This Sheriff should receive our thanks and support.

We have one more.

Police Chief Seeks Nullification of Unconstitutional Gun Control
Written by Alex Newman

While the Obama administration and some Democrat lawmakers plot ever more extreme assaults on the Second Amendment, state and local officials across the country are working just as hard to find ways to protect the gun rights of law-abiding citizens in their jurisdictions. One local Pennsylvania police chief is helping to lead the way, asking officials in his borough to pass an ordinance or resolution nullifying any unconstitutional attacks on the unalienable rights of residents.

Meet Gilberton Borough Police Chief Mark Kessler. After watching anti-Constitution politicians in Washington, D.C., try to exploit a tragedy to trample on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, he decided enough was enough. Now, he is speaking out, and asking lawmakers in his small borough of around 1,000 people to pass a nullification measure. He is also promoting the idea nationwide, most recently appearing on the popular Alex Jones radio show heard all across the country.

In a phone interview with The New American, Chief Kessler detailed his proposed “Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance,” which would prevent any federal or state infringements on the right to keep and bear firearms, accessories, or ammunition within the jurisdiction. If approved, the resolution, citing the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions, would nullify any unconstitutional acts purporting to restrict gun rights.

Read the rest here .

This needs to be pinned.

Any Sheriff who's worthy of the title like these two Patriots needs our support. Send an anonymous card and let them know you got their back, if they know that their fellow Americans will stand tall by them they'll be all the bolder.

Next, convince them to help clean up the local governments in their county-if they're standing up to the beast in DC they might as well go the rest of the way, and help clean up the local scene so they don't feel any sharp objects in their back.

Who knows? If they get emboldened enough and they clean up the cops as well, have them help raise up more militia.

And another sheriff in Colorado.

"I Will Protect Constitutional Rights…With My Dying Breath."

Link

Patriot Kentucky Sheriff: I Will Not Enforce Federal Gun Grabbing Laws


“I would be ashamed if a founding father were in this room now; You are never going to pull a gun from Jackson County”

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Jan 14, 2013

Amid sustained vows from the federal government and State lawmakers to institute sweeping gun control laws, one Sheriff is standing up and declaring that he will not see his county disarmed.

In an emotional speech to residents, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky, held a town hall meeting Saturday to reassure residents that as long as he is in charge, federal gun grabbing laws will not be upheld in his county.

“You’ll understand me very well when you leave here today, and why we’re all still going to have our guns here in Jackson.” Peyman said in his opening address to his people.

“I am responsible for the people inside this county… I couldn’t justify, if Obama passes this, it doesn’t matter what he passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people.” Peyman urged.

“They need to go back and study that. We are a commonwealth. I can ask federal people to leave, they have to leave. I can ask state people to leave, they have to leave.”

“I am the highest elected official in this county, and this is the only opportunity the people have to speak for themselves and say ‘this is what we want.’” Peyman told the audience.

Referring to interviews he has recently conducted with local journalists, Peyman said “They asked ‘how are you going to pull these guns?’, and I said ‘you are never going to pull a gun from Jackson County.”

In an interview with the Lexington Herald-Leader this past weekend, Peyman also stated “I consider this a moral obligation… My office will not comply with any federal actions which violate the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore to uphold.”

In a separate interview with WKYT news, Peyman spoke about what would happen if the federal government attempted to disarm people in Jackson County:

“We’ll see when push comes to shove. It’s going to have to go into the courtrooms. It’s not going to be, I mean we don’t want a bloodbath in our community when they come in to take guns,” he said. “It’s going to have to be taken care of in a court room before it gets to that point.”

“The only thing I’ve ever told people if someone is kicking or coming in their front door, is I only have to listen to one side of the story.” the Sheriff stated at the town hall meeting.

“I can’t get there quick enough to help those people. My best help to them is to let them keep their firearms… There is nobody who doesn’t really need to have one.”

