See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://washingtonexaminer.com/law-w ... ntrol-measures/article/2525518
Published: Mar 27, 2013
Author: Paul Bedard
Post Date: 2013-03-27 14:24:21 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 385
Comments: 25
Supporters of the 380 sheriffs in 15 states who so far have vowed to defy new state and federal gun control laws claim that legislation is starting to pop up around the nation to fire any state elected or appointed law enforcement official who doesn't obey federal orders. The first effort emerged in Texas. Legislation proposed by Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws. What's more, it would remove any elected or appointed law enforcement officer for simply stating or signing any document stating that they will not obey federal orders. A gun lobbyist told Secrets, "Beware because once something like this is introduced in one state, it will be followed very quickly in several other states."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken As I've said before, niggers and jews are not compatible with the BoR and constitution. Niggers don't know who their own fathers are, let alone forefathers, and jews are beholden only to their own tribe and the almighty buck. They're outsiders and will never assimilate.
Support bacteria. (The world needs more culture)
Neither group should ever have been brought in/allowed in to this country.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken I'm with you on die Juden, but all it would take to lift blacks up is a little eugenics. That was already happening, indirectly and not explicitly, before Yankees fucked it all up in the 1960s. All measures of social pathology in the black community were lower before so-called "Civil Rights". Self-reliance was much higher. More had their own businesses, serving their own communities. Southerners can handle the negro, and did. Yankees can't. There was nothing like Detroit in Dixie. "Mr. Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive." -- Leonid Brezhnev to James Callahan
I'd point out Atlanta, south Dallas, Houston's fifth ward, off the top o'the head.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken As usual your willful ignorance never ceases to amaze. Actually the turning point was when the FBI and its CoIntelPro began subverting the Civil Rights Movement and the problem was confounded by Lyndon Bane Johnson and "The Great Society" which rewarded with cash illegitimacy, broken families, and profligacy. Johnson was well known as a racist (as well as a "Machine" criminal politician) so one thing we can be sure of is that "The Great Society" was not intended to uplift anyone. As for eugenics like most eugenicists you betray your hate of humanity by the vitriol you spew. Eugenics is Materialism is Socialism is Communism. It is predicated upon the false assumption, one never proved, that "Man" is nothing more than a biological automaton and that all we are and can ever be is what the dross physical envelope called "the body" allows. It is the assumption that man is nothing more than walking meat, an animal, and that all men are animals. Have you prayed yet to Darwin today? Man proposes, God disposes. Yvonne Davis has missed the deadline for submitting legislation for this session of the Texas legislature, she's just grandstanding for "her peeps": Friday, March 8, 2013 (60th day) [House Rule 8, Sec. 8; Senate Rules 7.07(b) and 10.01] http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/gtli/sessions/dates.html would've thunk?
#2. To: Lod (#1)
#3. To: Obnoxicated (#2)
#4. To: Obnoxicated (#2)
As I've said before, niggers and jews are not compatible with the BoR and constitution.
#5. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#4)
#6. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#4)
All measures of social pathology in the black community were lower before so-called "Civil Rights". Self-reliance was much higher. More had their own businesses, serving their own communities.
#7. To: Ada, All (#0)
The first effort emerged in Texas. Legislation proposed by Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws.
