irons on the NPS LE Ranger
We will NOT see a Sheriff deputy and a federal agent going toe to toe with guns drawn instigated by the sheriff. Just like the 2nd amendment issues what kind of situation(s) could you see forcing a lawsuit by the sheriff or State? I think you have a great chance of seeing a state throwing the yoke of the Feds than one county. :twocents:
The Chelan County Sheriff at that time didn't view the NPS LE Ranger as having LE authority.
Personally I would love to see a sheriff arrest a federal officer for performing their duties. Talk about a media circus and embarrassment for the county. I have been hearing for 30 years that some Sheriff (typically Utah) is going to arrest the fed, well its been 30 years and it's never happened, but hey it gets votes. NPS, USFS, BLM, and USFWS LEOs in Utah have been provided with a card that lists who to call when/if they are arrested by a sheriff for simply performing the federal duties. The list includes the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI for Utah, the US Attorney for Utah, the SAC for the respective agency and so on.
Post by: Greenhorn on December 29, 2013, 07:32:04 PM
http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/ (http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/)
Post by: huntrights on December 31, 2013, 09:38:48 AM
Here's that question again:
Who are the guardians of our rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights if not our elected representatives and officials that swore an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution?
Be very careful who you vote for regardless of your party affiliation.
Post by: Special T on December 31, 2013, 09:55:58 AM