HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Sheriffs: Feds can't take...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:17 PM

Sheriffs: Feds can't take away Utahns' 2nd Amendment rights

Source: KSL.com

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Sheriffs' Association has written an open letter to President Barack Obama, outlining its opposition to executive orders announced this week altering gun laws.

Within four hours of being posted on the Cache County Sheriff's Office Facebook page, the letter had garnered more than 150 comments and 1,000 "likes."

..snip..

The letter urges that discussions surrounding gun law reform take place in Congress, rather than through executive order, and it asks lawmakers to consider the priorities of the nation's Founding Fathers in that debate. It closes by promising the elected sheriffs will strive to protect Utahns' Constitutional rights.

"No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular Amendment II — has given them," it states.

Read more: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23782428&nid=148&title=sheriffs-feds-cant-take-away-utahns-2nd-amendment-rights&s_cid=queue-9



"No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights... has given them.

Sheriffs offices are now claiming to be law makers, government executives and judges at the risk of the population. This is not their job. It is not their pledged and elected right. There's is only to OBEY and carry out official orders.

We are facing tyranny in the making.

101 replies, 10727 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 101 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sheriffs: Feds can't take away Utahns' 2nd Amendment rights (Original post)
defacto7 Jan 2013 OP
hobbit709 Jan 2013 #1
Warren DeMontague Jan 2013 #2
pipoman Jan 2013 #3
Warren DeMontague Jan 2013 #6
Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #76
Warren DeMontague Jan 2013 #77
avebury Jan 2013 #92
broadcaster75201 Jan 2013 #8
pipoman Jan 2013 #18
broadcaster75201 Jan 2013 #42
Skittles Jan 2013 #43
jberryhill Jan 2013 #46
pipoman Jan 2013 #55
jberryhill Jan 2013 #58
pipoman Jan 2013 #64
jberryhill Jan 2013 #67
pipoman Jan 2013 #70
jberryhill Jan 2013 #71
pipoman Jan 2013 #74
bkkyosemite Jan 2013 #90
Fearless Jan 2013 #13
Paladin Jan 2013 #23
jberryhill Jan 2013 #31
Skittles Jan 2013 #44
jberryhill Jan 2013 #45
pipoman Jan 2013 #57
Skittles Jan 2013 #91
pipoman Jan 2013 #96
LanternWaste Jan 2013 #101
pipoman Jan 2013 #56
jberryhill Jan 2013 #60
pipoman Jan 2013 #66
jberryhill Jan 2013 #68
pipoman Jan 2013 #73
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #85
Odin2005 Jan 2013 #86
cantbeserious Jan 2013 #4
Politicalboi Jan 2013 #5
bunnies Jan 2013 #7
IthinkThereforeIAM Jan 2013 #19
bunnies Jan 2013 #22
frylock Jan 2013 #28
bunnies Jan 2013 #29
TheMadMonk Jan 2013 #41
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #9
Paladin Jan 2013 #38
Thinkingabout Jan 2013 #54
Paladin Jan 2013 #84
another_liberal Jan 2013 #10
former9thward Jan 2013 #47
another_liberal Jan 2013 #48
former9thward Jan 2013 #49
another_liberal Jan 2013 #50
KansDem Jan 2013 #11
sulphurdunn Jan 2013 #12
MyNameGoesHere Jan 2013 #14
LindaCollins11 Jan 2013 #15
Permanut Jan 2013 #16
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #17
struggle4progress Jan 2013 #20
another_liberal Jan 2013 #39
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #21
caseymoz Jan 2013 #24
GeorgeGist Jan 2013 #25
Crow73 Jan 2013 #26
defacto7 Jan 2013 #78
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #27
amandabeech Jan 2013 #95
warrior1 Jan 2013 #30
defacto7 Jan 2013 #79
warrior1 Jan 2013 #83
defacto7 Jan 2013 #97
old guy Jan 2013 #32
Gregorian Jan 2013 #33
loli phabay Jan 2013 #36
Skittles Jan 2013 #34
november3rd Jan 2013 #35
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #37
24601 Jan 2013 #40
another_liberal Jan 2013 #52
jberryhill Jan 2013 #53
24601 Jan 2013 #59
jberryhill Jan 2013 #61
another_liberal Jan 2013 #63
Politicub Jan 2013 #51
24601 Jan 2013 #65
another_liberal Jan 2013 #69
jberryhill Jan 2013 #72
24601 Jan 2013 #75
jberryhill Jan 2013 #82
24601 Jan 2013 #93
jberryhill Jan 2013 #94
24601 Jan 2013 #100
nakocal Jan 2013 #62
Coolest Ranger Jan 2013 #80
1Greensix Jan 2013 #81
Odin2005 Jan 2013 #87
Great Caesars Ghost Jan 2013 #88
freedom fighter jh Jan 2013 #89
defacto7 Jan 2013 #98
freedom fighter jh Jan 2013 #99

Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:24 PM

1. They're in for a very BIG surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:30 PM

2. Amazing how it's totally impossible for these same LEOs to avoid enforcing Federal Marijuana law.

Apparently, the Feds can pre-empt local and state laws every time, when it involves pressing dangers to society like a cancer granny smoking a joint- but assault weapons? NO WAY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:30 PM

3. The Sheriff is the absolute law enforcement authority

in most states. They can prohibit even state law enforcement from executing orders in their county..feds too. It presents a significant problem for the feds. This is what I believe we will soon be seeing more of in Colorado and Washington over MJ. There must be demonstrable interstate connections before the feds have jurisdiction..lack of cooperation from local officials is a problem for them..imho

Oh, and this just simply isn't so..

"There's is only to OBEY and carry out official orders."

These are sheriffs. They are elected to uphold the constitution and enforce the laws of state, county, and local. They issue orders within their counties..to all law enforcement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:33 PM

6. Except I bet dollars to donuts, when it comes to pot they will be "forced" to keep throwing stoners

in prison.

Same way there's just "no way, oh, sorry, nothing we can do" to keep states like California from locking up all the pot smoking cancer patients.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:56 PM

76. Utah does have a state law against pot

So I would assume when a lot of people are arrested for pot, they are charged with breaking state law, and not federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #76)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:03 AM

77. My broader point is that I think these guys are picking and choosing which laws they want to enforce

I'm not just talking about Utah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #77)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:52 PM

92. When a citizen initiated referendum to outlaw cockfighting

passed in Oklahoma, there were some country sheriffs that said that they would not enforce the new law. It took a few more years before all the challenges went through the courts before it started to be upheld.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:35 PM

8. Speaking as a former Prosecutor ... not true

The Governor is the absolute authority. Sheriffs are only a tool of the executive. They have ZERo authority except what is given them. They have zero say over Federal law. The local Prosecutor is the arbiter on behalf of the Governor and has the authority to make Constitutional decisions.

With due respect, you are just wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to broadcaster75201 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:06 PM

18. I believe it varies from state to state..

here is a link to state by state explanations of the sheriff's duties..my state is similar to Arkansas, though the explaination is lacking for my state..Utah is also lacking..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriffs_in_the_United_States

Sheriffs rely upon the county's legislative body, known as the "Quorum Court", to appropriate funding and approve the yearly operating budget. However, in all other circumstances, the sheriff is entirely independent in the management of his elected office and is not subservient to or accountable to any other elected county official or body.


I don't know the specifics of AZ, but it seems Joe Arpaio answers to nobody..Not saying you're wrong. This is my recollection from continuing ed or conference lecture some years ago..



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:24 PM

42. Well . ..

I can't say that it does not, but the Governor is the absolute executive authority in every state. Having said that, if a state has appointe someone other than the Governor, I can't say I've read every State Constitution but I'd be shocked. Wiki a bit iffy, and general, on the description, but, again ... you could be correct on some states doing it the way you suggest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:26 PM

43. no

what VARIES is the ignorance and racism that allows certain folk to twist the laws

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:36 PM

46. Oh do tell us about this continuing ed conference


In what field of endeavor was this conference, and who ran it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:08 PM

55. Probably the attorney general of my state..

if not, it had to be approved by the attorney general..I've attended several don't remember the specifics of the function..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #55)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:30 PM

58. Why would it have to have been approved by the AG


Again, what sort of continuing ed conference was this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #58)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:18 PM

64. Because licensure is through the attorney general..

I worked as a state licensed detective for several years. Conferences usually had law enforcement, attorneys, specialty private detective agencies, the attorney general or a representative sometimes, etc. as speakers/running workshops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #64)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:49 PM

67. So what?


The fact that an apparent nutjob got onto the program at a continuing ed conference does not mean that every word which issued from his lips - and this is pure whackadoodlery - was law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #67)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:00 PM

70. Tactlessness aside,

and I stated as much way back in post #18. Why do you insist on being so obtuse?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #70)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:06 PM

71. Do you want to know what is tactless?

Spouting absolutely insane and broken legal theories promulgated by this outfit:

http://cspoa.org/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #71)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:31 PM

74. No,

if one believed such nonsense based on this discussion, that person may have reading comprehension problems. The context in which I used "tactless" was correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:53 PM

90. When the Linn County Oregon Sheriff did his thing I was told by my legislator's office

to contact the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Linn. Which I did and had a very interesting and polite conversation with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:43 PM

13. Sheriffs cannot preempt federal law actually. Not once. Never.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:34 PM

23. In The Tradition Of Bull Connor. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:07 PM

31. Sounds like you've been dipping into the wingnut sheriff theory well


http://www.fbi.gov/atlanta/press-releases/2013/former-murray-county-sheriffs-deputy-indicted-for-obstructing-civil-rights-investigation

ROME, GA—A former Murray County Sheriff’s deputy has been indicted by a federal grand jury for obstructing a pending civil rights investigation while he was still employed as a Sheriff’s deputy with Murray County. Joshua Lamar Greeson, 25, of Chatsworth, Georgia, will be arraigned today at 2 p.m., before United States Magistrate Judge Walter E. Johnson. The federal grand jury indicted Greeson on January 3, 2013.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2013/01/federal_prosecutors_sue_idaho.html

BOISE -- Federal prosecutors are suing the Jerome County Sheriff's Office over allegations the law enforcement agency intentionally refused to rehire a member of the Idaho Army National Guard.

U.S. Attorney Wendy Olson filed the lawsuit in federal court Monday on behalf of Mervin Jones.

The lawsuit accuses sheriff department administrators of terminating Jones while he was recovering from a knee injury suffered in 2004 while serving in Iraq and re-injuring in 2008 during weekend training exercises.

The lawsuit accuses the sheriff's office of violating the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Jenne

Kenneth C. "Ken" Jenne II (born 1947), is a former Democratic member of the Florida State Senate and a former sheriff of Broward County, which encompasses Fort Lauderdale in southeastern Florida. Jenne resigned as sheriff in September 2007, after having pleaded guilty to federal tax evasion and mail fraud. On November 16, 2007, he was sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison.

http://www.midlandsconnect.com/news/story.aspx?id=849505#.UPsWGfK71D4

Goodwin is the third South Carolina sheriff to be indicted on criminal charges in less than three years. Former Lee County sheriff E.J. Melvin is serving 17 years in federal prison for drug conspiracy and racketeering, while former Saluda County Sheriff Jason Booth pleaded guilty to misconduct in office last year for using an inmate to build a party shed and other items on his land. Booth paid a $900 fine.


http://wpln.org/?p=6115

Sumner County sheriff J-D Vandercook and his brother Jerry were arrested by federal agents (today/yesterday) after fraud indictments were handed down by a grand jury.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/wva-sheriff-indicted-federal-rights-charges

U.S. Attorney William J. Ihlenfeld announced in a news release Tuesday that Jefferson County Sheriff Robert Shirley is charged with one count of deprivation of rights under the color of law for allegedly assaulting and kicking a person on Dec. 27, 2010, in Berkeley County. Prosecutors said Shirley is also charged with falsifying records during a federal investigation of the incident.

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1754807.html

Former Carter County sheriff Tommy Adams will face federal charges in addition to state charges for alleged drug activity while he was sheriff.

Adams, 31, and former deputy Steffanie M. Kearbey, 23, were both indicted Thursday on federal weapons charges by a grand jury in Cape Girardeau, according to a news release from the federal prosecutor's office. Both Adams and Kearbey were indicted on three counts of possession of stolen firearms, one count of sale of a stolen firearm and one count of being an unlawful user of controlled substances in possession of firearms.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-24-2845829484_x.htm

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — A rural Virginia sheriff faces racketeering, conspiracy and other charges stemming from accusations that he took bribes in exchange for promising not to interfere with a cockfighting ring.

A 22-count indictment against Page County Sheriff Daniel W. Presgraves unsealed Thursday also accuses him of intimidating potential witnesses. The indictment alleges he sexually assaulted and harassed four female employees, harassed seven others and intimidated another.

Presgraves, 46, pleaded not guilty at a court appearance and was released on $50,000 bond. If convicted of all charges, he faces up to 304 years in prison.

U.S. Magistrate B. Waugh Crigler warned that he would not hesitate to throw Presgraves in jail if he violates an order not to carry out his duties as sheriff while the case is pending.


http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/may/18/gallatin-county-ill-sheriff-arrested-federal-drug-/

SHAWNEETOWN, Ill. — The Gallatin County (Ill.) sheriff has been named in a five-count federal complaint alleging he conspired to distribute large quantities of marijuana. He was arrested without incident Monday afternoon at his office in Shawneetown.

Raymond M. Martin, 46, of Junction, Ill., faces three counts of distribution of marijuana and two counts of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Martin has served as Gallatin County sheriff since 1990.

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2009/feb/27/arrest_warrant_issued_for_sheriffs_arrest-ar-2130445/

Okaloosa County Sheriff Arrested On Federal Charges

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/top-stories/stories/update-bledsoe-county-sheriff-arrested-3290.shtml

Update: Bledsoe County Sheriff Arrested

http://www.theitem.com/news/article_f933353a-554b-11df-b57b-001cc4c03286.html

Lee County sheriff arrested on federal drug charges

Lee County Sheriff E.J. Melvin was arrested Saturday morning by FBI and State Law Enforcement Division agents and taken into custody along with six others on federal drug charges.

http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20120225/NEWS01/202250316/Sheriff-Toney-arrested

Ouachita Parish Sheriff Royce Toney has been ordered to take a leave of absence after being arrested Friday morning on charges of conspiracy, computer fraud, identity theft and obstruction.

http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=6019343

Williamson County Sheriff Ricky Headley and Glenn Brooks, owner of Brooks Pharmacy, were arrested Wednesday in connection with an investigation into illegal dispensing of prescription drugs, according to the TBI and Metro Police.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:26 PM

44. pipeman, echoing rightwing crap?

SAY IT ISN'T SO!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #44)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:35 PM

45. There's RW crap and there's RW crap


As an avid fan of nutjob legal theories, the "Constitutional Sheriff" stuff is well out of "rightwing crap" territory and more on the "batshit insane" end of things.

It is in the same constellation as "Sovereign Citizen" nonsense.

The "Constitutional Sheriff" folks were the ones who held the various "citizen grand juries" which then presented "indictments" to their respective sheriff's offices in order to have President Obama brought to trial on various birther charges.

It this species of legal moonbattery which led to the interesting tale of Darren Huff and his compadres...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/the_strange_case_of_the_ga_birther_oathkeeper_--_w.php

On Tuesday, Georgia OathKeeper Darren Huff will begin his trial for an alleged attempt to take over a Tennessee courthouse and conduct citizens arrests on local judges and officers.

Huff’s troubles began in April 2010, when Walter Francis Fitzpatrick was arrested in Madisonville, Tennessee for attempting to conduct a citizens’ arrest on Monroe County Grand Jury Foreman Gary Pettway. “I’m charging you with official misconduct,” Fitzpatrick told Pettway. “I’m placing you under arrest. You must now come with me.” Fitzpatrick was charged with inciting a riot, disrupting an official public meeting, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Beforehand, Fitzpatrick, who is a leader of the birther and Patriot group American Grand Jury, had written up 24 citizens’ arrest warrants for officials at the federal, state and local levels, calling them “domestic enemies” and describing President Obama as an “illegal alien, infiltrator and impostor.” His grievance with Pettway, it seems, was that Pettway would not agree to convene a grand jury to investigate the AGC’s belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #44)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:28 PM

57. Don't hesitate to point that out when you see it..

keeping it classy there as usual..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:44 PM

91. I call it as I see it

and I will take my kind of "class" over rightwight fucking BULLSHIT *ANY* day - especially on a DEMOCRATIC BOARD

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #91)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:24 PM

96. yep..i know you will..lol

Last edited Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:58 PM - Edit history (1)

At times some members here are reminiscent of McCarthy..a commie behind every bush and all that..lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #57)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:59 PM

101. Ways often vary as to advertising class.

Ways often vary as to advertising class. Often, it's merely done through the obvious. Other times, it's done by illustrating RW talking points and CT nonsense as "discussion". The one, if not classy, is at least honesty with others and themselves. The second, not so much.

However, I imagine we all will rationalize the act in our own defenses, whilst pointing it out in others. Simply another way to hold others to a higher standard than we hold ourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:24 PM

56. Wow

you went to so much trouble to demonstrate absolutely nothing..LOL

You should re-read what was written. Point out anyplace at all which indicated I believed that a sheriff was above the law...then all your work won't be a complete joke..LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #56)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:32 PM

60. A County Sheriff has no authority over federal law enforcement operations in that county


That is a typical belief of a certain cadre of believers, and it absolutely wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #60)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:36 PM

66. I contend that a problem of jurisdiction may arise

if the enforcement action being taken by a federal agency exceeds interstate commerce into the realm of intrastate activity. If a sheriff or even more problematic, if the majority of sheriffs of a state agree on a line in the sand, it will be an interesting legal standoff. This will be a battleground in the MJ cases if the trend toward legalization continues and feds insist on interfering with intrastate commerce. There are interesting battles ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #66)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:52 PM

68. You haven't the first idea of how law works


If a federal enforcement action is claimed, by someone, to "exceed interstate commerce" - by which I assume you mean the statute violates the commerce clause - then the defendant may challenge his/her arrest on those grounds. A county sheriff has NO, NONE, NADA, authority to do jack shit in that instance.

You are spouting voodoo law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #68)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:20 PM

73. we'll see

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:49 AM

85. they can interfere with enforcement of state and fed laws

 

but they cannot prohibit execution as you say. they can merely *try* to to prohibit enforcement and in so doing intervene and interfere on jurisdictional grounds. sheriff joe comes to mind. (so do the hobbiton 'shiriffs' appointed by saruman in lord of the rings but that's a different story)

it's a widespread libertarian and 'sovereign citizen' conceit that the power of sheriffs trumps all else. in reality it just doesn't really work that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:44 AM

86. This is an unintended side effect of the English legal tradition.

England became a centralized state under Norman rule about 150 years before knowledge of Roman civil law reached England, so the Norman kings had to commandeer local institutions instead. The Sheriff (or "Shire Reeve") was one of those institutions, he was the king's agent but he was a local notable (usually a knight or yeoman) in the local community he served and had a great deal of autonomy. This is in contrast to France, where the equivalent law enforcement agent was a faceless bureaucrat outsider sent from Paris.

This allows local jurisdictions to frustrate authoritarian legislation, but at the same time leads to stupidity like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:31 PM

4. More State Rights Battles To Follow

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:31 PM

5. The Bill of Rights

Did not give them Assault Weapons. It gave them Muskets and I think that is ALL they should get. Don't these asshole sheriff's know those guns could eventually kill them? Who do you think will go first if the government tries to take away their Assault Paranoia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:34 PM

7. Nobody is taking your fucking guns you paranoid jack-ass!

What the FUCK is wrong with these people?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:13 PM

19. yep, exactly...


... only asking for stricter laws on just who can buy a gun. And asking for more funds for mental healthcare/screenings. If you are a law abiding deemed SANE person, you have nothing to worry about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IthinkThereforeIAM (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:15 PM

22. heh. & maybe thats the problem...

this tool doesnt exactly seem "sane".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:45 PM

28. so tired of the pants shitting from these low-information imbeciles..

3 days later, and they still think king Obama is coming to terk der gerns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:52 PM

29. Seriously! Is it willful ignorance?

Or just plain old ignorance? I just can NOT wrap my head around this mentality! Its like when I give my dog a bone. Shes CONVINCED that I want to take it. I walk by her... she grabs it and runs away. Is THAT what we're dealing with here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:52 PM

41. It's deliberate shitstiring of the ignorant for political gain. /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:39 PM

9. Thank God we have Sheriffs to interpret the Constitution for us.

Whew! Where would we be without them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:31 PM

38. We Get The Same Results With Moron Justices Like Scalia. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:37 PM

54. Are you speaking about his interpretation of the Second Amendment?

If you are he might not be as big Moron as many who does not know the Constitution and listens to those who know much less than I do. Scalia knows the Second Amendment does not restrict regulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #54)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:05 AM

84. Scalia Effectively Scratched The "Well Regulated Militia" Clause From The 2nd Amendment.


The additional mumbling Scalia emitted in the Heller decision about possible regulations doesn't even come close to offsetting the gigantic gift he delivered to the gun militancy movement with that ruling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:40 PM

10. Arrest a few . . .

A Federal Marshall should arrest a few of these self-important secessionists and ship them off to Leavenworth. Once that is done, the rest will quickly fall into line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:49 PM

47. Which dictatorship would you like us to use as an example?

There are plenty to choose from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #47)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:54 PM

48. I see no dictatorship here at all.

Last edited Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)

I see no dictatorship here at all. If I violate a federal gun law, I'll be arrested. If you violate a federal gun law, you'll be arrested. Why should some fool with an Utah sheriff's badge be treated any differently?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:03 PM

49. You picked the wrong state but no matter.

You wanted federal marshals to "arrest them and ship them off to Leavenworth." No mention of a pesky thing like a trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:18 PM

50. Leavenworth, Kansas, is . . .

Leavenworth, Kansas, is home to a huge federal prison. Being, "Sent to Leavenworth," is also a cliche' for going into federal custody generally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:41 PM

11. Funny? I don't recall Utah Sheriff's Association weighing in...

...when the SCOTUS interfered with the Florida recount in 2000?

