Cebu_4_2
8th January 2013, 05:35 PM
County Sheriffs Can Block Federal Gun Controlposted on January 3, 2013 (http://godfatherpolitics.com/8806/county-sheriffs-can-block-federal-gun-control/)
President Obama has given his comic sidekick the task of pushing gun control measures through Congress. Democrats and some liberal Republicans are calling for more gun control after the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Some state and municipal politicians, like the #1 anti-gun person in the nation – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, are also calling for more control.
But did you know that no matter what gun control laws are passed by the federal government, they can only be enforced in your area if your county sheriff allows them to be.
Most people, including politicians fail to realize that the ultimate legal authorities in the land are the county sheriffs. This was established from the time of the Founding Fathers and upheld by the US Supreme Court in the 1997 case of Printz v. United States (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html). Initially, the case was Mack v. United States, but by the time it reached the Supreme Court it was renamed.
The case involved new federal regulations involved with the Brady Bill and gun control. FBI agents went around to the various county sheriffs and demanded that they follow the new federal guidelines. Then Graham County (AZ) Sheriff Richard Mack and several others saw the Brady Bill as being unconstitutional and refused to impose the new federal guidelines. Part of their defense was that the county sheriff was the supreme law enforcement officer over their county and that the federal government could not supersede their legal authority.
In the court’s decision, Justice Antonin Scalia (http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan192.htm) wrote:
“. . . 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)
Justice Scalia then quoted the man considered to be the Father of the US Constitution, President James Madison, when he wrote in the decision:
“[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.” The Federalist, No. 39 at 245.
Scalia then referred to Gregory, 501 US at 458 when he wrote:
“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.’. . .”
Referring once again to President Madison, Scalia wrote:
“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (P. 922).
In other words, the county sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county and he does not have to bow to the tyranny of the federal government if he deems such actions to be unconstitutional or unlawful. In essence, the county sheriff has more legal authority within his county than the governor or the state or even the president of the United States.
Today, former Sheriff Richard Mack (http://www.sheriffmack.com/) works with a number of county sheriffs throughout the county, helping them understand the extent of their authority and how they can legally defy the federal government. I would highly recommend that you contact your county sheriff and see if he/she is aware of their powers and duties. If not, get them in contact with Mack and urge your county sheriff to stand up against upcoming unconstitutional gun laws that the liberals are going to try to impose on us.
If you want to learn about the Role of Law Enforcement (http://patriotdepot.com/products/The-Proper-Role-Of-Law-Enforcement.html) or on gun control, From My Cold Dead Fingers (http://patriotdepot.com/products/From-My-Cold-Dead-Fingers.html), from Sheriff Mack, click on the links and share this with your county sheriff, friend, family and anyone else you can think of.
President Obama has given his comic sidekick the task of pushing gun control measures through Congress. Democrats and some liberal Republicans are calling for more gun control after the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Some state and municipal politicians, like the #1 anti-gun person in the nation – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, are also calling for more control.
But did you know that no matter what gun control laws are passed by the federal government, they can only be enforced in your area if your county sheriff allows them to be.
Most people, including politicians fail to realize that the ultimate legal authorities in the land are the county sheriffs. This was established from the time of the Founding Fathers and upheld by the US Supreme Court in the 1997 case of Printz v. United States (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html). Initially, the case was Mack v. United States, but by the time it reached the Supreme Court it was renamed.
The case involved new federal regulations involved with the Brady Bill and gun control. FBI agents went around to the various county sheriffs and demanded that they follow the new federal guidelines. Then Graham County (AZ) Sheriff Richard Mack and several others saw the Brady Bill as being unconstitutional and refused to impose the new federal guidelines. Part of their defense was that the county sheriff was the supreme law enforcement officer over their county and that the federal government could not supersede their legal authority.
In the court’s decision, Justice Antonin Scalia (http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan192.htm) wrote:
“. . . 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)
Justice Scalia then quoted the man considered to be the Father of the US Constitution, President James Madison, when he wrote in the decision:
“[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.” The Federalist, No. 39 at 245.
Scalia then referred to Gregory, 501 US at 458 when he wrote:
“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.’. . .”
Referring once again to President Madison, Scalia wrote:
“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (P. 922).
In other words, the county sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county and he does not have to bow to the tyranny of the federal government if he deems such actions to be unconstitutional or unlawful. In essence, the county sheriff has more legal authority within his county than the governor or the state or even the president of the United States.
Today, former Sheriff Richard Mack (http://www.sheriffmack.com/) works with a number of county sheriffs throughout the county, helping them understand the extent of their authority and how they can legally defy the federal government. I would highly recommend that you contact your county sheriff and see if he/she is aware of their powers and duties. If not, get them in contact with Mack and urge your county sheriff to stand up against upcoming unconstitutional gun laws that the liberals are going to try to impose on us.
If you want to learn about the Role of Law Enforcement (http://patriotdepot.com/products/The-Proper-Role-Of-Law-Enforcement.html) or on gun control, From My Cold Dead Fingers (http://patriotdepot.com/products/From-My-Cold-Dead-Fingers.html), from Sheriff Mack, click on the links and share this with your county sheriff, friend, family and anyone else you can think of.