Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 

Don't forget we need breathalyzer tests when they return from lunch. It seems an awful lot of them are legislating while impaired.




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by QuantumCypher
 


I believe that a constitutionally elected sheriff could be "fired" just as easy as we the people could "fire" the President of the US.
Do they wish to start a war or match wits?
Both pursuits are foolish.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 03:08 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.

It is called nullification and is very legal.
Stupid or unconstitutional laws should not be obeyed, it is our right and responsibility.

I think the whole "firing" people for obeying the law of the land idea has been put to bed, it'll not happen.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Is Lone Wolf McQuade still with the Rangers...he'll have something to say about all this. I mean the Texans took on the whole Mexican Army; what chance do the feds have?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by QuantumCypher
 


Can we say abuse of power?

Sheriff's are elected in this country...

What's good for the good is good for the gander, which is to say I want to see laws that would make it a law violation / treason to offer any law that restricts any constitutional rights.

Leave it to the Democrats to go down kicking and screaming when they don't get what they want...

what's next, disbanding the Sheriff's offices of those who fail to comply?

Time for people to get loud and tell your representatives what you think. Get involved people. You are the last option to make the changes needed in a civil manner.



Originally posted by g146541

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.

It is called nullification and is very legal.
Stupid or unconstitutional laws should not be obeyed, it is our right and responsibility.

I think the whole "firing" people for obeying the law of the land idea has been put to bed, it'll not happen.


If you are referring solely to US law nullification is not legal. As a matter of fact the Supreme Court has never even ruled on it, as they have rejected it out of hand.

As much as Wikipedia annoys me, they at least did a decent job on the court cases involved -
Nullification

With this being said, a more realistic legal argument should be made based on injuries to separation of powers in addition to an over reach of the federal government into the realm of states rights. Anything not specifically listed to the Federal Government is reserved to the states.
edit on 27-3-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I say we close all loopholes pertaining to the Constitution and hang anyone who challenges it or attempts changing it


WHAT SAY YOU?
edit on 27-3-2013 by SPECULUM because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPECULUM
I say we close all loopholes pertaining to the Constitution and hang anyone who challenges it or attempts changing it


WHAT SAY YOU?
edit on 27-3-2013 by SPECULUM because: (no reason given)


God Save the Queen?

We cant overreact as that ultimately proves more futile than the first action



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by SPECULUM
I say we close all loopholes pertaining to the Constitution and hang anyone who challenges it or attempts changing it


WHAT SAY YOU?
edit on 27-3-2013 by SPECULUM because: (no reason given)


God Save the Queen?

We cant overreact as that ultimately proves more futile than the first action


I believe our forefathers allowed for this action ,they were really smart



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   
The sheriff is elected by people in the county. Supporting a law that is in opposition of the constitution of the United States is not their job. If their voters support the Sheriff, I don't think it is legal for the feds or state to fire him for protecting their right to bear arms.

Trouble is that the legal system that we have here in America is far from fair. I guess the system is designed to protect deceivers and not honest people.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


Maybe thats the game plan and the sublime threat, that they will start deputizing citizens to stand against the government......or am I living a fantasy again



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPECULUM
I believe our forefathers allowed for this action ,they were really smart


Only when the Government has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the people and ONLY when all other measure have been exhausted. We should take a poll on this site -

Question #1
- Do you believe the Government has failed in its task to represent the will of the people?

Question #2
- Do you vote in all elections - Federal, State and Local - consistently?

If people answer #1 Yes and answer #2 no - You are part of the problem (not you specifically).

Its easy to find fault / flaws...
Coming up with solutions and applying them is the next step - which is harder.

To borrow part of a quote -

..... do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.


Replacing our Government, in theory and based on all current actions by them, will solve nothing if "We the People" are unwilling to get involved and hold our elected officials accountable.

In that case there is no present nor future... just the past repeating itself over and over and over...



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   
so they are now trying to make it illegal to obey the constitution!

the constitution limits the powers of the federal government!

which means they cant pass any gun laws, the 2nd amendment forbids it!

"the right of the people" is used in a few amendments, but some how the 2nd ,we are told, doesnt apply to individuals.

somehow " shall not be infringed" means, we can infringe on your gun rights!

any body with 1/2 a brain can read the 2nd amendment and easily see its meaning!

also the constitution gives states certain powers over the federal government. so they can legally resist any gun laws.

so the idiot trying to even bring this bill forward should be thrown out of office for betraying thier oath to defend the constitution!



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
I personally feel that ..............

"Laws that apply to the people.......
.......Should be voted on By The PEOPLE".

Have votes just like an election. It would slow down their push to rush unrealistic and corrupt laws through. Why shoul a select few have the right to decide the fate of mankind?



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 07:48 AM
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.


And you are exactly wrong.

Every person holding a public office swears an oath to uphold & defend the Constitution, federal, state or both, depending on their office. They did NOT swear an oath to their boss, whoever that may be. If a 'law', statute or code violates the Constitution, it is null & void.

It is every person's responsibility to measure each order they are given against the Constitution. If an order is found to violate the Constitution, they are *obligated*, *duty-bound* and out-right REQUIRED to ignore it... otherwise their solemn oath to the Supreme Law of the Land is meaningless.

The Founders didn't put the requirement of the oath in the Constitution just so it could be ignored.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by SPECULUM
I believe our forefathers allowed for this action ,they were really smart


Only when the Government has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the people and ONLY when all other measure have been exhausted. We should take a poll on this site -

Question #1
- Do you believe the Government has failed in its task to represent the will of the people?

Question #2
- Do you vote in all elections - Federal, State and Local - consistently?

If people answer #1 Yes and answer #2 no - You are part of the problem (not you specifically).

Its easy to find fault / flaws...
Coming up with solutions and applying them is the next step - which is harder.

To borrow part of a quote -

..... do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.


Replacing our Government, in theory and based on all current actions by them, will solve nothing if "We the People" are unwilling to get involved and hold our elected officials accountable.

In that case there is no present nor future... just the past repeating itself over and over and over...
Ummm...To answer your poll questions...Yes and Yes. Unfortunatly what I find is that a rather large segment of society votes based on emoting, or simple parroting rather than objective research. Case in point the last election. It seems to me that saturating minds with endless "programming" and pacifying with endless toys has worked admirably. I have to salute the sheer genius of whoever concocted the system...however much I detest it... What percent of the population do you think actually "makes", the time and actively participates in shaping their future...beyond "go along to get along", or acquescence? Could it be 10% or closer to 5%? The number who actively participated in the last revolution as history repeats...

YouSir
edit on 28-3-2013 by YouSir because: I made a boo boo



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
The Sheriff of my county released this:



Clark County Sheriff's Office (IL) · 3,412 like this January 17 at 9:28am · **A MESSAGE FROM SHERIFF JERRY PARSLEY** I have received multiple private messages inquiring about my stance on the recent firestorm of gun control issues coming from Washington D.C. and Springfield IL. In addition I have spoken with many people asking my position regarding this issue. Let me start by saying that the safety and security of the people of Clark County is first and foremost in any decisions I make. For anybody that knows me they most likely already know my position on the 2nd Amendment. For those that don’t, let me make it clear. I am a VERY strong proponent of a person’s right to defend themself, their families and their homes. In my 31 years with the Sheriff’s Office I have went on several calls where residents have had to defend themselves, and they were well within their rights in doing so. As your Sheriff I take the responsibility in assuring that the law protecting you and protecting your rights are maintained. I have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and will do just that. Although we have had terrible tragedies in our country the evil people committing these atrocities are the ones that must be held accountable, not law abiding citizens. That being said, this Office will not enforce any unconstitutional law or Executive Order in that regard. It would appear that we are a long way from either happening, however I believe no man made law can take away a person’s God given right to defend themself! I hope this clears up any questions which any of you may have had. If you have any questions please feel free to call me personally at the Sheriff’s Office or send a private message which will be forwarded to me. Sincerely, Sheriff Jerry Parsley



As long as he is standing for me, I will stand for him.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
How about local and state laws for firing anyone for obeying an obvious* Unconstitutional Law or Order?

* "Obvious" being self explanatory and not requiring the courts to decide.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Sheriffs have constitutional authority in this country and the gun grabbing communism pushers better understand that. They are the only officials elected by the people and the people aren't going to fire them.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dekard1138
"the right of the people" is used in a few amendments, but some how the 2nd ,we are told, doesnt apply to individuals.


2 Supreme Court cases resolved this issue -

First up is -
District of Columbia vs. Heller - 2008
Summary borrowed from Wikipedia page -

Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.


Second up -
McDonald vs. Chicago - 2010
Summary borrowed from Wikipedia page -

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.


I am thinking we all need to send our elected officials copies of the Us Constitution in addition to a person who can read and explain it to them.

Secondly they need to be reminded they took an Oath of Office and not an Oath of Party.

Third we need to fire every single member of Congress, we need to explain to the Democrats and Republicans that this nation belongs to us and not their individual parties and that the days of partying on our credit card are over with.

People want the change - get involved.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by YouSir
 


2 quotes come to mind -


"Those who are willing to give up a little freedom for a little security, wind up with neither freedom, nor security".


and


When Franklin got out of the constitutional convention, he was asked "what kind of government have you created a Republic or a Monarchy?" His response was "A Republic, if you can keep it."


Our Government was founded on the base that the people must be in control of the government through participation in that government. To hold people accountable, and to remove them from office by the vote.

We have term limits in this country - they are called elections.


Example -
Sen. Charles Schumer -

"So I would urge my Republican colleagues, no matter how strong they feel — you know, we have three branches of government: we have a House, the Senate, we have a President, and all three of us are going to have to come together and give some."


Rep. Nancy Pelosi -

A constitutional majority is 51 votes,” Pelosi said in an interview Tuesday with Roll Call. “If in fact the Republicans are going to say nothing can be done except by 60 percent, then maybe we all should be elected with 60 percent. It isn’t legitimate in terms of passing legislation.”



“I think he should [declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional],”

Apparently, while serving as Representative and Speaker of the House, she missed this part of the constitution -

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 - The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


I am sure someone can find the same issues with Republicans.

My point is even after demonstrating they are completely clueless about the Constitution, we still vote to send them back to Washington.

Our relationship with our politicians reminds me of a Domestic Violence problem(im not trivializing Domestic Violence). It does not matter how often they beat us, in the end we end up saying - Don't take him/her to jail... I love him/her...

How can we hold the Government responsible when we cant even responsibly participate in our Government?
edit on 28-3-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join