Deadline for filing bills and joint resolutions other than local bills,
emergency appropriations, and bills that have been declared an
emergency by the governor
-Alex Kurtagic
#8. To: Original_Intent, Prefrontal Vortex, Lod, Ada Obnoxicated (#6) (Edited)
I bet this backfires and Rep. Yvonne Davis is gonna regret it. If The Texas Sheriffs Association retaliates and recommends that all reps who support this or similar legislation should be primaried by their own parties with the support of every Sheriff and all deputies who agree and who wish to participate (volunteering on their own time of course), then all other reps in heavily pro-shootin' arn districts regardless of party affiliation will run like scalded chupacabras from this bill. The comfy "reps for life who don't ever ask for trubbel" will point out to Davis that one rep pissing off TX sheriffs is "much more wirser off and on thinner ice" than as many as 254 sheriffs and their machines calling the bluff of one dumb ass state rep. Siding with Los Federales agin' Texas is never good, especially when Davis is attempting to assist in the de facto overthrow of the US Constitution. "He's mean but he's ours!"__from BEST LITTLE WHOREHOUSE IN TEXAS
#9. To: Ada (#0)
That means no more Special Order 40. No more sanctuary cities. Wave goodbye to all the illegal aliens. "Legislation proposed by Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws.....What's more, it would remove any elected or appointed law enforcement officer for simply stating or signing any document stating that they will not obey federal orders."
#10. To: Big Meanie (#9)
For the edification of we non-Texicanocans could you please explain? That means no more Special Order 40. No more sanctuary cities. Wave goodbye to all the illegal aliens.
#11. To: HOUNDDAWG (#8)
I hope it does backfire - big time. Of course the "Honorable" Madam from da' hood is probably in a safe seat demographically, but that does not apply to all ub da repasentatives.
#12. To: HOUNDDAWG (#10)
Could be he's implying that Texas law enforcement will no longer look the other way while immigration laws are being violated.
Support bacteria.
(The world needs more culture)
#13. To: ALL (#7)
The first thing I thought was Upon reading the intent of the bill I was a dark despair mingled with revulsion to stupid it. It's mind numbing. I tell you this much though....I doubt her constituency shares her views on law enforcement.
__ There are only two kinds of americans left in the USA those opposed to the tyranny and those that are wrong. Resist propaganda, Support strict constitutional adherence!
#14. To: Ada, All (#0)
Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis probably wouldn't like to see that happen but I sure would. legislation is starting to pop up around the nation to fire any state elected or appointed
law enforcement official who doesn't obey federal orders the Constitution.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#15. To: Ada (#0)
As opposed to keeping his/her oath of office which requires that official to uphold, support and defend the Constitution - which just happens to be the higher law - the Supreme Law of the Land. That woman should immediately be impeached before being charged with treason against her oath and the country. The first effort emerged in Texas. Legislation proposed by Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws.
We should all be livid. Stop acting like docile, mentally castrated pussies and grow a pair. It's time to get in their face. Why should we speak in hushed tones and act all polite when we are being raped every day?
#16. To: Ada (#0)
Those Sheriffs willing to defy corporate thuggery in D.C. and STATE GOVCO by upholding their oaths of office will be supported by far more people (well armed too) than any of these State/Federal legislator whores. The gun grabbing is going nowhere fast. End the fucking FED.
We should all be livid. Stop acting like docile, mentally castrated pussies and grow a pair. It's time to get in their face. Why should we speak in hushed tones and act all polite when we are being raped every day?
#17. To: HOUNDDAWG, Obnoxicated (#10)
"For the edification of we non-Texicanocans could you please explain?" Sorry, I forgot for a minute that not everyone livees in Los Angeles. Special Order 40 is a POLICE ORDER that prohibits Los Angeles Police officers from inquiring about the legal status of suspected illegal aliens. It was issued by Daryl Gates in 1979 and is still in effect today. It turned Los Angeles into a sanctuary city for millions of Mexicans that eventually forced out millions of Americans. It also set a bad example for police departments all across the country. When a democratic congresswoman proposes a law that would "remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws," she probably didn't consider the ramifications of her own legislation. As it stands now, local police departments aren't required to enforce federal immigration laws, but they are allowed to do so if they want to: "It is illegal for local governments to prohibit police cooperation with the INS, and individual officers who report violations are protected by law." "Furthermore, federal courts had repeatedly affirmed since 1984 that local police may inquire into immigration violations in the course of a routine stop (see e.g., U.S. v. Salinas-Calderon)." "Although the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 provided new authority for empowering local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law provisions against aliens illegally in the country, local police were never powerless to act on immigration law violations before adoption of that legislation. Local police departments have always had the ability to collaborate with the INS in enforcement operations. An example was local cooperation with the INS and the FBI in locating and interviewing foreign students from Middle Eastern countries following the September 11 terrorist attacks"....LINK"That means no more Special Order 40. No more sanctuary cities. Wave goodbye to all the illegal aliens."
