Utah Sheriff's Unite: Send Obama Letter- 'We Are Prepared To 'Trade Our Lives'-Refusing Any Federal Gun Confiscation' (enemy, treason)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
all the truly responsible gun owners in this country.
I am a very responsible gun owner. I will not allow them to confiscate my 30 round magazines for my mini-14 and WW2 M1 Carbines or my 17 round magazines for my Glock's. That is what they are attempting to propose in New York State. It is my right to own them.
Sarah Palin warned what could happen back in Sept of 08.
I am a very responsible gun owner. I will not allow them to confiscate my 30 round magazines for my mini-14 and WW2 M1 Carbines or my 17 round magazines for my Glock's. That is what they are attempting to propose in New York State. It is my right to own them.
I understand your feelings, but I will do my fighting at the ballot box as long as we still have a vote.
You have the right to the firearm but the government has the right to regulate firearms too, as goes by the original intent of the 2nd amendment when combined with how the founding father's excercised its usage with the Milita Acts of 1792. While in that case they required households to have a a firearm with a certain amount of ammuniton plus attend "muster" twice a year.
The 2nd amendment is not "absolute freedom" to do as you please with firearms. and even one of the most consverative justices ever, Anthony Scalia, has stated that to be a fact. If you disagree with him, then so be it. But the government has the full right to regulate firearms. They just can not confiscate all firearms. Heck, the NRA in the Heller case wouldn't even touch "regulation" when asked by the Supreme Court if this was one one of their arguements because they were afraid of what the Supreme Court would say. They just wanted the complete "ban" to be overturned.
Even the good ol' days of the wild west had "regulated" gun free zones where you had to check in your firearms with the local sherrif. Completely Constitutional. You can disagree, but that is your opinion and history is against you.
But again, no one is going to take your firearms away.
This is the boldest resistance AND wording I have seen yet in defying Obama's executive orders. They are prepared to 'fight till the death' if the Second Amendment is not kept to it's traditional meaning. This is the kind of leadership we gun advocates and Second Amendment rights preservers have been looking for in order to combat this treachery the president (usurper) has unleashed on us, the American constitutional patriot. All it takes is one or two states to start it with bold defiant action (like the Utah Sheriff's association) and others will follow. I stand behind the Utah Sheriff' and my constitutional right to bear arms.
Oh no, you mean Obama is his losing his support in Utah? Wait a minute, Utah didn't vote for Obama. Well then, I guess Obama is just going to have to tell those Utah Sheriffs to go F themselves.
Oh no, you mean Obama us his losing his support in Utah? Wait a minute, Utah didn't vote for Obama. Well then, I guess Obama is just going to have to tell those Utah Sheriffs to go F themselves.
For some reason I don't think these same Utah sheriffs would be so up in arms if Romney had won, even though he did more to curtail guns as Massachusetts governor than Obama has done as president.
Ok. Is there some online virtual world that you guys hang out in? Seriously, Hollywood B-rate movie writers couldn't even come up with this stuff...
Actually I am right. The sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county. Within that jurisdiction – inside his county – the sheriff has more power than the governor of his state. Indeed, the sheriff has more power in his county than the President of the United States. In his county, he can overrule the President and kick his people out.
Case in point:
Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898)
Case Summary
Jay Printz, a law enforcement officer from Arizona, sued to challenge the constitutionality of the Brady Act provision that required him and other local chief law enforcement officials (CLEOs) to conduct background checks on prospective gun purchasers. Printz and other officials won at the district court, but the Court of Appeals found the Brady Act constitutional. They then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court's Decision
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Brady Act provision was unconstitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He stated that early federal statutes did not suggest that Congress thought it had the power to direct the actions of State executive officials. Also, the overall structure of the Constitution implies that Congress may not direct State officials: “The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States.” Finally, although it is the President's job under the Constitution to oversee execution of federal laws, “The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control….”
“. . . The great innovation of this design was that ‘our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other’” – “a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.” (P. 920)
Scalia quotes President James Madison, “father” of the Constitution: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.”
Scalia adds: “This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty: ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’. . .” Gregory, 501 U.S. at 458.
Oh no, you mean Obama us his losing his support in Utah? Wait a minute, Utah didn't vote for Obama. Well then, I guess Obama is just going to have to tell those Utah Sheriffs to go F themselves.
Actually I am right. The sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county. Within that jurisdiction – inside his county – the sheriff has more power than the governor of his state. Indeed, the sheriff has more power in his county than the President of the United States. In his county, he can overrule the President and kick his people out.
Case in point:
Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898)
Case Summary
Jay Printz, a law enforcement officer from Arizona, sued to challenge the constitutionality of the Brady Act provision that required him and other local chief law enforcement officials (CLEOs) to conduct background checks on prospective gun purchasers. Printz and other officials won at the district court, but the Court of Appeals found the Brady Act constitutional. They then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court's Decision
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Brady Act provision was unconstitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He stated that early federal statutes did not suggest that Congress thought it had the power to direct the actions of State executive officials. Also, the overall structure of the Constitution implies that Congress may not direct State officials: “The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States.” Finally, although it is the President's job under the Constitution to oversee execution of federal laws, “The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control….”
“. . . The great innovation of this design was that ‘our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other’” – “a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.” (P. 920)
Scalia quotes President James Madison, “father” of the Constitution: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.”
Scalia adds: “This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty: ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’. . .” Gregory, 501 U.S. at 458.
This has nothing to do with what you wrote. You can not arrest the President of the United States until he has been impeached or leaves office.
On that note, I think you are misinterprating what the ruling said in reference to your opinion. This is about jurisdiction and control, not ignoring Federal law. And not over ruling Federal law either.
On top of that, what are you going to do when one of the most conservative Supreme Courts, who has overturned precedents set by other Supreme Courts at times, is no longer the majority? At the rate of current politics three to four justices will be replaced in the next 4 to 8 years, and at this time the GOP still has a 2016 problem.
Are you also amused by those who profess belief in the Constitution yet hypocritically attempt to crap on it by taking a task upon themselves that is clearly given to the SCOTUS ? Or is that freaking hypocrisy just fine and dandt?
I don't know what you're talking about, and I don't care. I made an observation. You seem to have been offended by that observation. Again, I don't care. You can be offended all you want. That's just find and dandt with me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wait a minute
, Utah didn't vote for Obama. Well then, I guess Obama is just going to have to tell those Utah Sheriffs to go F themselves.
