I am glad to see that sheriff's throughout the nation are taking a stand making it clear they will never enforce any laws that will take guns from law abiding citizens. Our sheriff, Andy Hughes in Houston County Alabama has made it clear that he will not allow anyone to seize any weapons from law abiding people. He is joined by many other Alabama Sheriff's as well as others nationwide. Thank you Andy. Sheriff's are the highest ranking law enforcement official in the county, therefore they are not bound by whatever laws, regulations or executive orders Obama passes if they violates the constitution of the United States. Who would have ever believed thirty years ago that we would be facing the situation we are now, where people are actually having to fear having there constitutional rights taken away? Anyone that does not take this seriously does not understand the magnitude of this situation. We have all heard the saying "They will get my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers". I am a firm believer in this attitude. As a retired cop I spent 28 years of my life defending the rights of our citizens. Our law enforcement officers and military members put their life on the line every day to protect the rights provided by the constitution. The very rights that many law enforcement officers and military members have died protecting are now being threatened by the very people that are charged with protecting these rights. The danger with any weapon band is that they will not stop here. After the assault weapons it will then be handguns. Any country that does not allow it's citizens to be armed or takes these rights away has total control. This is known as a dictatorship. Our fore fathers intentionally designed our constitution and rights to prevent the United States government from being able to turn our free nation into a dictatorship , to prevent the government from owning us, the citizens, and oppressing us. The current administration has utilized it's abuse of power by placing Americans that speak out and express concerns on a "watch list". Just because someone does not agree with them and is concerned about their rights does not make them anti-government. It simply shows that real red blooded Americans value their freedom and don't want anyone to threaten our freedom and the rights that are guaranteed by the constitution. No one has the right to amend the constitution of the united states. If they can do this then we have no protection, no rights and no freedom. This is not Obama Land, this is the United States of America, land of the free and home of the brave.
Has been a similar reaction by several sherrifs in Colorado. In addition, they have said thay don't have the manpower to process background checks on every gun transaction.
That is exactly right, ignoring the constitution and freedoms it provides is incredibly stupid and dangerous! If our so called leaders are going to try to take away rights, then we can't abide by what they say. The only reason we are not under British rule today is because in the 1700's there was this thing called a revolution. We ignored the laws of Britain because it oppressed us and went to war over it. The agencies and states that are not going to enforce his idiotic laws, rules, executive orders are not breaking the laws. They are enforcing the laws set forth by the constitution. The constitution supersedes any law he may pass, so as I said, that is exactly right, it is incredibly stupid and dangerous for Obama to ignore laws he and his cronies don't like, especially when he wants to ignore the very constitution this nation was based on.
Like it or not, laws aren't unconsitutional based upon what cops say. The rule of law exists until it's declared unconsitutional.
Thank you to these sheriffs that are exercising common sense, and that truly believe in the constitution.
This is based on interpretation. You say it is not unconstitutional. I say that it would be. In DC V Heller, the supreme court opinionated that it is a right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense, within a persons home or federal enclave (Washington DC). In McDonald V Chicago, the Supreme Court wrote an opinion that stated that the local or state governments cannot ban a specific class of weapon, in this case a handgun, from possession within a persons home. This ruling also incorporated the second amendment under the 14th to the states. Read: states cannot ban a type of weapon by legislative fiat. The New York assault weapon ban is going to go to the supreme court, will be struck down, and then have an opinion wrote stating that it is an unjust law. Unjust laws, by definition, should not be followed and should be opposed at every turn.
Also, if you believe that there wouldn't be exemptions for a group, here is a little fact checking for you. The rational for an exemption is not important, it is that there is an exemption at all. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-bill-exempt-government-officials_697732.html
I agree it's unconsitutional. I'm saying that Cops don't have the right to go about saying what is consitutional and what isn't. That's the job of the courts. Until then a court says anything about it, the law is the law. You have to follow it. - - - Updated - - - I agree it's unconsitutional. I'm saying that Cops don't have the right to go about saying what is consitutional and what isn't. That's the job of the courts. Until then a court says anything about it, the law is the law. You have to follow it.
I too am frustrated with the knee jerk response to the recent shootings, any change to current laws will be totally ineffectual, by definition a law imposes compliance by a voluntary action, basically, it will only effect Law Abiding Citizens, the ones who are not committing these heinous acts. In order to deter these types of crimes from happening the existing laws need to be enforced, standardized background checks, subjecting the applicant to release any Mental Health Records, the local certifying agency should then conduct an on site to assure the applicant has the means to secure these weapons, these minor changes again will only effect legal guns owners. I propose the following, rather than have further restrictions placed on our legal right to possess any firearm of our choosing, implement a new Federal Law that stipulates that any crime committed with any type of firearm, legally obtained or not, WILL result in a prison confinement of not LESS than 10 years, in addition to the time incurred for the actual crime itself. I believe that any Law Enforcement Agency would approve of this measure and only the people who are abusing our right to Bear Arms will be punished.
"The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." - 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm
I would think that until a law is declared unconstitutional then it's on foot and must be adhered to and that means, enforced. I'm now wondering if the writ of mandamus or actions for abuse of discretion may be used to force the Sheriffs to enforce the law.
Quick question. How is it declared unconsitutional? Last time I checked, the courts deal with that, not cops.
I would think that "the right to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed" would let any common idiot on the street figure that one out. I will spell it out for you though. right /rīt/ Noun That which is morally correct, just, or honorable: "the difference between right and wrong". keep /kēp/ Verb Have or retain possession of: "my father would keep the best for himself". bare /be(ər/ Verb Uncover (a part of the body or other thing) and expose it to view: "he bared his chest". arms plural of arms (Noun) Noun Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms". in·fringe /inˈfrinj/ Verb Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright". Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy". A person on the street may not be a legal mastermind, but a right is not something granted by any court or any government or any jurisdiction. I know what my rights are on this earth and I suggest that you do the same. Educate yourself and don't be led blindly by someone else telling you what is right and wrong or morally or ethically just and unjust. Be a smart thinker and a radical doer, not a sheep.
You didn't answer my question. Instead you decided to insult. Answer my question. Who declares laws unconsitutional?
If you need someone to tell you what is unconstitutional and what isn't, then you have bigger problems.
You are still not responding to my question. Answer my question. Who defines what is consuitional and unconsitutuional?
If you want to get to the root of it, the people of the United States of America. The United States voting population vote through the electoral college for the President of the United States who appoints Supreme Court Justices which submit opinions about cases brought to them. The Supreme Court then reinforces the will of the United States people because of the appointment to their current position through the POTUS which is an extension of the population. You ask who and what makes a law unconstitutional? It is the people of the United States. Previous rulings by the SCOTUS have been overturned by later sitting justices of the SCOTUS because times have changed. What's your next question?
So it's the SCOTUS that defines what is consitutional and unconsitutional. - - - Updated - - - So it's the SCOTUS that defines what is consitutional and unconsitutional.