"Oct. 6, 1999.....The U.S. Supreme Court....refused to hear an appeal of a landmark decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, confirming that state and local law enforcement officials are free to arrest illegal aliens to the full extent permitted by state law.....The ruling in United States vs. Ontoniel Vasquez-Alvarez strikes down the widespread urban myth that local police have no power to arrest illegal aliens".... LINK
#18. To: Ada (#0)
Sheriffs take an oath to enforce the laws, not to do an end-run repeal of laws based on their own interpretation of the Constitution.
#19. To: Shoonra, Ada, all (#18)
In an age of unconstitutional laws and lawless government the County Sheriff is the top Peace Officer within his jurisdiction. If the choice is between disobeying an unconstitutional law that violates the spirit of liberty enshrined in that document then his DUTY is clear. His duty is to the people for whose safety and peace he is responsible. If it comes to a choice between law and duty then duty is the higher calling.
#20. To: Shoonra (#18)
Sheriff's don't work for the state, they work for the people in their respective counties, they can tell the state to go pound sand.
-Alex Kurtagic
#21. To: Shoonra (#18)
So what? Cops are like Mexicans --- they do whatever they please. The only reason there are 20-30 million Mexicans in this country is because federal, state and local law enforcement have refused to enforce the law. "Sheriffs take an oath to enforce the laws, not to do an end-run repeal of laws based on their own interpretation of the Constitution."
#22. To: Shoonra (#18)
From a Sheriff's Oath of Office: "I will support the Constitution of the United States and of this State." Their job isn't to enforce whatever so-called "laws" are issued by rogue legislators that conflict with the Constitution of the United States and of their State. What is an illegal order in your opinion, Shoonra? Is that just something WWII Germany's Military was expected to refuse? Sheriffs take an oath to enforce the laws, not to do an end-run repeal of laws based on their own interpretation of the Constitution.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#23. To: GreyLmist (#22)
I haven't had much luck finding the official texts of sheriffs' oaths but I am pretty sure that it mentions enforcing the laws. I don't need Barney Fife short-circuiting the Supreme Court with his own, untrained, interpretations of the Constitution.
#24. To: Shoonra (#23)
Well based on that how could you trust any law enforcement officer? The majority of them have limited to no familiarity with the Constitution. Untrained ignorant interpretations of the law is what our police do. That is why it is a tyrannical police state. They have no idea what the law is they profess to enforce. That means they are just thugs with guns no different than Somalian gangs spouting whatever they want to justify whatever they feel like ... because sometimes they just dont even give enough of a shit to justify anything. Like with the majority of police related suicides. So Shoonra, YOU DON'T NEED BARNEY FIFE SHORT-CIRCUTING THE SUPREME COURT WITH HIS OWN, UNTRAINED , IGNORANT. INACCURATE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. No, you don't need ignorant law enforcement. You need a gun. It'll protect you much better. Or at lest get you out of the gene pool quicker , either way. I don't need Barney Fife short-circuiting the Supreme Court with his own, untrained, interpretations of the Constitution.
__ There are only two kinds of americans left in the USA those opposed to the tyranny and those that are wrong. Resist propaganda, Support strict constitutional adherence!
#25. To: Shoonra (#23)
Their job is not to blindly enforce any and every brain fart masquerading as the law. Do you recall how those being tried in Nuremberg used "I was just following orders" as an excuse? Do you recall how well that defense worked for them? I haven't had much luck finding the official texts of sheriffs' oaths but I am pretty sure that it mentions enforcing the laws.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest