You are wrong. All were arrested and one was killed. Those arrested spent over a year in jail. Please.....feel free to roll the dice
And yet Cliven Bundy, his family, and his supporters ultimately won the matter. Thus indicating the evaluation of yourself pertaining to the surrendering of firearms is factually incorrect. https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...case-retried-federal-court-ruling/1008051001/ LAS VEGAS — Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy walked free from the federal courthouse Monday for the first time since his arrest two years ago on charges that he led an armed rebellion against the government in 2014. Bundy, 71, was greeted by cheers from a crush of supporters who jammed a courtroom and greeted him outside with hugs, placards, cards, tears and cries of "liberty" and "freedom." An hour earlier, Bundy sat stoically in prison garb and shackles as a judge dismissed the case against him, two of his sons and a militia supporter, saying federal prosecutors violated the men's rights to a fair trial by withholding evidence. "I'm not used to being free," Bundy said as he emerged from an elevator into the court's lobby alongside his wife and attorney. "I have been a political prisoner for more than 700 days." U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro said federal prosecutors acted recklessly and engaged in a "deliberate attempt to mislead and distort the truth" by failing to turn over evidence that could have helped exonerate the four defendants. Navarro ended the case against Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy and militia member Ryan Payne "with prejudice," meaning they cannot be retried on charges related to the 2014 armed standoff near Bundy's ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada. She ordered the immediate release of Cliven Bundy, who had elected to remain in custody throughout the trial as a form of protest rather than accept a conditional release offered in November. "The court finds that the universal sense of justice has been violated," Navarro said. "The government conduct in this case was, indeed, outrageous."
Not everyone who would be involved actually has anything to lose from failing to comply with such orders.
Which will those be? Any federal officers that show up in my county to arrest gun owners merely for possessing guns will be arrested by our sheriff. And by that time, I'll have suffered a tragic canoeing accident.
The Feds have jurisdiction over your sherrif and if he interfered he would be arrested. And you will comply politely
You might want to talk to our sheriff. How will they know where to look for guns? Guns, what guns? No guns in my house.
You can keep running if you like. But the fact remains if the Feds show up and demand your guns you will politely turn them over and if your sherrif interferes in any way he will be arrested. Those are the facts
You had best look at the power of sheriffs to deny federal agents access to their counties. The sheriff has total jurisdiction - the federal agents do not have jurisdiction over country sheriffs. Your scenario is why we refuse to register guns. Now back to where you belong.
Flat out wrong. Federal agents have jurisdiction anywhere in the country. If any local law enforcement officials get in the way they are arrested for obstruction of justice. That is a fact.
It was tried in the North of Ireland; not what I and many others did. Been there, didn’t do that. Here, more and more are seeing the inanity of the left for what it is and more and more are seeing the increasing threat to the tenants of the Constitution. The left could have done with a bit less hysteria and slowly continued building their base, but I suggest they have have overplayed their hand with the current fulsade of histrionics, and are galvanizing resistance against them. So, we will see what happens in November. The only thing I see is a deepening divide, Progun Rights states passing more pro gun legislation and those anti gun states increasing anti gun legislation... still, not enough congressional votes or enough Dem controlled states to do damage to the 2nd. So good luck getting others to do what you will never step up to do yourself. Btw, I see no decline in attendance at gun show or of those enrolling in training; quite the opposite, particularly among minorities and women.
My wife had never shot a gun as of a year ago. We go to the range every 2 weeks and she doesn’t leave home without a gun. She can almost shoot better than me.
It depends on the state. Many states (I believe most, but I'm not certain) define the local sheriff as the 'highest law enforcement authority in the land' (within their jurisdiction), even over the feds. Some however do not, and mandate sheriffs cede to feds on the rare occasion they collide. It just depends on the state. The only person who has any authority over the sheriff in these sates is the governor, and by extension, the state police, but even that authority is conditional, again, varying state to state. The federal government has what is in effect a 'contract' with state governments to honor each of their individual constitutions or charters, which often detail the chain of law enforcement authority. Technically speaking, a federal overreach of power in violation of a states constitution or charter would void that contract and the state could either secede or even claim that fedgov kicked them out of the union by voiding their contract. This is all, of course, highly unlikely. Such disputes are not uncommon in the history of our nation, and outside the civil war, it has never even come close to going that extreme. Feds do indeed have jurisdiction nationwide, but not ultimate jurisdiction. They can be overridden, removed and/or even arrested by the sheriff in many states. It could be generally argued that the feds effectively have jurisdiction over sheriffs because sheriffs don't have any authority outside their jurisdiction, and the feds don't necessarily have an obligation to coordinate/cooperate with the sheriff, meaning the feds can 'sneak' in and do what they want, and as long as they make it back out of the sheriffs jurisdiction, there's nothing the sheriff can do and it becomes a local or state vs federal matter in court. And fedgov most certainly has an advantage in that arena. This is why, in the topic of potentially unconstitutional gun control laws and federal overreach, organizations like the CSPOA (Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association) try to maintain an open dialogue with Oathkeepers and other aspects of the modern militia movement. Mass confiscation attempts by federal LE would most likely be noticed by local militia/civil defense members who would notify the sheriff, and most states allow the sheriff to create a posse, temporarily deputizing 'civilians' in emergencies. Should a 'showdown' between the feds and locally elected LE ever erupt in a state where the sheriff has ultimate authority, the sheriff would be within their federally recognized lawful authority to deputize the local militia and order/force the feds to cease or surrender.
Wow, someone still reads the WaPoo. And even more embarrassing is that someone actually believes what the WaPoo writes.
No they can not. The Feds can enforce federal law anywhere in the US and anyone that impedes that can be arrested. Anyone.
Not if federal law conflicts with state law and the sheriff is lawfully obligated to uphold the states constitution over federal law, and some states do.
Here's an example http://americanfreepress.net/sheriff-stops-feds/ "...California sheriff John D’Agostini notified the United States Forest Service that he was stripping their Law Enforcement and Investigations unit of assumed authority to interfere with state laws in that county..."
False. He did not and can not stop federal officers from enforcing federal law. Show me the order. That is bs
If federal law conflicts with state law federal law wins every time. The DEA can bust marijuana dispensaries in every state that has them if they choose to even though they are legal under state law. No one denies this. Sorry you lost this one
I would check the laws in those states. Its likely that the sheriffs just dont have the balls to step up and confront the feds. ...or they dont like weed being legal. In either case, if those sheriffs arent doing their duty, they should be voted out.
Dude this is ridiculous. Federal cops can enforce federal law. And there is not a sherriff in the country that can stop them.
