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

Yeah, you cleared things up alright.... :rolleyes:

Back on topic for a moment....


Whether the cops above keep standing for our rights, or are pushed aside relies on whether we stand with them.

It is our choice, think about it...

They are most from police forces of a few to maybe 50 cops, how long can they last, if the feds cut off funding, and try to arrest them individually...

We all must send letters to the cops saying if you need support, and they come after you... We will defend you, as we defend the people, and the constitution..

IMHO

Greywolf

It's simple.

If they honor their word...

If they stand for us...

we stand with them.

Otherwise, we turn our back.

More from the person who reported the letter from Missouri sheriffs in my last post:

At the risk of appearing even more gullible than my previous comments on this topic indicate, I add to our category of Defiant Sheriffs one from Collin County, TX. Terry Box writes on "his personal Facebook page," "Neither I, nor any of my deputies, will participate in the enforcement of laws that violate our precious constitutional rights, including our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms." (Thanks to Charles Everett for sending me the article.)

Now dear friends and fellow serfs, I have not lost my mind, nor have I suddenly gone over to the dark side. Yes, talk is cheap. Yes, I realize these same lawmen enforce unconstitutional edicts all the time. Yes, I know they've already stolen guns from you and thrown you or your kids in jail for smoking weed. Believe me, I expect neither consistency nor a firm commitment to liberty from any of Leviathan's lackeys, any more than I expect them to be kind, pacific, humane, etc. I further note that when the newspaper's report mentions the sheriff's political party (it doesn't in Box's case), it turns out to be Rethuglican. So you can bet your bottom Bitcoin that if George "War Criminal" Bush had blithered about grabbing our guns, these guys would have been too busy busting down our doors to muse on the Constitutional ramifications.

Nonetheless, it's still heartening to see the State's own enforcers siding with us for a change. Or at least saying they do.

Viva la Revolution!

Source

Haha I see, no more bare arms for me. I'll wear long sleeve camo from now on.

On a more serious note, I think we as defenders of the Constitution must know the Constitution. Spend some time memorizing the Bill of Rights, which is the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Don't memorize too well like me? Print up some cards and hand them out. If you are in San Antonio have an NRA or Gadsden Flag bumper sticker don't be surprised to see one of these under your windshield wiper. When speaking of the Second Amendment be sure to point out how the rest of the Bill of Rights has been thrown away.

A heavily regulated sport being necessary to the funding of a fee state, the privilege of some people to keep and bear government specified arms shall be controlled.

Gary Raney: The Slave-Catching Sheriff of Ada County, Idaho
Posted by William Grigg on January 25, 2013 01:16 PM

If Idaho had been part of the Union in 1850, and Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney had occupied that office at the time, he would have dutifully arrested any black man or woman identified as an escaped slave. Oh, sure, Raney may have expressed agonized reluctance as he did so – but that reluctance would have been rhetorical window-dressing for his pious invocation of the sacred responsibility he had to submit to the “law of the land.”

This is the inescapable logic of the position Raney has taken in an op-ed column published this morning in the Idaho Statesman.

“I have been asked many times in the past couple of weeks whether I will uphold my oath to defend the Constitution and proclaim an intolerance of federal action against the Second Amendment,” Raney writes. Many others have indulged that pressure and now we see Oregon sheriffs, Wyoming legislators and others making hollow promises to protect you from the intrusions of the federal government.”

“I did not swear to uphold just part of the Constitution,” Raney continues, before tacitly promising to do that very thing. You see, the Constitution, on Raney’s construction, “includes the right to keep and bear arms, but it also includes the `supremacy clause’ that says that every state shall abide by the laws passed by our Congress."

Actually, that right is not included in the Constitution; it exists independent of that document or any other government charter, and no government has the moral right or delegated authority to take it away. What Raney asserts here is the idea that the existence of that right is contingent on government approval, and thus can be nullified by government. From this perspective, the only part of the Constitution that matters is the supremacy clause, at least as people like Raney pretend to understand it.

“So, despite the fact that I personally oppose some of the gun control measures currently under consideration, my oath requires me to uphold the laws that are passed by our federal and state representatives,” summarizes Raney. The same would have been true, of course, of the Fugitive Slave Act – which was properly enacted and enforced as the “law of the land” despite the heroic efforts of people in some cities and states to nullify enforcement of that abominable measure.

Give Raney whatever credit is due to him for his candor: Like the other sheriffs who have pledged not to carry out unconstitutional federal gun confiscation measures, Raney receives federal subsidies – but unlike his pro-Second Amendment colleagues, Raney is forthright about the fact that he is merely a servile tool of the federal leviathan state. He will confiscate firearms from innocent people if ordered to, but at least he won’t have to walk back any promises he had made to protect their rights.

Source

Who said that it would be easy to return the country to Constitutional legitimacy?

It doesn't mean that we don't try.

Cockrum v. State, quotes about Militia:
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.

A free citizenry does not ask its governments' permission to exercise a right. It does not register its exercise of a right. It does not waive any other right, such as the right to privacy, in exchange for permission to exercise a right such as the right to keep and bear arms. It does not permit government to claim the exercise of a right is probable cause, or prima facie evidence, or even a suspicion, of a crime having been committed. It does not discuss, or negotiate, what rights it will or will not exercise with government or with any government functionary. In short, a free citizenry, founded in principles of liberty, does not give up its right to determine what kind of government will receive its Consent to Govern. --Donald L. Cline

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." —Jeff Snyder, author American Handgunner, Second Amendment Foundation Officer

“No true reform is possible that leaves government intact. Appeals to a government for a redress of grievances, even when acted upon, only increase the supposed legitimacy of the government's acts, and add to its amassed power.”

“Government will be abolished when its subjects cease to grant it legitimacy. Government cannot exist without at least the tacit consent of the populace. This consent is maintained by keeping people in ignorance of their real power. Voting is not an expression of power, but an admission of powerlessness, since it cannot do otherwise than reaffirm the government's supposed legitimacy.”


It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much ... to forget it -- James Madison.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

Wis. sheriff urges residents to get gun training

Source

A sheriff who released a radio ad urging Milwaukee-area residents to learn to handle firearms so they can defend themselves while waiting for police said Friday that law enforcement cutbacks have changed the way police can respond to crime.

In the 30-second commercial, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. says personal safety is no longer a spectator sport.

"I need you in the game," he says.

"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option," he adds. "You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. ... Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there."

The ad has generated sharp criticism from other area officials and anti-violence advocates. The president of the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs' Association, Roy Felber, said it sounds like a call to vigilantism.

"That doesn't sound too smart," Felber said. "People have the right to defend themselves, but they don't have the right to take the law into their own hands."

Under Wisconsin's "castle doctrine," someone who uses deadly force against an unlawful intruder to their home, business or vehicle is presumed to have acted reasonably. A spokeswoman for the state Department of Justice said that as of this week, there are about 155,000 concealed carry permits in Wisconsin.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Clarke said he just wants people to know what their options are. While self-defense isn't for everyone, some people see personal safety as their own responsibility, he said, and they should be trained properly.

"I'm not telling you to 'Hey, pick up a gun and blast away.' ... People need to know what they are doing if they chose that method — to defend themselves," he said.

But he also said he wanted to call on residents to be law enforcement "partners." He said he could either whine about budget cuts that forced him to lay off 48 deputies last year or he could get creative.

"People are responsible to play a role in their own safety, with the help of law enforcement," Clarke said. "I'm here to do my part, but we have fewer and fewer resources. We're not omnipresent, and we have to stop giving people that impression."

"After sitting down and thinking about this, I'm thinking 'Hey, I've got an untapped reserve over here, and it's the public,'" Clarke said.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett's office released a statement criticizing the ad: "Apparently Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie."

Barrett was beaten up several years ago by someone with a tire iron, and Clarke said he thought that would make the mayor "a lot more sensitive to people being able to defend themselves in such instances. A firearm and a plan of defense would have come in handy for him that day."

Jeri Bonavia, executive director of Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, said Clarke took a dangerous position with his ad. She pointed to the case of George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida who fatally shot an unarmed 17-year-old following an altercation. Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder, claiming self-defense under Florida's "stand your ground" law.

"I feel like this is such an irresponsible thing for our chief public safety officer of a county to do," Bonavia said. "I think he owes this community an apology. And if he really believes that he's not capable of providing for our public safety he should get a different job."

I think the Sheriff is on to something...

But he'll catch hell for saying it...

Maybe the sheriff's dept. should offer the gun training classes at a reasonable price, and that will cover some of the cut backs, and keep those deputies busy...

HEADLINE...SHERIFF TRAINS CITIZENS IN FIREARM USE AS PART OF THE NEW MILWAUKEE CITIZENS MILITIA....film at 11...

greywolf

The Civilian Disarmament Dialectic
by William Grigg

Source

The Opinion page in today's Idaho Press-Tribune published side-by-side op-ed columns by Canyon County Sheriff Kieran Donahue and Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney on the subject of proposed civilian disarmament measures. (The essays are hidden behind the paper’s ridiculous paywall.) The comparison is quite instructive.

Sheriff Donahue, who has played to his constituents by joining the ranks of Second Amendment Refuseniks, condemns Barrack Obama’s civilian disarmament as “political posturing,” while professing his confidence that “Congress would not be so foolish as to let anyone strip us of our Second Amendment [sic] rights.” He also regurgitates the long-stale and always-unedifying talking point that the country deserves a “meaningful dialogue” on gun-related violence.

Donahue adroitly misdirects the reader from what should be the central question: What would he do in the event that Congress were so foolish as to enact gun confiscation laws?

The astute reader will notice that Donahue gives the game away in this statement from the first sentence of his third paragraph: “Law-abiding citizens have every right to own legal firearms….” Here he takes refuge in a familiar statist tautology: Our “Second Amendment [sic] rights,” on this construction, consist of the freedom to own whatever firearms the government permits us to have.

Later in the essay, Donohue – succumbing to the irresistible temptation to boast about his supposed accomplishments – describes how he has “worked for years with dedicated ATF agents and other local law enforcement officers to keep illegal guns, like sawed-off shotguns, off our streets and enforce laws prohibiting felons from owning or possessing firearms."

Sheriff Donahue’s message to gun owners is: You can trust me not to help the Feds disarm you, because I only work alongside the Feds to seize "illegal" guns – which actually means that I will disarm you as soon as they outlaw possession of whatever guns you happen to own.

For his part, Sheriff Raney (as I have noted before) insists that the Constitution’s supremacy clause – which he deliberately misrepresents – gives the Federal government plenary authority to disarm the public, and that his oath of office requires that he carry out federal orders. In his op-ed, Raney goes out of his way to acknowledge that the Constitution protects "the right to keep and bear arms" and to emphasize that "I personally oppose some of the gun control measures currently under consideration...."

His message to gun-grabbers is: You can trust me to disarm the public, emitting a dense fog of persiflage about individual liberty as I do so.

Donahue and Raney have collaborated to produce a museum-quality example of the controlled dialectic at work in the campaign to disarm the public. Both of these sheriffs will carry out orders to confiscate personal firearms. They've just tailored their respective rhetorical approaches for different constituencies.

We shouldn’t neglect the role played by the Press-Tribune in this exercise. The mission statement of the P-T’s editorial collective is: “Empowering the community.” This means, in practice, sacrificing the rights of the individual on behalf of the supposed “collective good” – and justifying the criminal actions of the state’s enforcement caste when they result in harm to the innocent.

Last August 16, a SWAT team from the Gem County Sheriff’s Office invaded the home of an innocent couple on the basis of a spurious domestic violence call. One of them, Detective Rich Perecz, assaulted the terrified wife, dragging her bodily from her home. The husband was forced to kneel facing away from at least two officers who held the muzzle of their “assault rifles” at the back of his head. Then, without a warrant or probable cause, the team – led by Gem County Sheriff Chuck Rowland – conducted an illegal search of the house. They eventually found an item they called “drug paraphernalia” and wrote the husband – who was left with lasting injuries after being dropped, handcuffed, on his tailbone – a ticket.

Why did the Gem County Sheriff authorize a paramilitary raid, rather than a simple welfare check? One of the deputies identified the husband as a “constitutionalist.”

The victims of this home invasion, Michael Gibbons and Marcela Cruz, tried for months to get the local media – including the Press-Tribune -- to report on the story. Finally, on October 17 – long after the story had been widely publicized online – the Press-Tribune published a masterpiece of statist stenography entitled “Gem Sheriff defends deputies in video.” (Sheriff Rolland, of course, was involved in the same criminal actions, and hardly qualifies as an objective observer.)

When – not “if” – the Feds escalate their war against private gun ownership, “local” sheriffs like Donahue, Raney, and Rolland will do as they are ordered; they will defend their deputies as they commit crimes against innocent people; and collectivist media outlets like the Press-Tribune will dutifully retail the Regime’s talking points in the name of “empowering the community.”

I wonder how long he will KEEP HIS WORD TO UPHOLD THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

And what if that cunt Obummer nullifies the Second Amendment? What then?

No President or Law passed by CONgress can remove or Nullify any part of the Constitution. Modification of the constitution takes a Con-Con.

Any law repugnant to the Constitution is Null and Void.

Let them pass all the laws they want - it means nothing. And when they come to enforce a unconstitutional law/commit treason - Shoot Them All.

Here is an article that says it like it is:

It’s Okay, Sit Tight… The Sheriff’s Coming, And He’ll Save Us All!

http://info.themicroeffect.com/2013...he-sheriffs-coming-and-hell-save-us-all/

..."Whew! What a relief!! I feel so much better knowing that all of these sheriffs – who for decades have been cooperatively kicking down doors, operating warrantless checkpoints, seizing property and imprisoning private and peaceable consumers of certain goods based on a pretense of legitimacy under the Pure Food and Drug Act’s invocation of the “interstate commerce” clause in the US Constitution, just to pick a single example– are going to suddenly say “Enough is enough!”...

Something tells me that if a person convicted of a federal NFA offense open carries in that county, they are just as likely to get shot or thrown in jail as any crackhead caught doing the same.

Talk is cheap with those people, especially when they know they are ill equipped to handle any sort of serious uprising. Their only chance at survival is to try and say the right things to get at least some of the asymmetrical force over to join their government approved tory militias.

I know for a fact that when Craig Zanni was a lower ranking deputy prior to being one of those "Sheriffs" who signed a letter to Biden, he was present and collaborating with the BATF on a raid against one of our people, and had backed up the justification for the raid by telling other patriots that the guy was a dope dealer when I knew the guy too, and the guy was definitely NOT dealing dope.

Yeah, I agree with you guys.

Can't trust any of them.

Sad but true.

Not my fault. Their fault.

As I said in another post..

I was delighted to see the Torrance county sheriffs letter to the citizens, say he would not enforce any unconstitutional laws...

But just a few days later I read his op-ed piece in the Telegraph saying he thought we needed universal background checks, no private sales and mental health checks on any possessing or buying firearms...

I then realized he too was pandering, and would confiscate any weapons the government said were illegal...

He also would stop you if you were carrying and take your weapon till you pass some arbitrary mental health check...

Then maybe you'd get it back..

I also realized that, like he had done before out here, he would target Vets who were armed and lived out here to get away from society...

There is a lot of guys out here who have escaped the confines of society and want to be left alone..

Perfect targets for this guy...

Most now are Vietnam vets but Iraq and other vets are slowness moving in...

I had to withdraw any support I had for his statement and I will resist any effort he uses to fool the people...

You see this is why we must use caution when we see reports like sheriffs backing the constitution..

We jump in too fast Like many of us did, and we lean credibility to their voices with other patriots..

We must always wait just a few days, before we support any thing, someones says who is connected to the government,

Greywolf

The best gesture these posturing sheriffs can do is call up the citizens of their communities for militia training: basic marksmanship and fire team training, based on their location and proximity to each other.

Yes, but even the hard core Communist nations had local militias made up of party loyalists.

Call from a sterile phone explaining that you are with the BATF and require assistance in an investigation then see how quickly they want to cooperate in order to be in on the forfeiture action

As much as I want to, I don't know if I should respond to all the anti-gun nuts in our local paper.... They are ripping the sheriff up for saying he won't enforce unconstitutional executive orders or laws...

As much as I disagree with some of the Sheriffs ideas, These nuts are off the deep end..

The local paper is pasted with them all calling for his impeachment, and saying if the president says it's a constitutional executive order the sheriff must follow it.

Not one of them has an understanding of the Constitution and that includes the Parers resident op ed writer...

Not one understands that if the Sheriff was to enforce an unconstitutional law he could be tried later for that..He couldn't use the "I was just following orders" response...

They haven't a clue that it is up to the individual soldier and sheriff to decide in his mind whether the order he was given is lawful...

Yea, that's a rock or a hard place..But that's how it is ....

You have to decide, and pray you were right when the courts decide...You can't enforce it and violate someones rights and later say oh well, I guess that was unconstitutional..Sorry I shot your son when he resisted...

You'll face your own trial then...

None of them get that executive orders are orders for Federal agencies. and not for local or state agencies.

Not one of them understands, that not only would an executive order to confiscate weapons be unconstitutional because it violated the second amendment, But so would any law that violates it....

They have been brain washed by years of submitting to unlawful orders, that they don't get you have the right to resist...

Greywolf

Greywolf, sounds like a good time to write your sheriff letting him know you support his decision on this one. He needs to know there are more opinions out there than just the loonies in the paper.

Not 100% correct, only thank the Sheriff and let him know he supports some of what the Sheriff stated but not the bad parts and then explain why he believes as he does.

NECRO THREAD TIME

Now that Kessler was proven to have been a bad guy all along....

I smelled it, just could not quite pin it down. Too many legally registered full autos, not enough real deal. Just another privelaged asshole waving his shit around with a stay out of jail free card in his back pocket. Notice this was about the time the nails were in the coffin of our patriots protect patriots website operation and Edogz (out of Pennsylvania) had just finished wreaking havoc around here.

Ever notice how none of these guys volunteer to go undercover as like, prison guards or cops to ferret out human rights abuses? No, that shit is only for Steven Segal movies (while the ponytailed one was in New Orleans NOT opposing gun confiscation and NOT throwing a beatdown on anyone who did), but yours truly was chained to the wall at the local BATF building rather than being deployed there with the National Guard, you know, "for the safety of the public".

The "public" at the Danziger bridge was not so safe, were they?

Fucking pigs. I get tired of these lying assholes getting up on stage and being the big stars of the freedom movement while pulling stunts like Kessler did.

I saw an article about him today and i thought he looked like someone you called out on here awhile back. What an asshole.