Peyman then referred to the sanctity of the US Constitution, noting “The Second Amendment makes that pretty clear. Our forefathers made that clear, otherwise it would not have been so high [on the Constitution]. It would have been down the list somewhere.”

“This is the part that is emotional to me,” The sheriff said, his voice cracking.

“I would be ashamed if one of them was in this room right now, and having to listen to what we’re having to talk about. I would be ashamed to have them sit here and listen to them talk about all the people that given their rights for this right for us, and we just give it up so flippantly just because somebody says so. If we did everything that somebody says so, we would not be a country today.”

“I talk about what I can do for my county. I can’t stand up for other counties, I can’t do it for them, but I can stand up for my people.” Peyman vowed.

“I was one of the first people to say, I think they need to arm school teachers. Not all of them, but there is somebody that needs to have a weapon.”

The sheriff then spoke about how the media glamorizes mass shootings and makes them appealing to copycat wannabe’s.

“What would happen if the first two or three that tried it got shot coming in the front door?” Peyman said. “They wouldn’t do that anymore, it would be taken from them, there’s no glory in that for them.”

“In Jackson county, as long as I am Sheriff here, I got children, I got family, I got friends, I got everybody here, and I feel a whole lot better coming into a room if I know everybody is packing, than if I’m the only one, because if they take me out first, then they take everybody else out too.” the Sheriff concluded.

Sheriff Denny Peyman should be commended for his fine job in upholding constitutional rights. He is a shining example to other law enforcement officers who should take note of his concerns regarding the ongoing attack on the Second Amendment. Rest assured, Peyman is also not the only Sheriff ready to stand up and defend the rights of his people.

Watch the video...

http://youtu.be/FzZzVkLqSjo

GOP congressman threatens impeachment if Obama uses executive action for gun control
01/14/2013


Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.

Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.”

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said in a statement.

At his press conference Monday, Obama floated the possibility of using executive action to enact policies aimed at reducing gun violence.

The freshman congressman, who served one term in Congress in the mid-1990s, further labeled the possibility “an existential threat to this nation” because, he said, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow the people to protect themselves from tyranny.

“Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible,” he added. “Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court.”

He concluded by claiming that an executive order would be not just “not just an attack on the Constitution,” but also an “attack on Americans.”

“If the president is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist,” he said.

Second Sheriff Refuses to Enforce Gun Confiscation


Mueller: Stop exploiting the deaths of innocent victims

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
January 16, 2013

Linn County Oregon Sheriff Tim Mueller has become the second prominent law enforcement official to put the Obama administration on notice that he will not enforce unconstitutional gun confiscation programs.

In a letter addressed to Vice President Joe Biden, Mueller wrote, “Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the president offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies,” adding, “Nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Linn County, OR.”

The letter was prompted by Linn County residents asking the Sheriff’s office what their response would be if the Obama administration passed a ban on semi-assault rifles.

Mueller has received widespread acclaim for his stance, with the letter going viral on Facebook and Americans from across the country calling the Linn County Sheriff’s office to express their support.

“You cannot allow the actions of a very few….to dictate regulations and law that could potentially offend the constitutional rights of honest Americans, that’s not what we’re about,” Mueller told Portland, Ore. affiliate KOIN-TV.

The Sheriff finishes his letter by asserting he will, “refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians.”

In a separate interview, Mueller slammed Biden for failing to consult law enforcement enough while overseeing his “task force” on gun control.

With President Obama set to unveil draconian gun control measures he plans to pass via executive order while standing in front of a group of children, Mueller accused politicians of attempting to, “exploit the deaths of innocent victims by advocating for laws that would prevent honest, law-abiding Americans from possessing certain firearms and ammunition magazines.”

Mueller echoed the sentiments of Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky, who earlier this week also assured residents that he would not allow guns to be seized under his jurisdiction.

“They asked ‘how are you going to pull these guns?’, and I said ‘you are never going to pull a gun from Jackson County,” said Peyman, adding, “I am responsible for the people inside this county… I couldn’t justify, if Obama passes this, it doesn’t matter what he passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people.”

Read Sheriff Mueller’s full letter below.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/second-sheriff-refuses-to-enforce-gun-confiscation.html

Yes...

Wow....2....

That won't stop the Feds and/or the State Police.

We have to be realistic here.

It remains to be seen how many make a decision after this is all done.

That Kentucky Sheriff Really Has GUTS.

Many More Sheriffs Vow Not To Enforce Federal Gun Control Laws


Oregon law enforcers lead national fight against Obama gun grab

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Jan 17, 2013

Following Oregon Sheriff Tim Mueller’s lead, three more Sheriffs in parts of Oregon announced Wednesday in letters to U.S. Vice President Joe Biden that they would refuse to enforce any federal gun laws that are unconstitutional.

Crook County Sheriff Jim Hensley told local reporters “I’m going to follow my oath that I took as Sheriff to support the constitution.”

“I believe strongly in the Second Amendment,” Hensley added, urging “If the federal government comes into Crook County and wants to take firearms and things away from (citizens), I’m going to tell them it’s not going that way.”

Hensley told KTVZ.COM that he read Sheriff Mueller’s letter and it spurred him to make a stand. “I said, you know what? It’s a clear statement. He hit the nail right on the head,” Hensley said.

Many More Sheriffs Vow Not To Enforce Federal Gun Control Laws 170113Sherrifs

Referring to the recent mass shootings that have been cited as justification to move to impose strict new laws, Hensley said “Banning firearms and magazines, that is not going to cure the problem.”

“They are addressing the wrong topics,” Hensley added. “Kids for years now play video games in which they have committed thousands of homicides. I believe those games are teaching kids games they shouldn’t be doing, instilling a mindset to kill as many people as in a video game.”

Hensley’s letter, like Mueller’s, states : “Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the President offending the constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Crook County, Oregon.”

“In summary, it is the position of this Sheriff that I refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians,” the letter concludes.

In comments to the media, Hensley added “Some people go so far as to ask, ‘Well, are you going to fight our military when they come to take our guns?’ I say absolutely not – we’re not going to get into a gun battle with our fellow citizens. But I will do everything in my power to defend their right to the Second Amendment.”

In addition to Sheriff Hensley, another Oregon Sheriff, Larry Blanton of Deschutes County, told reporters that he will also stand with the Second Amendment.

“Right now, I support the Constitution and I support the Second Amendment,” Blanton said. “I support our citizens and other citizens rights to own and bear arms. That’s my stand. Always has been, always will be.”

Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer also penned a letter to Biden, stating: “I will not tolerate nor will I permit any federal incursion within the exterior boundaries of Grant County, Oregon, where any type of gun control legislation aimed at disarming law abiding citizens is the goal or objective.”

“We live in a free society,” Palmer wrote, “and firearms ownership and the right to defend ones self from becoming a victim of a criminal act or from a far reaching government attempted to enact laws that are unconstitutional.”

Coos County Sheriff Craig Zanni wrote a letter to “the citizens of Coos County,” stating

“I have and will continue to uphold my Oath of Office, including supporting the Second Amendment rights of our citizens.”

“I will also continue to be an avid supporter of Oregon’s Concealed Handgun License Program and in protecting the confidential personal information of each license holder.” Zanni added.

Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin also sent a letter to the Vice President saying that he “will refuse to participate in, nor tolerate enforcement actions against citizens that are deemed unconstitutional.”

Elsewhere in the country, Kentucky Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, blazed a trail earlier this week by assuring residents that he would not allow guns to be seized under his jurisdiction.

“They asked ‘how are you going to pull these guns?’, and I said ‘you are never going to pull a gun from Jackson County,” said Peyman, adding, “I am responsible for the people inside this county… I couldn’t justify, if Obama passes this, it doesn’t matter what he passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people.”

Minnesota, Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole wrote an open letter to his residents to inform them that he does not accept that the federal government supercedes State authorities when it comes to regulation of firearms.

“I do not believe the federal government or any individual in the federal government has the right to dictate to the states, counties or municipalities any mandate, regulation or administrative rule that violates the United States Constitution or its various amendments.” Cole wrote.

Cole said that the right to bear arms is “fundamental to our individual freedoms and that firearms are part of life in our country.”

The Sheriff said he would refuse to enforce any federal mandate that violates constitutional rights, and that he would consider any new federal regulation on guns to be illegal.

In Alabama, Madison County Sheriff Blake Dorning told WHNT News 19 that his office will not enforce new gun control legislation if he feels those laws violate the Second Amendment.

“The federal authorities can try to enforce it,” said Dorning. “I’m the Sheriff of Madison County. I took a constitutional oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, to defend the Constitution of the State of Alabama, even if it takes my life. That is my position.”

In Texas, Smith County Sheriff Larry Smith has also said he will not enforce an unconstitutional law that takes away firearms from law abiding citizens in Smith County.

“I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen in Smith County. It just won’t happen.” Smith said.

In Florida, Martin Co. Sheriff Bill Snyder says that any gun control legislation will not matter and it won’t change how he and his deputies do business, because he is not empowered to enforce Federal Law.

Rest assured, there are many more Sheriffs, as well as state and local police who know that they are not required to enforce Obama’s gun control executive orders.

Richard Mack, founder of The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, and a regular guest on the Alex Jones Show commented “Now we have good sheriffs who are standing up and defending the law against our own president.”

“I will tell Mr. Obama and everybody else who wants to impose gun control in America, that whether you like it or not, it is against the law,” said Mack.

The 23 executive orders Obama announced yesterday apply only to the federal government, not local or state law enforcement. Without action by the House, it is therefore unlawful to enforce the decrees on sheriffs and other law enforcement departments across the nation.

New Mexico Torrance County Sheriff says, He or his deputies will not enforce unconstitutional EO's or Laws...


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?....105102859523389&type=1&relevant_count=1

The assumption being that the military members conducting the confiscations are actually "U.S. citizens."

What oath justifies the violation of BoR Article 2?

This is where the United Nations steps in and provides troops, who may be wearing U.S. military uniforms.

Anyone see the movie "Gangs of New York?"

Apparently many of the newly arrived immigrants were guaranteed citizenship, but only after joining in with the army of Northern Aggression.

Interesting times!

Brother, but they will not talk like Americans and it will not take long before everyone will know what they are.

Another thing if we fight soon enough and quick and hard enough the War may have already been won, by us before the UN Troops reached sufficient troop strength to play any major part in the War or we will have advanced far enough that the UN Forces would be ineffective.

What we need to do is to hit the enemy hard and fast and hit them with everything we are capable of hitting them with and not back off until they are destroyed.

If we take weeks or months to Ramp Up to our full fighting strength we will have a lot harder time winning and even if we do win it will take a lot longer and cost a lot more lives both ours and theirs.

We need to learn from the Germans and Blitzkrieg or Lightning War.

Some food for thought from another perspective...

Put Not Your Trust in Federalized Sheriffs
by William Norman Grigg

"You look depressed."

"I was lamenting. I’ve lost my innocence."

"You lost that some time ago. If you've only just noticed, it can't have been very important to you."

Exchange between Thomas Cromwell – the Machiavellian Lord Chancellor of England – and Richard Rich, an ambitious functionary who had sold his soul in a buyer’s market, from A Man for All Seasons.

"I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen of Smith County," insisted Sheriff Larry Smith. The sheriff wants his constituents to believe that he would refuse to participate in a federally mandated gun grab, or permit one to be carried out by federal officials within his jurisdiction. Yet ten days before Smith offered that assurance, his office had taken part in an early-morning SWAT rampage throughout East Texas in which 73 warrants were served as part of the federal government’s patently unconstitutional war on drugs.

During a December 2011 campaign debate, Smith said that he wanted to "invest more resources" – that is, redirect wealth plundered from the productive – into a "Drug Task Force," and insisted that under his administration the Sheriff’s Office would embrace a "Task Force mentality" in dealing with law enforcement issues.

The problem with the mindset Sheriff Smith was extoling should become obvious once it’s understood that the German term for "task force" is einsatzgruppe. By their actions many multi-jurisdictional task forces in contemporary America are increasingly faithful to their historic pedigree.

Read the rest and get the supporting links here .

still yet

I just looked and could find anywhere in the bill of rights that protects the people from government taking someones illegal drugs.
If you cited the tenth, OK but the states gave up those rights long ago.
so buy carrying out these warrants he wasn't breaking the law or going against the constitution.

Now, I think Comifornia allows the use of certain drugs under certain circumstances. that being said, if their local sheriff were to seize drugs from those that are allowed to lawfully have them then I would agree that, that sheriff could not be trusted.

just my 2 cents

Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

still yet

I just looked and could find anywhere in the bill of rights that protects the people from government taking someones illegal drugs.
If you cited the tenth, OK but the states gave up those rights long ago.
so buy carrying out these warrants he wasn't breaking the law or going against the constitution.

Now, I think Comifornia allows the use of certain drugs under certain circumstances. that being said, if their local sheriff were to seize drugs from those that are allowed to lawfully have them then I would agree that, that sheriff could not be trusted.

just my 2 cents

double post WTF
My point is the state has deemed drugs bad. and are no longer under the constitutions protection.

if the state gives up your right to, lets say guns, then so be it you loose those rights. think not oh yeah it happens every day.

you do not have the right to drive cars because it is a privilege, to do legally anyway on public roads. if you don't you could get it "the car" taken away or what ever you get the idea.

also I'm not arguing the use of drugs. IMHO what someone does in the privacy of their own home is between them and the fly on the wall.
so long as they are not restricting my rights.

What in hell is wrong with you?

That is one of the biggest, stinkiest piles of Bull Crap I have read on this board.

It is thinking like you do that has caused all this crap that we are in to happen.

The Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights can not be taken from the People regardless of any Laws the Federal Government or the Government of any State enacts.

Another big stinky pill of Bull Crap.

Driving a Car is not a Privilege it is a right. It is just that the States decided to call it a Privilege so they can deny us that right anytime they want to. But it is a RIGHT.

And for your information just because a Right is not enumerated it does not mean it is not a Right.

Just in case you did not Read drjarhead's post I will repeat it just for you.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If you want to be a Freedom Fighter you need to get you head on straight and start thinking correctly as a Patriot Should.

"donttreadonme"???

What a joke.

More like tread on me....please...

Most people forget to read their State constitutions which contain clauses almost identical or at least very similar to the 2nd amend. Some are even more strongly worded than the US const.

There is another thing.

When the original States Ratified the Constitution they accepted the Main Body of the Constitution along with the First Ten Amendments, and the States which Joined at a later date also had to accept the entire Constitution as a Condition for becoming a State.

They can't now decide they don't like a certain part of the Constitution and refuse to follow it.

Doesn't matter anyhow.

The BORs aren't privileges that can be revoked.

Anyhow, the only freedoms you truly possess are those you are willing to fight for.

Laid out here, however, is one of the problems I have with the "Organized Militia."

They have been a repeatedly dismal disappointment to me. Nice if they show but I don't need 'em to know what's right or to do what's right.

Dead on.

My state constitution specifically says that the rights enumerated within it can never be revoked by any future gov. Further it says that if our government ever becomes tyrannical, we retain the right and the duty to revolt against it.

Again...dead on.

http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/Sh...s-away--is-not-the-answer-187936291.html

As your elected sheriff for these past twelve years, I have renewed my oath each time you elected me to this high office, “I, Kenneth William Irwin, being first duly sworn upon oath, do depose and say that I will support the Constitution of the United States and laws of the State of Washington and faithfully and impartially discharge and perform the duties of SHERIFF of Yakima County, Washington, according to the best of my abilities, so help me God.” Both the Constitution of the United States (in the 2nd Amendment) and the Washington State Constitution (in Article 1, Section 24) include the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Our nation is going through a very difficult and disturbing time of violence against one another in which many types of weapons have been used. I have given this much thought and conclude that the best answers to curbing this violence will be the most difficult to achieve, will take continued effort, and should not be focused on a certain type of weapon as the symbol of violence. Taking guns away from eligible law abiding people who love this nation and its freedoms is not the answer and cannot be recognized as a lawful strategy.

The only common thread in all violent acts is the perpetrator of the violence and that is where our focus should be. Individual rights can be protected if we move smartly to lessen violence in our society as together we improve awareness, treatment and maintenance of people in mental distress while also expanding keystone strategies such as the effective campaign against bullying and for positive role modeling in accepting and nurturing others. Additionally, we need to make sure we have a practical and effective process for background checks on all firearms transactions, stress continued improvement of firearms safety and firearms security, and definitely improve safety in public places such as schools.

I strongly believe we must focus on strategies that will truly make people healthier and safer, while we also protect each of our Constitutional rights. We can do this … together.

I have to find a copy, but there was a guidebook put out by the Oregon State Police and state Attorney General's office with a lot in it about what what they consider "citizenship". Basically, in their organizational policy opinion, any convicted felon is no longer a "citizen" and therefore forfeits all rights that would be associated with citizenship.

So for them, being "pro-gun" means everything is happy for someone who has the right sponsorship from law enforcement, and everything goes wrong for those who do not. It's pretty simple that way, because the double speak respects the rights of "people" without getting deep into how they define "the people" and "good citizens", or how half they casually will classify all lawbreakers the same, so if you break gun laws, you are a murderer, dope pusher, bank robber and all of the above, heck, child molester too if they can fit it in there. It is cult ideology pure and simple.

Any person believed to be a felon but not convicted, still is a forfeiture of all rights of citizenship. That's how they can say all of the right things, but in their own language doublespeak, single out anyone they want as "not a citizen" and therefore not subject to the respect of any rights whatsoever.

Combine with that any strong concepts of state or local sovereignty, and what you have is the very strong potential for warlordism if SHTF.

The thing to look out for with these people who are going to "say the right things" as they built up local posses is how much intel are you giving away and examine how they have treated others in the past.

Decentralization of political power, even at the local level, is one of the keys to sustainable liberty, without any single faction being in 100% control of everything.

I mention this because the whole "felons are not citizens" thing seems to trace back in Oregon to a nominally pro-gun conservative political family led by John Minnis. Minnis could be described as Oregon's version of Arpaio.

Most of the other political factions respect/fear the Minnis clan, and even the KKK has not done much to set up shop in this state because the "extreme" seem to already be entrenched with him, and have entrenched themselves with the state police and although the "feds" here are technically "feds" they usually are appointed locally and stay local, interchanging jobs between local appointments and federal appointments that keep them in Oregon.

Missouri is showing us some backbone.

Johnson County's sheriff wrote a letter to Obama that has been signed by a dozen other Missouri sheriffs so far. The Osage County sheriff added this:

"On the same day the President is taking his oath to uphold the Constitution, he continues to attack our 2nd Amendment rights ... As Osage County Sheriff, I also took an Oath to the Constitution; but unlike Obama, I intend to uphold mine."

Dear Mr. President,

My name is Charles M. Heiss and I am the Sheriff of Johnson County, Missouri. I have held this office since January 1, 1997. I am writing to you to express my concern with the tone of your administration with respect to the Second Amendment Rights of American citizens. It appears to me and many Americans that there is a genuine desire on the part of your administration to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law abiding American citizens in the interest of curbing gun violence in our nation.

Throughout our nation’s history the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights has served as the very foundation of our free society. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution has long guaranteed our citizens the right to keep and bare [sic] arms and is central to our ability to live in a free society. Any attempt to restrict these Second Amendment rights through executive order is unconstitutional and tantamount to an all-out assault on the United States Constitution. Just as the Fourth Amendment to the constitution guarantees our citizens the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure, the Second Amendment guarantees each of us the right to keep and bare [sic] arms to protect ourselves from anyone who would seek to cause us harm. This includes the federal Government.World history has shown us that when a society does not possess the ability to defend itself it becomes ripe for victimization by criminals, and ripe for government oppression. One need not look too far in today’s world to see glaring examples of defenseless people being brutalized by rogue regimes and dictators. Syria, North Korea, and Mali are just a few examples of this type of oppression. Mexico is a stark reminder of a society overrun with criminal element in the form of Drug Cartels.

As the duly elected Sheriff of Johnson County, Missouri, it is my sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitutions of the United States of America, and the State of Missouri against all enemies both foreign and domestic. This means I not only have the duty to protect my constituents from incidents of crime, but I also have a duty and responsibility to protect and preserve the individual rights and liberties afforded and guaranteed to every citizen by our constitutions. This, Mr. President is a duty I fully understand, appreciate, and will carry out with great vigor and conviction. I will most certainly urge my fellow Sheriffs in the State of Missouri and across this great nation to rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation, or executive order that impedes, erodes, or otherwise diminishes their constitutional right to keep and bare arms. I will use all means legal to meet this solemn and sacred responsibility.

Respectfully,

Charles M. Heiss

Sheriff Johnson County, Missouri
Source

Folks, when you are engaging others in writing on discussions regarding the Second Amendment, please PLEASE remember that the amendment does not guarantee our right to bare arms! Writing this makes us look foolish and gives antis a chance to make us look ignorant. I'm seeing this quite a bit in the discussions I've been participating in.

While some of the sheriffs listed may not support gun confiscation - they sure do support & enforce gun bans, and that is unconstitutional.

And they sure seem fine with confiscating homes at the whim of the bankers.

I will believe it when i see it - as most sheriff's & deputy's violate the constitution on a daily/hourly basis.

I doubt most sheriffs even understand what is a unconstitutional act or regulation.

"Folks, when you are engaging others in writing on discussions regarding the Second Amendment, please PLEASE remember that the amendment does not guarantee our right to bare arms! Writing this makes us look foolish and gives antis a chance to make us look ignorant. I'm seeing this quite a bit in the discussions I've been participating in."

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please show me where it does not guarantee the right to bear arms? Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

If we had a constitutional government, then we may have some guarantee of our rights. But we don't have that government.

The constitution has not been followed for 150 years - give or take.

If you really want to guarantee your rights - it will come from the barrel of a gun - A piece of Paper or Hemp in this case can not guarantee anything.

It is a there to tell those in government of some of our rights and the few powers that the government has - and they have shown that they do not care either way.

It does indeed guarantee our right to bear arms, but not to bare arms.

Beaufort County, NC Passes Gun Law Nullification Resolution

While a number of states are currently considering legislation to nullify federal gun laws, rules, acts, orders and regulations, and various sheriffs around the country are issuing notice that they will not enforce any such federal laws, a new grassroots undercurrent could be building to support those efforts. Local governments nullifying unconstitutional federal acts.

Today, Beaufort County, North Carolina became the first in the country to do so. The board of commissioners passed a nullification resolution in support of the 2nd Amendment. The vote was unanimous. The resolution reads, in part:

The Beaufort County Board of Commissioners calls upon the Governor and General Assembly of the State of North Carolina to immediately pass an act to nullify the implementation within the State of North Carolina of any Federal law, executive order or regulations restricting the right to keep and bear arms

It continues, and makes clear that the County will play no supporting role to the federal government in attacks on the 2nd Amendment:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the County Manager be directed to see that no county paid staff participate in nor allow any county resources be used in the implementation of any Federal law, executive order or executive directive that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms

Enthusiasm from the community was high. Representatives from the North Carolina Tenth Amendment Center reported that the “room was packed” to the point that the crowd was “overflowing out into the hall.” Two local tv stations were on hand to report as well.

All politics is local? Correction. All successful politics are local.

Source

You really believe this load of crap???...

I am only quoting your last post, but answering all three...

A State , the feds , your local government can write any law they want outlawing something..


Does it make it legal or constitutional???....

NO.... HELL NO!!!!!

You lose your rights, when you do, what you are doing right here...

When you start believing the BS that you are told by those in government...
Then let them dictate what laws you must follow...

crap like....

driving is a privilege...

We can have reasonable agreements on gun control...

Drug use is illegal, and so we can restrict the rights of all, to catch drug users and dealers...

Your right to privacy is out weighted by our right to security...

2nd amendment is about hunting and sportsman...

Many other massive loads of crap they feed people...

We only need 10 laws... and the 10 rights God gave us....

Maybe a couple others to clarify them...

Most every situation is covered by those 10 laws and 10 rights...

Just because your state government or the Feds are trying to keep busy, and make themselves relevant...

Doesn't mean the laws they write are worth the time, and money we spent to print them...

IMHO

greywolf

Looks like you got some bad crack or something.
You might want to look at this:
http://www.awrm.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=22;t=001248;p=1#000000

So why don't we all have machine guns? semi autos are sometimes easily changed to full auto, so why is it illegal? Clearly from what I've been reading all forms of arms should be legal and constitutional.
why no law suits guys? where you at?

either it's a right or it is not.

I'm hearing lots of tough talk but how many of you ridiculing me have Drivers license, hunting license, fishing license, construction permits or Machine guns "wait don't answer that" well you get the Idea.



about "rights"

If I have to plead my case to the supreme court to justify what I am doing is a Right then the system is messed up. which is the case most of the time and those opinions at the court level can change like the weather. (Dems or Reps)

As I understand it, I'm sure someone here will set me straight, we elect representatives to represent us and they more or less introduces laws and restrictions on "us" and if we don't like it well that's tough. sue them right!

most, if not all laws are unconstitutional. right?

clarification is the problem! should we have 10 rounds or 7. lol

any way Back on topic, most of you missed the point I was trying to make!

Bad crack LOL
I'll check that link out.

look I'm on board like most of you and I feel as if the government has stepped far beyond its original intent.

do I believe in the system? hell no!

But to obey makes life much more pleasurable, so we obey.

FOR NOW!

I hope that clears things up for ya.

We should be allowed full auto weapons..

The only reason we don't DTOM is we the people allowed the feds to put a restriction on us all because of the actions of a few criminals...

During Prohibition, people thought they could stop the criminals by outlawing "Machine guns"...

It didn't work criminals still had theirs..The people who were not criminals lost theirs..

Same with the 68 gun ban...

I don't recall the gangs of Miami during the cocaine wars surrendering their weapons...

Wow DTOM I usually agree with much of what you say, but your way off base here...

I know you must have meant it different .."you obey to make life more pleasurable"...

sure most have DL or Hunting, What I don't have is a real ID..I will not get one if NM ever decides to follow that law..

That's the whole problem in a nutshell DTOM, Patriots saying they will follow a law to keep life pleasurable...

Some will do that following, even when they outlaw those 10 round magazines and all our semi autos...

Time to decide which side we will all be on...

Yes most of the BS laws on the books are unconstitutional...

The laws you need were given by God, just like the rights you have...What part of that makes you "LOL"...

Are you pretending to be a patriot, or are you really some one who thinks freedom is the most important right...

I think it's funny, you find the 10 commandments and the bill of rights funny...

Read em, I bet it's really all that is needed...

You Murder you hang, or unlawfully kill you go to prison, you steal you are punished and repay the theft, You lie, your exposed and black balled, and so on..

Why do we need ten thousand laws to stop theft or killing..

God and the founders made it easy for all of us dummies to understand...

IMHO

Greywolf