No Gun Control In This Area Of Operation!
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 3 months ago
Mike at Sipsey Street Irregulars gives us a nice report about a real Sheriff.
“My office will not comply with any federal action which violates the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore uphold.”
And far from worrying about repercussions for doing this, Peyman sees the gun control push as a sign of weakness that will crumble in the face of real opposition: “Just a few of us have to be willing to stand up to political opposition putting our people at risk. The other side will back down.”
Rock on, brother Peyman. And you’re right. The statists will back down when they see the horrible cost and the impossible task of implementing their unconstitutional laws. This isn’t the only report of massive resistance.
Other law enforcement officials, like numerous state legislatures, are pursuing nullification in an effort to void any unconstitutional statutes within their jurisdictions. Gilberton Borough, Pennsylvania, Police Chief Mark Kessler, for example, is asking local lawmakers to adopt the “Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance,” which cites the state and U.S. constitutions to invalidate any further assaults on the unalienable rights of residents in his community.
“Hopefully this will spread like fire throughout the country, and the people will stand up and say, you know what, enough is enough, and under the Tenth Amendment, which grants the power of nullification of unconstitutional laws, we’re going to recognize this as unconstitutional, we’re not going to enforce it, we’re going to make sure this doesn’t happen,” Chief Kessler told The New American in an interview, adding that the Second Amendment was clear. “We want to do this peacefully, we don’t want any kind of violence whatsoever — I’m totally against that — I just want to see a peaceful resolution to this. And under the Tenth Amendment, hopefully we can accomplish this through the nullification process.”
Elected county sheriffs are also expected to be on the front line in any potential showdown between an out-of-control executive branch and the American people. Former Graham County, Arizona, Sheriff Richard Mack already has experience protecting residents in his jurisdiction from federal lawlessness. And he says that as the top law enforcement officers in their jurisdictions — with power to arrest federal agents for violating the law — sheriffs have a duty to protect the people and their liberties.
“The sheriffs need to be united in letting the federal government know that we’re not going to allow it,” he told WorldNetDaily in a recent interview. “Out of 200 sheriffs with whom I’ve met, I’ve only had one give me a wishy-washy answer. That one said he would try to take the federal government to court. Most of them have said they would lay down their lives first rather than allow any more federal control. They also said they would do everything they could to stop gun control and gun confiscation…. If the federal government wants to start a new Civil War, all they need to do is go ahead with gun confiscation.”
And just like I predicted would happen, states are looking for ways to preempt federal regulations. They (i.e., the federal agents) will know we’re serious when state police begin arresting the agents for attempting to enforce federal laws within the borders of their particular states. Some cooling off time in the state penitentiary might be just what the DHS agents need.
On January 14, 2013 at 4:49 pm, scott s. said:
Well, it sounds a bit like attempts to evade the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act which involved defiance of requirement to allow slave owners or their agents to reclaim runaways. Ultimately the law was enforced by federal marshals and district courts, and the USSC in Ableman v. Booth declared federal courts to have supremacy notwhistanding any state court action.
On January 14, 2013 at 5:35 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Oh, I don’t doubt that U.S. courts wouldn’t like this view. Ultimately it would depend on whether local LEOs and citizens allow the feds to enforce unconstitutional laws or not.
On January 15, 2013 at 12:22 am, John Cunningham said:
Any gun confiscations would be a declaration of civil war. Patriots should resolve to stand their ground, and take a couple of Feds to Valhalla along with us. as Captain John Parker told him militiamen at Lexington Green in 1775,
“Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”
On January 15, 2013 at 12:29 am, Dusty said:
“And just like I predicted would happen, states are looking for ways to preempt federal regulations. They (i.e., the federal agents) will know we’re serious when state police begin arresting the agents for attempting to enforce federal laws within the borders of their particular states. Some cooling off time in the state penitentiary might be just what the DHS agents need.”
I’d prefer to see local and state police, detain and disarm agents, and issue arrest warrants for the DHS managing officers, or whomever issued the unconstitutional orders these agents were attempting to enforce, and follow through with the arrests. If it came from a regional office out-of-state, or even higher up the ladder than that, coordinate with the appropriate state by requesting extradition.
On January 15, 2013 at 12:40 am, elkh1 said:
Gun Prohibition will go as well as last century’s Alcohol Prohibition.
On January 15, 2013 at 12:47 am, Ron Nord said:
“…They also said they would do everything they could to stop gun control and gun confiscation…. If the federal government wants to start a new Civil War, all they need to do is go ahead with gun confiscation.” If a two-bit rat thinks the 2nd Amendment is something that won’t be protected, he’s very much mistaken. Everyone who signed the Constitution was armed or had ready access to arms and it would be they if they were still alive who would call for war against those that would make themselves Dictator.
On January 15, 2013 at 1:19 am, Thomas said:
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.
We the people in the United States that abide by the laws that understand right from wrong, and in many cases cannot wait for the law to be on our side have the right to carry a firearm of our choice to protect our families. We live in a country that finds it okay that when a person breaks into our home in the get hurt, they can sue us! We live in a country that when someone calls us and tells us they’re going to come and kill us there is nothing the police will do until the person is at our front door! We live in a country that thinks a restraining order is really going to stop the person that’s been beating his wife and the police won’t respond until he’s either in the act of beating her or she’s already dead! We live in a country where our own government sits on their high horses live in the good life while many of us are having to work two in three jobs just to put food on the table! The reason we have the right to bear arms is to keep our own government at bay and the problem that we have right now is that our government doesn’t stand for the people anymore they stand for themselves. We live in a country that when things go bad. We point the finger at media, TV, video games and the government steps in and tells us how we can raise her children, and when our children are great and do great things. The parents get all of the praise but when our kids go out and kill and harm one another. Well, it’s kind of hard to blame the parents. Now, isn’t it because the governments told us that we can’t do anything they tell us to say things like, that’s not right, don’t do that anymore or go stand in timeout! I guess I’m just a dumb hillbilly and I don’t know about you guys but it seems like this big government. We have can’t take care of itself. How in the hell is it going to take care of me!
Sincerely, an American that gives a damn
On January 15, 2013 at 6:34 am, glissmeister said:
Did you forget that the Constitution’s framers saw the condition of misdemeanor as such a threat to the nation and the common interest they gave it equivalence to high crimes, stating both specifically as grounds for impeachment of a sitting president?
Misdemeanor is the murky no-man’s land between mental illness and criminality; the domain of narcissistic personality disorder and other malignancies of narcissism and related sociopathy.
Only a sociopath would demand the innocent be forcibly disarmed. The less remorse, the more apparent the malignancy of the misdemeanor.
It is becoming apparent to me we have before us, the following person in the White House:
“President Misdemeanor and Carpetbagger-In-Chief.”
What is apparent to you?
On January 15, 2013 at 7:30 am, John Stephens said:
If the States really want to toss a wrench in the works, they should pass laws forbidding the use of State personnel and facilities to enforce Federal gun control laws. No local police for traffic control, no using local stations for staging areas, and no federal prisoners booked into local jails. Make them do ALL the work on their own.
On January 15, 2013 at 7:56 am, MarkJ said:
I truly pity any NY LEO who’s expected by these Democrat idiots to enforce this stuff:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/14/ap-sources-new-york-has-tentative-deal-on-gun-control/
On January 15, 2013 at 10:55 am, Sarge said:
I’m sadly economically trapped (good job, nice house with an impressive mortgage to match) in the thoroughly pussified state of California. Somehow I don’t see my local Sheriff or our state Legislature having any intent to protect my rights – – far from it, considering the noises now coming from Sacramento.
On January 15, 2013 at 2:53 pm, James Solbakken said:
The Fugitive Slave Acts were made pursuant to that evil provision in the Constitution which said that Congress had power to protect the ownership rights of slavers in all states, not just slave ones. That episode was an example of the People exercising their POWER to CHANGE the constitution IN THE JURY BOX!!!
Only the People have this plenary power over the Constitution, and only in the jury box. It is a negatory veto power. See the Fully Informed Jury Assn.
Federal gun laws are essentially unconstitutional on their face because 1) There is no enumerated grant of power to regulate guns, and 2) the 2nd Amendment expressly forbids any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
Only the People could directly, legally, confront the Fugitive Slave Act(s); Anyone in government at any level has Constitutional authority to see as null and void any federal gun laws.