I guess you defend states' rights only when it benefits you...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:42 PM

12. Am I missing something here?

"No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular Amendment II — has given them,"

Has anyone threatened to confiscate firearms? Has the President declared an executive order to that effect or are these guys smoking stuff from the evidence room?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:51 PM

14. Nice. More volunteers to the "dead cold hands" group

I find their terms acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:53 PM

15. LindaCollins11

Can't wait until Feds stop sending $ for their needs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:03 PM

16. Utah sheriffs swear an oath..

to defend the constitution and laws of the United States and the State of
Utah.

In the Heller case, Justice Scalia, writing the majority opinion, recognized the authority of the district to prohibit sales of guns to the mentally ill and felons, carrying guns in sensitive places (e.g., courtrooms, schools), and to regulate commercial sales.

These sheriffs, and some in other states, apparently have a different interpretation of the 2nd amendment than that of the Supreme Court. I don't think their oath of office allows them to act on these differences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:05 PM

17. The varies sheriffs are overstepping their bounds imo as its for the courts to determine what is and

what is not constitutional not for the sheriffs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:13 PM

20. Translation: "We have no fucking idea what an executive order is, and we certainly wouldn't read one

if we could, but we do know how to toss redmeat to our numbskull constituents, who also have no fucking idea what an executive order is and certainly wouldn't read one if they could"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:32 PM

39. Sad, but true.

Sad, but true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:15 PM

21. Sheriffs don't make the law - that is for the legislature. And sheriffs don't interpret the law -

that is for the courts. Their only duty is to enforce the law AS THE COURTS INTERPRET IT.

This sheriff will find himself prosecuted soon, or sued. And he will lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:36 PM

24. Swtiching the subject from protecting children's lives. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:37 PM

25. Why do Utahns hate children?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:41 PM

26. Not facing tyranny, just the ignorant yet again.

 

They don't enforce Federal Law, this is a HUGE nothing.
They are county law enforcement speeding, and domestics that is it.

It is good to know that, they are this misinformed. Maybe this should be mocked in their future elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crow73 (Reply #26)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:42 AM

78. This is Utah.

He will probably win a landslide vote next time around just because he sounds like an authority that can kick the evil black (cursed of Elohim) president out of the sovereign country of Utah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:42 PM

27. What is up with these Sheriffs? These executive orders will save THEIR lives.

And the orders will not take any law abiding citizen's guns away. I don't think they even read the executive orders. If they did, they have no reading comprehension abilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:02 PM

95. These sheriffs are probably concerned mostly with re-election.

They're politicians and re-election is the uppermost idea in most politicians' minds, everywhere and all the time. Even with Dems.

These individuals may very well be complete creeps, but it would probably be more useful to rate them on what they actually do rather than what they say, just like one would judge politicians generally.

Gotta run. Downton Abbey is on!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:54 PM

30. cut off all federal aid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrior1 (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:46 AM

79. You don't understand....

Utah has enough funds to assist the federal government. Utah doesn't need federal funds. They accept them but they don't need it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to warrior1 (Reply #83)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:21 AM

97. Herbert is bull.

You have no idea how much cash, gold, etc. is stashed in this state, whether by government or by private organizations. The Mormon church dumped billions into the economy during the crash to uphold their real estate values. There was no economic downturn in this state where certain control groups are concerned. Massive projects are in the works and there hasn't been the slightest blip in development. The news and the politicians will say whatever it takes to keep the fed money coming in... or complain about it. Here, it's truth that's scarce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:12 PM

32. These people have lived their insignificant little existence in total anonymity,

now they see a once in a lifetime chance to be "in the news". "Look Emmy Lou, I'm on the tellyvision!" (sigh)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:12 PM

33. It's happening in parts of Washington state also.

According to someone I know who lives there, he says there are places where they have made it clear they have no intent of upholding the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gregorian (Reply #33)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:29 PM

36. its just not upholding its the logistics too. in my county we would run out of cops and deputies

 

Before we would be able to collect the guns from one subdivision. Plus there is no way anyone would be re elected if they even tried to go door to door or anything like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:15 PM

34. paranoid assholes unite

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:28 PM

35. What morons!

Nothing in any of Obama's Executive Orders comes close to in any way violating the Second Amendment.

These pathetic people claim that their right to own a weapon is purposed by the necessity to kill elected officials they're afraid may want to take the weapon away from them.

"we would trade our lives in defense of the Constitution's traditional interpretation." These people would probably fail the MENTAL COMPETENCY test requirement for gun licensing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:29 PM

37. Idiots dont know an executive order from an executive action.

This is a huge straw man. Pres Obama's executive ACTIONS are simply guidelines for Congress and carry no weight.

Executive Orders pertain to specific legislation and describes how the executive branch intends to enforce the legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:35 PM

40. The President heads up the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. He is not the "Commander in

Chief" of State and Local Officials. A President cannot court martial a Governor, County Executive, Mayor or Sheriff. And Presidential Executive Orders are valid only if they implement powers that the Constitution delegates to the Federal Government - and also fall within the scope of the Constitution's Article II.

For Example, a President cannot Pardon an individual convicted of violating a state or local law. And as you might expect, a Governor cannot Pardon a federal convict. Federal, State and Local Officials must stay within their designated lanes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #40)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:25 PM

52. Anyone who attempts . . .

Anyone who attempts to obstruct a federal Marshal in the performance of his assigned duties is stepping into a huge vat of very ugly shit. Your silly-assed cowboys had better think twice about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #40)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:27 PM

53. If a sheriff interferes with federal law enforcement, he/she is going to jail


WTF does "court martial" have to do with it?

Sheriffs are regularly arrested and prosecuted for obstruction of justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:31 PM

59. Just an exemplar figure of speech. Federal officials are not in a chain of command type

relationship over state and local officials. A President does not give a "lawful order" to a Governor as he can to a cabinet officer. Presidents have no power to pardon individuals convicted of violating state laws.

Federal officials who unlawfully obstruct state investigations are subject to arrest & prosecution as well. The question normally rests with who has primary jurisdiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #59)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:33 PM

61. No one said anything about "chain of command"

Sheriffs can be, and are, arrested for obstruction of justice when they interfere with federal law enforcement.

The remarkable thing about these scuzzball sheriffs engaging in this round of attention whoring, is that they are not being asked to enforce jack shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #59)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:01 PM

63. "I'm the law West of the Pecos!"

Your tin horn heroes can push, then the President will shove. We'll see who falls over first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:20 PM

51. American-born terrorists aren't wasting a lot of time identifying themselves, are they?

The nullification talk sounds traitorous to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #51)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:18 PM

65. Then you should read the Constitution because treason is the only crime defined in the

Constitution - and it says nothing about nullification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #65)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:58 PM

69. Because "nullification" does not exist.

Because "nullification" does not exist except as a theory. It is not a power delegated to localities, States or anyone else. The Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, but that is not the same as nullification. It is when someone tries to act on the assumption a law has been "nullified" that a crime is committed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #65)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:10 PM

72. Yeah... that worked out dandy in Little Rock in 1957

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #72)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:48 PM

75. Little Rock in 1957 was rebellion against a court order - that's why use of federalized troops

was an authorized exception to the posse comitatus act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #75)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:51 AM

82. Denser than uranium...


I see. So, if an ATF agent with a COURT ISSUED seizure warrant attempts to execute that COURT ISSUED seizure warrant in a county run by a wingnut sheriff, then explain to me how the sherrif has ANY authority to try and stop him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #82)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 08:22 PM

93. The National Guard reports to the Governor but can be federalized and then they fall under DoD. No

such provisions apply to federalizing civilian LEOs. No matter how loudly an ATF agent screams at a Sheriff, that Sheriff still is not subordinate to the ATF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #93)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 08:44 PM

94. Denser than a neutron star....


If a federal LEO is executing a warrant in Bumfuck County, the sheriff has no, none, zero, authority to interfere with the execution of that warrant. If he does, he will go to jail, go directly to jail, not pass go, and not collect $200.

I know how precious those CSPOA and Oaf Keeper lunatics are to you, as they were to Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Huff, who both went to jail because of their screwy legal theories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #94)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 02:51 PM

100. You were the one mentioning interfering. Don't presume to attribute your words to me or

anyone else. All a Sheriff has to do is say, "Hands off, it's a federal matter, let them provide the resources to enforce it."

No way the feds alone could keep up with the workload.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:41 PM

62. Stupidity and ignorance are required to be a Sheriff in Utah

Well any claim that Utah is a Christian state was just proven to be a lie as duly elected Sheriffs have said the ability to kill people at a distance must be protected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 08:20 AM

80. Did anyone tell these idiots that federal law trumps statel law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:40 AM

81. First Amendment has exemptions, so why not the Second

The First Amendment has exemptions, so why not the Second Amendment? Conservatives don't mind restricting the First Amendment, restricting free speech, peaceful assembly, and peaceful protests, whenever possible. SO why can't the Second Amendment be altered? It seems that the entire Second Amendment must be enforced, if any of it. You should have to belong to a government regulated militia if you own a gun. That's what the Amendment says, so that should be the obligation when owning a gun. Well regulated militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:45 AM

87. Looks like Joe Arapaio has a buddy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:50 AM

88. One question.....

 

Is the president the commander in chief of law enforcement as well as the military?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:59 AM

89. Are you sure they pledge obedience?

Do you have a cite?

On a quick search the closest thing I could find to a sheriffs' pledge was a generic code of honor, here: http://www.theiacp.org/PoliceServices/ProfessionalAssistance/Ethics/WhatistheLawEnforcementOathofHonor/PresentingtheOathofHonor/tabid/160/Default.aspx. In this oath, officers pledge to uphold the Constitution, but they don't say anything about obedience. But I don't know whether most sheriffs take this oath or something like it.

When I worked for the federal government, my oath was to the Constitution, not to the government.

It is ultimately up to the citizens to uphold the Constitution. If orders are not consistent with the Constitution, I *hope* police will side with the Constitution. But from the article it sounds like the sheriffs are just asserting that the executive orders are illegal and have not really done their research, although it's not possible to tell for sure.

Law enforcement officers should be standing up to orders that are clearly unconstitutional. That kind of individual integrity is all that protects us from tyranny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedom fighter jh (Reply #89)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:32 AM

98. It all comes down to who decides what's

constitutional or not. It may be up to individuals to make a stand on issues, and I do. But there are public servants that have a specific purpose. And the purpose of the Sheriffs office is not to be the judge, the prosecutor, the Governor, Congress, the Administrative branch or the SCOTUS. Their job is to enforce the laws that have been put into place by the other parts of the system. THAT is what protects us from tyranny. If everyone is making up their own interpretation of the law AND enforcing it at the same time, the conflict of interest becomes anarchy or fascism; take your pick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #98)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 07:48 AM

99. Yes and no.

I think it's kinda sticky.

If they are told to do something that is blatantly unconstitutional or illegal, they are not supposed to do it. They are not supposed to be mindless machine parts that do what they are told regardless of principle. Folks at the top will push their limits. They need lots of checks. Courts are one. Citizen underlings who stand up to principle are another.

Yes, if everyone is making up their own interpretation of the law and enforcing it there is trouble. (I don't think it would be fascism -- fascism depends on having a strong state -- but that disagreement does not go to the core of your argument.) So the question is What is blatant? I have not read all of President Obama's executive orders, so I cannot say whether they blatantly violate the Constitution, but I think most likely the sheriffs are overreacting. (I'm guessing this because (a) they reacted so fast that it looks knee jerk and (b) the Second Amendment is so vague and open to interpretation that it's hard to see how this package of executive orders could violate it in any blatant way.) It's the general idea that law enforcement officers are supposed to be obedient primarily to their superiors rather than the Constitution that I am questioning. I think a system like that leads inevitably to a system of rule by people rather than by law, exactly what our system is designed not to be.

Imagine that the right under assault was the right to a free press. Imagine that, oh, a law were passed saying you could be executed on the spot under the guise of copyright protection for publishing information that was clearly intended to be political, and that did not infringe in any meaningful way on anyone's valid copy rights or rights of any other kind. The cops who are supposed to shoot you may be your last line of protection. Is this example extreme? Yes. That's the point. When the violation of rights becomes blatant, the cops, if they're going to do their duty, need to side with the citizens. Are we at that point in our society? No, but we're getting there fast.

The Constitution's guarantees are under threat. We the people cannot depend on folks at the top -- in any of the three branches of government -- to preserve them. It's gotta be people down the line. If it comes to police being told to arrest or even execute us without cause, without trial, any justice in the system may come down to those police choosing principle over obedience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread