Lesser Magistrate Declares Defiance of recently passed vote

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Re: Lesser Magistrate Declares Defiance of recently passed v

Postby bignflnut » Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:20 am

Fulfilling my promise to highlight the positive march of Liberty when it's out there...

Support for Second Amendment sanctuaries has gained momentum in recent weeks, especially among county boards in New Mexico and Illinois.

Sixty-three counties or municipalities in Illinois have passed some form of a firearms sanctuary resolution and more are likely to, Campbell said.

Twenty-five of New Mexico’s 33 counties have passed resolutions to support sheriffs who refuse to enforce any firearms laws that they consider unconstitutional, according to the New Mexico Sheriffs Association. In some cases hundreds of pro-gun activists have packed county commissioner meetings.

In Oregon, voters in eight counties approved Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances last November that allow sheriffs to determine which state gun laws to enforce.

Organizers in Oregon plan to put even more defiant “sanctuary ordinance” measures on county ballots in 2020 that will direct their officials to resist state gun laws.

Such sanctuary resolutions could face legal challenges but backers say they have yet to face a lawsuit, in part because the Washington initiative has yet to take effect and the Illinois and New Mexico legislation has yet to pass.

The chief counsel for a leading U.S. gun-control group questioned the legality of the sanctuary movement, saying state legislatures make laws and courts interpret them, not sheriffs.


God Bless these men and women who are willing to defy the tyrants in their midst!
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1774
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams 1798
Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 7165
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge

Re: Lesser Magistrate Declares Defiance of recently passed v

Postby bignflnut » Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:39 am

SANTA FE, N.M.—In swaths of rural America, county sheriffs, prosecutors and other local officials are mounting resistance to gun-control measures moving through legislatures in Democratic-led states.

The “Second Amendment sanctuary” movement has taken hold in more than 100 counties in several states, including New Mexico and Illinois, where local law-enforcement and county leaders are saying they won’t enforce new legislation that infringes on the constitutional right to bear arms.

SNIP

Nationwide, some see their battle as a conservative version of the “sanctuary” resistance to the Trump administration’s illegal-immigration crackdown led by Democratic mayors in major cities like New York and Los Angeles.

“If a state or city can become a sanctuary for illegal immigration, then we can become a sanctuary for Second Amendment rights,” said Russell Shafer, sheriff of Quay County in eastern New Mexico.



Some sheriffs have taken issue with the wider “sanctuary” movement. In a recent Facebook post, El Paso County Sheriff Bill Elder of Colorado said he would “defend the Second Amendment to the death” but questioned whether sheriffs should be the ones interpreting law. “Do people expect a Sheriff, a Chief of Police, a Mayor or ANY elected person to decide if a law is ‘constitutional’ or not?” he wrote.


Literally For Christ's Sake, YES!
That's one of the core principles of LIBERTY in this nation! Justice demands it.

Madison's answer was unequivocally in the negative, as he had made clear in The Federalist (No. 63). Hamilton also made some observations to like effect in The Federalist (No. 71), stating in part with regard to the principles of a Republic, or republican principles:

"The republican principle demands, that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests. It is a just observation, that the people commonly intend the PUBLIC GOOD. This often applies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulator, who should pretend that they always reason right about the means of promoting it. They know from experience, that they sometimes err; and the wonder is, that they so seldom err as they do; beset as they continually are by the wiles of parasites and sycophants by the snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate; by the artifices of men, who possess their confidence more than they deserve it, and of those who seek to possess, rather than to deserve it. When occasions present themselves in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection. Instances might be cited, in which a conduct of this kind has saved the people from very fatal consequences of their own mistakes, and has procured lasting monuments of their gratitude to the men, who had had courage and magnanimity enough to serve them at the peril of their displeasure."


This is precisely the case today ( the do-good-ers doing good for the sake of goodness /PUBLIC SAFETY) and this Bill Elder should be immediately disqualified from his office for he is not qualified to hold it.

Hamilton made a further, pertinent comment in number 78, in connection with the duty of public servants to avoid any violation of the Constitution and not to yield to any popular opinion of the moment which would involve such violation--instead, adhering to the Constitution as it exists at the time until the people properly amend it to suit their purposes: ". . . and no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act." An exceptionally enlightening statement of the governing principle involved--especially as to the limited authority of the courts under the constitutional system, chief of all the Supreme Court as the highest judicial authority--was made by the Supreme Court in the 1905 South Carolina case, quoting the 1857 Dred Scott case. Its statement is presented in a special section of the Appendix and it is believed that the reader will find it most interesting and instructive, meriting careful study. (See pages 291-293, post.)

Such unvarying fidelity by all public servants, as public trustees, to the Constitution--construed according to the original intent with which it was framed and adopted (as to the initial instrument and each amendment)--is required by the oath of office and is the prime requisite for the successful and enduring functioning of constitutionally limited government and, therefore, for the security of the people's liberties and the Republic.


What is Representative Government if not this, BILL?
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1774
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams 1798
Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 7165
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge

Re: Lesser Magistrate Declares Defiance of recently passed v

Postby bignflnut » Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:09 am

Gov. Steve Sisolak wants to work with rural Nevada sheriffs who have loudly opposed a recently signed expansion of gun background checks in the state.

Sisolak on Thursday issued a statement inviting local law enforcement officers to work with him over the coming months to find ways to enforce Senate Bill 143, which will soon subject almost all private gun sales and transfers to a state background check.

“My office and that of the attorney general are aware of the letters from multiple rural Nevada sheriffs regarding SB 143," Sisolak said in a statement from a spokeswoman. "While the law will not take effect until January 2020, I look forward to working with Attorney General (Aaron) Ford and local law enforcement over the next several months to review ways to enforce this law, as is the case with all other Nevada laws that elected officers are sworn to uphold.”


#Fail
Sisolak, elected officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution, you know, the SUPREME law of the land. These minor laws you are so proud of are a nuisance to the Constitution of Nevada and the US.

Bring your AG. Let's see how far you go with that.

(You know they're rattled when the enforcers revolt. How are they going to get the enforcers on board without enforcers? Thin blue line and such...)
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1774
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams 1798
Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 7165
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge

Re: Lesser Magistrate Declares Defiance of recently passed v

Postby bignflnut » Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:31 am

One thing we should note is that these are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is good to see officials following their oaths to defend the Constitution. Ultimately, that is where their primary loyalty must lie – not to any party, or to what is passed by the legislature. As John Marshall said in his Marbury v. Madison opinion, “the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature.”

There is a problem, though, but it is not with the intentions of those setting up the sanctuaries. The problem is how this is coming across. Already, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is calling the move a “childish pity party” by “rogue sheriffs” (never mind that all but four in the state are opposing her agenda) as she vows to pursue further gun control measures. Now, you and I both know that the objections are anything but “propaganda” and “bad faith,” but she has a lot of the media on her side.

In one sense, the big problem for Second Amendment supporters is to decide when to take the step of defying legislative laws that are in clear contradiction to the Second Amendment is warranted. In many states that have passed arbitrary bans on semi-automatic firearms, but allowed registration, Second Amendment supporters have refused to register those guns, a calculated act of civil disobedience to legislative law. But that is not enough.

Oh no, not the optics! (which are set up by a media formed against gun ownership and Rights, human flourishing and Liberty)
Another Governor rattling the sabres. Run away! Run Away!
Defying anti-Second Amendment laws is one of the more desperate options out there. It is easy to make the case to Second Amendment supporters about doing so with regards to “universal” background checks as they are a form of backdoor registration, but we must recognize that there is a much larger audience out there we must reach. We must convince our fellow citizens who are either not strongly on either side, or even leaning towards some measures to support, if not outright elimination of those unjust laws, then at least to start making them less onerous.


Desperate? To Hell with that. It's one of the more principled options out there. It's about damn time our elected officials grew a spine, recognized the war on their Rights and used their power to protect The People and their Constitution. Desperate? Pish.

Does this author understand that this is a political WAR? That civil disobedience is the next path forward? That "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy?

Playing at the edges of making a bad idea less onerous or accepting the framework that all gun owners are criminals is not a workable premise. It is antithetical to our Human Rights. Miss me with this noise.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1774
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams 1798
Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 7165
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge

Re: Lesser Magistrate Declares Defiance of recently passed v

Postby bignflnut » Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:24 am

It's spreading to Maryland...
Video snip embedded here
Chase Cook
The Capital, Annapolis, Md.

SALISBURY, Md. — Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis has a message for Maryland lawmakers if they pass legislation regulating ownership of rifles and shotguns: His office will not comply.

“The way the bill is written, it is impossible to comply,” Lewis said Monday. “I can’t send (my deputies) on a suicide mission.”

The Maryland county sheriff made those comments shortly after testifying in opposition to House Bill 786. He made similar comments in the overflow room watching hearings on gun legislation in the morning. Lewis was in downtown Annapolis all day Monday testifying against several different gun bills.

If any of those bills required his deputies to take away guns for law-abiding citizens, Lewis said he wouldn’t do it.

Videos of those comments were uploaded to social media. Maryland sheriffs are elected officials and sworn to uphold state laws and the U.S. Constitution.

House Bill 786 would regulate shotguns and hunting rifles similarly to handguns. It creates a long gun qualification license and forbids residents from buying or possessing those guns without the approved license. It also requires background checks on the private sales of long guns. Current law requires background checks on long guns when bought through licensed dealers.


The sheriffs of Worcester and Somerset counties have joined ranks with their Wicomico counterpart on speaking out against proposed state gun laws.

Worcester County Sheriff Matthew Crisafulli and Somerset County Sheriff Ronnie Howard both said they agree with Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis on his recent statements on gun control. Earlier this week, Lewis told state lawmakers he will not comply with any bill that restricts a person's Second Amendment right to bear arms.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1774
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams 1798
Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 7165
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge

Re: Lesser Magistrate Declares Defiance of recently passed v

Postby bignflnut » Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:32 am

More analysis of this pro Liberty trend.

This isn’t a “one-off,” issue—we’re talking about over 100 counties across several states. This indicates widespread popular support, support that is galvanizing locally elected Law Enforcement Officials to take notice—and take action. The article goes on,


SNIP

Most State Oaths of Office are pretty close to the above, first addressing fealty to the U.S. Constitution and only after, to the State Constitution and Laws.

Second, as A.R. Hawkins put it on Sirius Radio this morning, “No other rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are interpreted so as to allow the government to stand between the people and that right.”

I would add, that our Supreme Court seems to foster this by its willingness to “incorporate” every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights, except of course, the Second.

Where might this Revolt of the Sheriff’s lead? From my foxhole, it’s not all that hard to imagine a local sheriff who refuses to honor a state-issued confiscation order, being confronted by state officers. Such a situation could result in the sheriff and his deputies on one side, with state officers on the other. If God forbid there is a Democrat administration in D.C., we could possibly add ATF and/or FBI agents into the mix on the side of the state. Where might that lead?
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1774
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams 1798
Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 7165
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge

Re: Lesser Magistrate Declares Defiance of recently passed v

Postby WhyNot » Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 am

This has already happened past-tense in Ohio, and even is currently recently happening in Ohio

Recently, OAG legislator urges non compliance with EO...

https://www.journal-news.com/news/ohio- ... Ztleg6SqK/

And lest we ferget the extremely recent Gov Kasichich's veto. So recent I will not cite reports, but it is effectively the same kinda, we (OAG) will NOT do what you want and state so via our override.

OK Blast from the Past. Under Obama Admin...

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2013021 ... w-gun-laws

I attempted searching the Cincy paypa for the article , coudn't find it.


Our brothers at promulgating Ohioans 2A Rights the BFA had an article...Top portion 5 paragraphs or so says it all...

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8781

Seems our beloved OAG wasn't gonna allow the Ohio sheriff's to steal all the limelight...

https://www.dispatch.com/content/storie ... rules.html

There are other examples, but that's enough fer now.

Let freedom ring :!:
Acquisitions thus far:

Slingshot
Butter knife
Soda straw and peas
Sharpened pencil
Newspaper roll
water balloon (diversionary)

Yeah, I'm that good
WhyNot
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Lesser Magistrate Declares Defiance of recently passed v

Postby bignflnut » Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:41 am

County Commissioners in NC are declaring defiance of federal/state infringements.

Murphy – A 3-2 majority of the Cherokee County Board of Commissioners approved a resolution Monday night to declare this a “gun sanctuary county.”
The three-page resolution, written by Commissioner Dan Eichenbaum, runs through the history of constitutional law as it relates to the Second Amendment and the right to “keep and bear arms for self-defense, personal safety, protection of one’s family, and in defense of one’s community and county.”

SNIP

Sheriff Derrick Palmer expressed his support for the resolution. Palmer cited many statistics, including that someone uses a gun in self defense in the United States every 13 seconds. He added that many activists supporting gun control have acted out of “fear, emotions and knee-jerk reactions” since April 20, 1999, when Columbine High School
was attacked by two students.


Need the Sheriff on board with this...so that's positive.

Oh, baby! That's a resolution!
Therefore, the Cherokee County Government will not authorize or appropriate government funds, resources, employees, agencies, contractors, buildings, detention centers or offices for the purpose of enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of any element of such acts, laws, orders, mandates, rules or regulations, that infringe on the right by the people to keep and bear arms as described and defined in detail above.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1774
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams 1798
Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 7165
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge

Re: Lesser Magistrate Declares Defiance of recently passed v

Postby bignflnut » Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:21 am

If a sheriff cannot follow the law, the sheriff cannot do his or her job,” Phil Weiser, a Democrat, testified before a state Senate committee Friday. “The right thing to do for a sheriff who says ‘I can’t follow the law’ is to resign.”

SNIP

“Any commission that says ‘I don’t want my sheriff upholding an unconstitutional law,’ they’re on solid ground,” Weiser said, adding that he expects the question to go before a court.

But Weiser, whose job it is to defend Colorado statutes, says he believes that if the red flag bill becomes law as expected and is challenged, it will be found to be constitutional and therefore must be enforced.

Bottom line: Law enforcement will be legally bound to follow through on any “extreme risk protection order” — or ERPO, as it is known — issued by a court, Weiser says.

It’s important to note that law enforcement is not required to seek an extreme risk protection order against someone they believe is a risk to themselves or others. However, family members and others can also request a seizure order, which law enforcement would then be tasked with carrying out if a judges signs off.

“Because ERPO will be constitutionally upheld, every sheriff will be required and, I believe, will follow through to uphold an act under that law,” Weiser said, citing a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment does not prohibit guns from being restricted from people in distress.

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams, a vocal critic of the legislation whose county commissioners earlier this month voted to become a Second Amendment sanctuary, is among those who have vowed not to uphold and carry out the red flag law.

“If you pass an unconstitutional law our oaths as commissioners or myself as the sheriff — we’re going to follow our constitutional oath first,” Reams told Fox News. “And we’ll do that balancing act on our own.”


God Bless these Sheriffs.
We pray they will see it through.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1774
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams 1798
Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 7165
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge

Re: Lesser Magistrate Declares Defiance of recently passed v

Postby bignflnut » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:17 am

CNN Article...sorry...

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams disagrees so much with a gun bill making its way through the Colorado legislature that he's willing to go to jail rather than enforce it.

"It's a matter of doing what's right," he said.

He's not the only one who feels so strongly.

The controversial "red flag" bill aims to seize guns temporarily from people who are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others.

Colorado's state Senate passed the bill Thursday by a single vote, without any Republican support, and the bill is expected to pass the House, possibly this week. With Democratic majorities in both chambers, state Republicans have too few votes to stand in the way.

But more than half of Colorado's 64 counties officially oppose the bill. Many have even declared themselves Second Amendment "sanctuary" counties in protest.

Failure to enforce a court order to seize a person's guns could mean sheriffs being found in contempt. A judge could fine them indefinitely, or even send them to jail to force them to comply.

Reams says it's a sacrifice he'd be forced to make.

#HERO

The silent majority is joining the battle.
God Bless Sheriff Reams and the others who are defying tyrants.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1774
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams 1798
Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 7165
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge

Re: Lesser Magistrate Declares Defiance of recently passed v

Postby bignflnut » Mon May 13, 2019 3:11 pm

In more Lesser Magistrate Declaration pro RKBA news:

On a 4-1 vote, Foster became the fourth Rhode Island municipality to declare themselves a Second Amendment Sanctuary Town.

The Second Amendment Sanctuary Town movement in Rhode Island began in Burrillville two weeks ago. Hopkinton and West Greenwich followed suit. Richmond and Glocester are scheduled to take up the matter next week, and there was talk among some of the 2nd Amendment supporters in attendance at the Foster Town Council meeting last night that there are town and city councilmembers throughout the state interested in introducing similar resolutions.

What a Second Amendment Sanctuary Town is, is a matter of debate. Gun safety advocates, who would see Rhode Island tighten the laws around guns by passing three bills currently under review at the Rhode Island General Assembly, read the resolutions as allowing municipalities to “pick and choose” what laws they want to enforce and what laws they want to ignore.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1774
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams 1798
Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 7165
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge

Re: Lesser Magistrate Declares Defiance of recently passed v

Postby bignflnut » Thu May 23, 2019 8:42 am

In Colorado, nearly half of the state’s sheriff’s departments are in an uproar against a new “red flag” law that would require law enforcement officers to confiscate the firearms of any Coloradan who has been deemed unsuitable to retain his Second Amendment rights, and that would do so in a way that violates the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. One sheriff, in rural Weld County, is so concerned by the idea that he has vowed to go to prison rather than administer it. These warnings should serve as a clear indication that something has gone wrong with the way in which legislators have come to think about individual rights. In the Centennial State, the canaries are sending warnings up the shaft.

SNIP

The sheriffs who are openly discussing going to jail belong to the latter group—which, naturally, is not a comfortable place for them to be. By their nature, “red flag” laws require law enforcement officers to act proactively, immediately and without nuance or discretion. If, as is the case here, those law enforcement officers believe those laws to be unconstitutional, they are presented with a terrible choice: Violate the oath they took to uphold the Constitution, or refuse to follow their orders. In Colorado, we are seeing a sizeable number opt for the latter course.

SNIP

As is typically the case with gun control measures, “red flag” laws are sold to voters as riskless guarantors of public safety and come replete with the bad-faith accusations of villainy to which advocates of the Bill of Rights have become sadly accustomed. “If you oppose this idea,” critics are told, “then you must support terrible outcomes.” In Colorado and beyond, opponents have been told that they are bad people who desire the abuse of women, do not care about the death of police officers, covet a general reduction in public safety and so forth. Which, of course, is dangerous nonsense. If one so chooses, one can always demagogue support for the Bill of Rights into enthusiasm for nefarious behavior—and, indeed, the same people always do. In the eyes of the wannabe authoritarian, champions of the First Amendment are mere advocates of “hate speech” or “lobbying” or “religious intolerance”; champions of the Fourth are trying to ensure that criminals have a safe place to hide; champions of the Fifth want “the guilty to walk free” and the evil to “stay silent”; champions of the Sixth hope to permit defendants to “revictimize the accused” and so forth.

There is, as a matter of fact, not a single American liberty that cannot be cast in this light. (*Edited to add: painful double negative*) Depending on what the accuser is selling, the details may change. But the instinct most definitely does not. Thus it is that opposition to stripping rights away from Americans whose names have been placed unilaterally onto secret government lists is transmuted into support for “terrorists buying guns.” Thus it is that opposition to the government snooping around one’s social media and search histories is transmuted into support for “giving crazy people access to guns.” And thus it is that opposition to “red flag” laws that lack even basic protections for due process is transmuted into indifference toward women or children or anybody who is generally liked.

The correct response to this tactic is as simple as it is universally applicable: “No, I’m in favor of the Constitution.”


Now the misleading headline of the article, which caused me to click: Why NRA Is Raising A Red Flag Over "Red Flag" Laws
I can find no statement from any NRA poobah decrying Red Flag laws in this story. My memory conjures this video, however. That's 3/12/18

1/8/19 brings this detailed article full of cognitive dissonance.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1774
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams 1798
Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 7165
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge

Re: Lesser Magistrate Declares Defiance of recently passed v

Postby bignflnut » Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:40 am

Sheriff Mark Cage of Eddy County, New Mexico, indicates his deputies will not serve in the anti-gun, “personal Gestapo,” Robert “Beto” O’Rourke talks about sending around to confiscate guns.

O’Rourke has been clear in his support for a “mandatory,” government-enforced buyback of all AR-15 and AK-47 rifles. And he has been equally clear on his plans to send law enforcement personal to the homes of those who refuse to hand over their rifles.

On October 16, 2019, Breitbart News reported O’Rourke telling MSNBC that law enforcement will visit the non-compliant to “recover” rifles.

Sheriff Mark Gage is not in line with O’Rourke’s plan. In fact, Townhall quoted Cage saying, “I’m not sure whether his statements are naive or just plain ignorant and arrogant. Maybe it’s all three.”

Cage continued, “The thought of anyone utilizing my sheriff’s office or any other law enforcement agency in this country as their personal Gestapo to go door to door violating citizen’s rights is disgusting, unrealistic and downright un-American.”

Cage believes “bloodshed” will the be unavoidable outcome of O’Rourke’s plans, should they ever be put in place. He said, “Some of my constituents are already adopting the mantra of ‘Come take mine Beto!’…His rhetoric has gotten old and I look forward to the day when he shuts up.”
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1774
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams 1798
Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 7165
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge

Re: Lesser Magistrate Declares Defiance of recently passed v

Postby qmti » Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:50 am

bignflnut wrote:
Sheriff Mark Cage of Eddy County, New Mexico, indicates his deputies will not serve in the anti-gun, “personal Gestapo,” Robert “Beto” O’Rourke talks about sending around to confiscate guns.

O’Rourke has been clear in his support for a “mandatory,” government-enforced buyback of all AR-15 and AK-47 rifles. And he has been equally clear on his plans to send law enforcement personal to the homes of those who refuse to hand over their rifles.

On October 16, 2019, Breitbart News reported O’Rourke telling MSNBC that law enforcement will visit the non-compliant to “recover” rifles.

Sheriff Mark Gage is not in line with O’Rourke’s plan. In fact, Townhall quoted Cage saying, “I’m not sure whether his statements are naive or just plain ignorant and arrogant. Maybe it’s all three.”

Cage continued, “The thought of anyone utilizing my sheriff’s office or any other law enforcement agency in this country as their personal Gestapo to go door to door violating citizen’s rights is disgusting, unrealistic and downright un-American.”


Cage believes “bloodshed” will the be unavoidable outcome of O’Rourke’s plans, should they ever be put in place. He said, “Some of my constituents are already adopting the mantra of ‘Come take mine Beto!’…His rhetoric has gotten old and I look forward to the day when he shuts up.”

Now this is a common sense Sheriff.
qmti
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: Lesser Magistrate Declares Defiance of recently passed v

Postby bignflnut » Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:50 am

Arizona’s Mohave County declared “Second Amendment Sanctuary” status during Monday’s Board of Supervisors meeting.

KTAR reports the Second Amendment Sanctuary declaration means county supervisors stand with the sheriff, should he choose to refuse enforcement of gun controls deemed infringements on gun rights.

Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Hildy Angius commented on passage of the declaration, saying: “We have the support of the sheriff, and if it ever gets to the point where the courts would have to get involved because of gun laws implemented by the feds or the state, we would step up and fight them.”


Good for the Mohave County residents.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1774
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams 1798
Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 7165
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge

PreviousNext

Return to In The News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests