Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures


washingtonexaminer.com

Supporters of the 380 sheriffs in 15 states who so far have vowed to defy new state and federal gun control laws claim that legislation is starting to pop up around the nation to fire any state elected or appointed law enforcement official who doesn't obey federal orders.

The first effort emerged in Texas. Legislation proposed by Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws.

What's more, it would remove any elected or appointed law enforcement officer for simply stating or signing any document stati
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I think this is wrong. These Sherriffs are trying to do what they believe is right, which is to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which they believe is being attacked by the new gun control laws the various states are trying to propose. And being as they are locally ELECTED law enforcement, it seems a simple matter that if the LOCAL general populace doesn't agree with them, they simply won't re-elect them. To me this seems more of an attempt by government to force feed the public laws and remove any opposition that stands in their way.

washingtonexaminer.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by QuantumCypher
 
Just because legislation is introduced does not mean it will be voted in, enacted or enforced. Any idiot legislator can introduce whatever goofy bill they want, but in the state of Texas there is no way this crazy lady will get enough supporting votes to pass it.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
We have a process in place to change laws we don't agree with. Until that happens though a law enforcement person needs to follow the laws on the books.

You can't have people simply picking and choosing what laws they want to follow. It would lead to chaos.


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
How about we start passing laws that make it a crime, federal or otherwise, to fire and or imprison people we elect to office that do not support and defend the constitution? How about we pass laws to "Monitor" said representatives to insure they are doing their job? How about we pass laws requiring said people to pass drug tests before entering office? How about we pass laws that stipulate that congressmen and women, and senate, are paid by their respective states? How about we pass laws that all elected officials pass background checks before they take office?

So the criminals run our country, federal state and local. And of course they are going to go after the only Law enforcement that is constitutional.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Interesting. So they would have to enforce federal immigration law. Oops, didn't think of that.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by QuantumCypher
 


Then such lawmakers should be arrested under usc 242 title 18

www.law.cornell.edu...


Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; ...


It's only fair.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by QuantumCypher
 
Just because legislation is introduced does not mean it will be voted in, enacted or enforced. Any idiot legislator can introduce whatever goofy bill they want, but in the state of Texas there is no way this crazy lady will get enough supporting votes to pass it.



So then would you say it is ok for elected representatives to propose obvious anti constitutional legislation, and it is also ok for elected law enforcement to also publically denounce it and state they wont uphold it?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by QuantumCypher
 


I'm sure most already know this, but you canbt fire the sheriff. This position itself carries more constitutional authority than any other government position. Including President of the USA. He is considered the last line of defense against tyranny as he is the direct voice of the community over which he serves. They cant throw them out if WE DON"T LET THEM. He can deputize every citizen of the county. At that point, you have supreme constitutional authority on said county only superceded by the sheriff him/herself by order of the United States Constitution.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 



We have a process in place to change laws we don't agree with. Until that happens though a law enforcement person needs to follow the laws on the books.

You can't have people simply picking and choosing what laws they want to follow. It would lead to chaos.


We also have this thing called "The Constitution" that our elected criminals in office swear to uphold!!!!

Need I say more?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
.
So then would you say it is ok for elected representatives to propose obvious anti constitutional legislation, and it is also ok for elected law enforcement to also publically denounce it and state they wont uphold it?


I don't think it's right, but it's done at the federal level all of the time so idiots in the state legislatures are just doing what they've seen the feds get away with- that doesn't mean it will fly though. As far as elected law enforcement denouncing and stating that they wont uphold laws that are unconstitutional? Aren't they elected to serve and protect? In my book that includes our constitutional rights.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
We have a process in place to change laws we don't agree with. Until that happens though a law enforcement person needs to follow the laws on the books.

You can't have people simply picking and choosing what laws they want to follow. It would lead to chaos.

When a law is UnConstitutional, you do not have to follow it. The supreme court even ruled on that. I will say that just because the supremes do rule on something doesn't automatically make it right; but that ruling is correct. An UnConstitutional law can never be "legal" in the US without changing the Constitution.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


The higher ups are already "picking and choosing" which laws they choose to enforce. Holder has said that the Justice Department will not protect or enforce the DOMA Act, and are doing their best to prevent states from enforcing immigration laws (which by the way, ARE constitutional.) So by your argument, we should be going after Holder, an appointee, not an elected official. What's good for the goose...



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Sounds like the feds, gov, alphabet agencies have future plans all set and are doing whatever they can to have everyone & everything in check when the shtf.

Go figure



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
We have a process in place to change laws we don't agree with. Until that happens though a law enforcement person needs to follow the laws on the books.

You can't have people simply picking and choosing what laws they want to follow. It would lead to chaos.


I know right we need to fire some elected officials who are in favor of "sanctuary cities".

That would solve a lot of our immigration problem right there.

Hell, start with Barrack who ordered ICE to not enforce the law...isn't he the chief LEO in America?

Can he be fired (oh how I wish that were so..)?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis just committed political suicide IMO.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
We have a process in place to change laws we don't agree with. Until that happens though a law enforcement person needs to follow the laws on the books.

You can't have people simply picking and choosing what laws they want to follow. It would lead to chaos.


Why not? The feds do it daily, law makers do it everytime they even oropose unconstitutional legislation, and continue doing it without repercussions.

Americans have begun to notice there is no law or order, there are regular folks who get charged and convicted without ever seeing or talking to a lawyer, there are many instances of folks being railroaded to keep the prisons full, there are many cases of cradle to convict judicial processes, inckuding judges making monetary bets on who can sentence the most years faster etc...

This isnt including the complete lack of knowledge about what happens when law enforcement or soldiers just follow orders. This has led to many instances of human rights abuses and violations, up to and including crimes against humanity.

All under the authority of the law.

Law doesnt make legal what is illegal. Only by those of us who stand up to, and let be known we will not be bolled over amd abused do we let them know the error of their ways.

I suppose the leos should have enforced discrimination laws back in the civil rights movement also right?

I mean it was a law after all, that black men werent allowed to drink from the whites only drinking fountains, surely then there is nothing wrong with the leos beating blacks to enforce the law.
edit on 27-3-2013 by inverslyproportional because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Firing police for keeping true to the constitution... Makes me want to puke.


-SAP-
edit on 27-3-2013 by SloAnPainful because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


Actually, I think most of those would be a good idea. I would also think a "you have to actually read what you are passing into law for the citizenry before you are allowed to vote on it" would be a great idea. Maybe even have a quiz (we could make it easy, multiple guess) before they were allowed to vote.

And most importantly, they should be held to ALL the same laws they pass for the rest of us.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


I would agree in THEORY, but in California they already have Sheriffs who allow the Feds to come in and violate the state's allowance of stores that sell a product allowed by state law but prohibited by federal law. And the people allow it. One of those "In a perfect world" scenarios, but if we lived in a perfect world this situation wouldn't have popped up in the first place.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join