Professional Soldiers ® - Number Of Nation's Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws Snowballs

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- The Soapbox (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=93)

- - Number Of Nation's Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws Snowballs (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40708)

Number Of Nation's Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws Snowballs

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn...ional-gun-laws

Outstanding!! At least there are some that took their Oath and meant it. :lifter

White House to Sheriffs: Follow Law in Enforcing Gun Control Measures

Snip:

Quote:

CNSNews.com asked, “There have been 381 sheriffs that have signed on saying they would not enforce gun laws they believed were unconstitutional. Would the administration have a problem if local law enforcement did not enforce whatever gun package were to pass?”

Carney responded that he had not seen the list of sheriffs.

“I think as a general proposition we think that people ought to follow the law,” Carney told CNSNews.com. “As an absolute matter of fact in my view, and I think many other constitutional experts, there’s not a single measure in this package of proposals the president has put forward that in anyway violates the Constitution. In fact, they reflect the president’s commitment to our Second Amendment rights.”

<Link>

The Senate seems to be the Petri dish for these proposed "laws" that the Sheriffs will not enforce, so yeah, I guess there isn't a single measure in the package of proposals the POTUS has put forward. Sneaky doublespeaking mouthpiece.

I wonder what executive orders will come down the pike should further gun legislation be back-doored into future bills?

Quote:

Mack, who has previously won the NRA Law Officer of the Year, was inducted into the NRA Hall of Fame, and won the Gun Owners of America Defender of the Second Amendment Award, also contested Carney’s point that “people ought to follow the law.” Mack said that’s not true if the law contradicts the Bill of Rights.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...ntrol-measures

Quote:

“Every one of the sheriffs is going to follow the Constitution, not follow the president or the Supreme Court,” Mack said. “The Supreme Court has already ruled twice for the Second Amendment. The federal government has no right to tell me how many magazines I can have, how many guns I can have and how much ammunition I can have.”

To me there is a difference in following basic rules of grammar to interpret the Bill of Rights. How about "Shall Not be Infringed" for starters.

Grammar lessons vary...

Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures

March 27, 2013 | 1:22 pm | Modified: March 27, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Paul Bedard

Washington Secrets
The Washington Examiner

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 stating that they will not obey federal orders.

A gun lobbyist told Secrets, "Beware because once something like this is introduced in one state, it will be followed very quickly in several other states."

LINK to article

We need a constitutional amendment that says anyone proposing a law which infringes on our constitutional rights will be fired without pay, insurance benefits, and pension.

Glad to hear more Sheriff's are on board.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pcfixer (Post 498179)

To me there is a difference in following basic rules of grammar to interpret the Bill of Rights. How about "Shall Not be Infringed" for starters.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Well, around here, "words have meaning" we like to say. Since unambiguous communication is of little importance to you, it might interest you to know that in their dissents there were Justices who disagree with you.

Justice Stevens in dissent:
When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment … codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19 [refers to page 19 of the opinion], is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.

Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent:
When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”.

And finally, in a dissent authored by Justice Stevens and joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said:
"The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves".

Let me save you the effort of pointing out that these Justices are not in the Majority on this decision. Yes, they "lost". I caution you against interpreting that to mean they are wrong. There is a very good reason the SCOTUS issues "opinions". Opinions change, (as do posts:rolleyes:) and in the case of Heller, all it will take is one vote.
Heller is, assuredly, a departure from Cruikshank and Miller; but those cases are not overturned and thus still relevant. To call Heller a sea-change is a mistake. Rather just a first in a series of litigations MOO/YMMV.

Quote:

Carney responded that he had not seen the list of sheriffs.

“I think as a general proposition we think that people ought to follow the law,” Carney told CNSNews.com.

IMO -- This Administration should live by their OWN words. One of the most blatant disregards for the law is the political games with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. The continual lack of integrity and legalese is quite frankly ... nauseating.

I, for one, am grateful for the position the sheriffs have taken. I hope more Americans continue to do the same.

Since words have meanings and all....

The judge is wrong....

Quote:

Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves".

Why does, ".....the right of the People shall not be infringed." need to be more expanded? The Militia was every able bodied male in a certain age range.
Why is it that in every other amendment except the 2nd, the People, means everyone....?

Unfortunately, authoring by committee tends to degrade intent.

As James Madison first delivered the proposed amendments to comprise the Bill of Rights, what became the 2nd Am was:

Quote:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stargazer (Post 498192)

The hell you say! Uncle Sugar has got that there illegal immigration thing whipped! :D

Senators watch as woman hops border fence (Fox News Link)

Tell me about it Stargazer. I can't watch TV without seeing this Health4all

:rolleyes:

Why we (insured) paid $5000 to Kaiser when we had our first child and illegals birth babies in our hospitals with no intention of paying is beyond me :mad:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dozer523 (Post 498191)

I will not be so presuptous to say they lost or were wrong. I think opinion is a better word. I don't see the dissent as being unambiguous as your statement.

Seems to me the Supreme court rules very narrowly on what is before them.

Even Alan Gura can't get across to all judges. What I write is my point of view and understanding the meaning of 2nd Amendment.

http://www.americanlawyer.com/PubArt..._Battles_Ahead

I'm sure there are many posting of what Heller court really meant.

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html

Quote:

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose

Quote:

This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the drafting history reveals three proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts, and legislators from ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s interpretation.

No precedent forecloses this interpretation. United States v. Miller limits the type of weapons to which the right applies to those in common use for lawful purposes, but does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes

Quote:

The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time

The above quote is often taken out of context by the left. As the left only state the first sentence. So, I would submit that it's out of context with the rest of the paragraph.

So, Has any court really held that "Shall not be infringed" part of the second amendment?

So the press are the only ones with a right of free speach?

It would seem any ban on any weapons currently in the hands of law abiding citizens is going to have to be enforced by "federal" agents. Should be amusing to watch, I sure hope they make it a reality show.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badger52 (Post 498186)

Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures

Sheriffs don't work for the state; they are elected by the citizens of the county. And measures such as this are the reason why.

Pat