1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

You on board 548?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by wireguy, Jun 2, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/gun-control-laws-nullified.htm

    Backlash! Gun-control laws nullified
    Sheriffs take bold stand to protect citizens from federal overreach

    By Drew Zahn, June 1st 2013. Email: dzahn@wnd.com Archive
    Article Origin from WND.


    Police Chief Mark Kessler,
    Gilberton Burough, Pa

    ST. CHARLES, Mo. – Efforts at the national and state level to pass new gun-control laws have stirred up an unintended backlash – local officials who are not only rejecting the new legislation, but actively "nullifying" gun-control laws already in place.

    Police Chief Mark Kessler of Gilberton Burough, Pa., is among more than 200 law enforcement officers, state lawmakers, county officials and concerned citizens who gathered Friday at the annual convention of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, or CSPOA, in St. Charles, Mo.

    Among the hot topics at the conference: examples of local and county officials who have declared gun-control laws already on the books null and void in their communities.

    On Jan. 3 of this year, Kessler drafted a "Second Amendment Protection Resolution" for his little town of roughly 800 residents, which, when passed by city officials a few weeks later, Kessler told the conference, "nullified every single gun-control law in the nation."

    "I have a very unique view," Kessler said. "If you want to own a firearm, carry a gun under your jacket or over your jacket, the Second Amendment is your concealed carry permit, period. … It has nothing to do with self-defense; it has to do with [freedom from] tyranny."

    Kessler told the conference, "Nullification is the key. We just have to tell them, 'That's it.' I drew my line in the sand back on Jan. 3. … One person can make a difference; you just need to do something about it."

    But apparently, Kessler is not alone.

    Michael Peroutka of the Institute for the Constitution, an attorney and former Constitution Party candidate for president, also told the conference about Carroll County, Md., which on May 22 adopted a resolution declaring it a "Second Amendment sanctuary county."

    The resolution declares the Maryland Firearms Safety Act of 2013, or MFSA – which reportedly bans the sale of 45 types of rifles and magazines and requires law-abiding citizens to submit to licensing fees, background checks, fingerprinting and renewal fees – clearly violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution along with Article 2 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

    The resolution further declares that the unconstitutional provisions of the act will not be enforced in Carroll County.

    The resolution quotes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 78: "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

    The Board of County Commissioners then resolved, "Carroll County Government will not authorize or appropriate government funds, resources, employees, agencies, contractors, buildings, detention centers or offices for the purpose of enforcing any element of the MFSA that infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

    After making a few exceptions for provisions affecting felons, the mentally ill and so forth, the resolution also states, "The Board herein declares null and void within Carroll County, elements of any and all international treaties, including the United Nationals Arms Trade Treaty (UNATT) that infringe on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms."

    Peroutka argued that far from undermining the rule of law, the local police and county officials taking these stands are actually supporting constitutional law and fulfilling their oaths to defend the founding document.

    "When a peace officer refuses to enforce an unconstitutional act," Peroutka said, "the peace officer is not breaking the law, but upholding the law."

    Peroutka quoted the 1886 Supreme Court decision Norton v. Shelby County: "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties, affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

    He further quoted the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

    "These [gun-control measures] are not laws," Peroutka concluded. "They are unconstitutional acts. You have the authority and duty to nullify this."

    "It's a start. They're to be saluted," Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America, told the CSPOA conference. "The county of Carroll – among many others in the nation now, happily – is pointing out you have very limited authority, federales, and if you're going to do a bust here, you're going to need local authorities, and it isn't going to be available in Carroll County, Md., and I'll bet from what I hear here today, its not going to be available in a lot of other counties either."

    Attendees of CSPOA annual conference

    As WND reported, the purpose of the conference is to equip sheriffs, peace officers and public officials with information and public support to carry out their oaths of office – specifically, to uphold the U.S. Constitution – recognizing that in the case of federal overreach, the county sheriff may be the last line of defense in protecting Americans' constitutional rights.

    "We are going to train and vet them all, state by state, to understand and enforce the constitutionally protected rights of the people they serve, with an emphasis on state sovereignty and local autonomy," explained CSPOA Founder and Executive Director Sheriff Richard Mack. "Then these local governments will issue our new Declaration to the Federal Government regarding the abuses that we will no longer tolerate or accept. Said declaration will be enforced by our Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers.

    "In short," Mack said, "the CSPOA will be the army to set our nation free."

    Mack is more than familiar with fighting federal overreach. The former sheriff of Graham County, Ariz., in 1994 Mack joined six other sheriffs in challenging a provision of the federal Brady Bill placing the burden of its background checks on local sheriffs. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to strike down the provision.

    Police Chief Larry Kirk of Old Monroe, Mo., told WND, "In the past few years we have seen many of the citizens of this country become concerned over the direction it has taken. We have watched personal rights being eroded and a disconnect developing between citizens and officers working in law enforcement.

    "I wanted to find other officers that shared my concerns," he continued. "I wanted to be able to work with our sheriffs and other peace officers in educating the citizens and others in our career field on the powers of the sheriff's office and what is needed for us to stand on guard to protect our rights and those of our fellow citizens. The CSPOA is the organization at the front of this movement.

    "The people of my state are seeing the overreach of government at the federal level and want to know where their sheriffs will stand," he concluded. "The people of this state need to hear this message, and the sheriffs of this state need to hear it. Sheriffs and officers need the support of their communities, and we need to support them. This is the organization that can help educate us all on the proper roles that we should play and what we can do to stop the encroachment on our liberties and unalienable rights."

    "We already have hundreds of police, sheriffs and other officials who have expressed a desire to be a part of this holy cause of liberty," Mack explained.

    In fact, CSPOA maintains a growing list of – at last count – 18 state sheriffs associations and more than 450 sheriffs across the country already taking a stand against what they perceive as attempts by the Obama administration to enact unconstitutional gun-control measures.

    As WND reported, Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is among those after telling a local radio host the federal government is "going to have a problem" if they expect him to confiscate guns from private citizens.

    "I took [multiple] oaths of office, and they all say I will defend the Constitution of the United States," Arpaio told Mike Broomhead of KFYI Radio in Phoenix, Ariz. "Now if they're going to tell the sheriff that he's going to go around picking up guns from everybody, they're going to have a problem. I may not enforce that federal law."

    Broomhead pushed the man sometimes called "America's toughest sheriff" even further, asking Arpaio if the feds passed a law banning ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, would his deputies confiscate such magazines?

    "No," Arpaio said. "My deputies, I said before, I'm going to arm all my deputies – a month ago I said before this – with automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons. We're going to be able to fight back. … I don't care what they say from Washington."

    Larry Pratt told WND he supports sheriffs taking a tough stand.

    "The county sheriffs need to act and make new deputies to stop federal authority in the counties," Pratt said. "There is a misconception in our time that the court somehow is the arbiter of what is constitutional; that's not true! Every official that raises their right hand and says they're going to adhere to the constitution, seek to protect it to the best of their ability, 'so help me God' – that's something that they're all obligated to do."

    Drew Zahn is a WND news editor who cut his journalist teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today's professional journal for church leaders. A former pastor, he is the editor of seven books, including Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching, which sparked his ongoing love affair with film and his weekly WND column, "Popcorn and a (world)view."
     
  2. NMULTRARUNNER55

    NMULTRARUNNER55 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    425
    Ok. I don't agree with many of the new gun laws either but it's not the job of any sheriff or law enforcement officer to determine the legality of any law. What happens if these same guys decide that they don't need a warrant to search your home or car?

    Steve Nunley

    Albuquerque, NM
     
  3. TBFA

    TBFA Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    364
    Ok. I don't agree with many of the new gun laws either but it's not the job of any sheriff or law enforcement officer to determine the legality of any law. What happens if these same guys decide that they don't need a warrant to search your home or car?

    The same can be said for the current administration, when do they come to your house for your guns? I will side with the people protecting the 2nd amendment, not the ones that disrespect law abiding citizens!
     
  4. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,649
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    Steve, if you can read you understand what the 2nd amendment says.

    Laws that supersede the 2nd amendment are not constitutional and therefore null and void.

    I applaud the people reported here for taking a stand against those who try6 and take people's rights away.

    Now wasn't that easy?

    HM
     
  5. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    Hey Steve, you may have failed to notice THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES. We already have plenty of LEO's who are willing to arrest,testify against us and imprison us while breaking their oath. Me personally I'm not going to bitch because some LEO's believe in constitutional supremacy.
     
  6. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,973
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    548 to busy following Tappy12 around! lol

    he might show up here in a little while, after all this is about LEO's!

    The Constitution is the LAW of the land/people.

    The problem, SCOTUS who's sole purpose is to "interpret" and uphold it, hasn't always DONE their JOB. Then you add to that our Educational System who also have FAILED to teach it! in TRUTH.
     
  7. g7777777

    g7777777 TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,353
    NMULTRARUNNER55 - good post- I see you were trying to be logical but these crackpots arent smart enough to understand or they are brainwashed and dont care

    According to them, anyone that agrees with their ( the crackpots) point of view is entitled to use force for anything- Courts and Congress have no say only the crackpots who want no government

    The crackpots miss that your post has nothing to do with size of magazine or firearms laws

    Hitler had the exact same point of view as the crackpots posting here

    His people enforced that

    Hitler and the crackpots posting here- same exact thought pattern --- makes one think doesnt it-

    Regards from Iowa

    Gene
     
  8. HSLDS

    HSLDS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,398
    Location:
    S-E PA
    Gene,

    How do you explain the code of military justice that states 'refusing to execute an illegal order is not a violation of the code???'

    -

    -

    1886 Supreme Court decision Norton v. Shelby County: "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties, affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."


    1803 case of Marbury v. Madison: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
     
  9. HSLDS

    HSLDS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,398
    Location:
    S-E PA
    Morning Rick,

    My bad...

    There's another post here where it looks like Gene's love child with 548 has been acting up (Trappy12) - I guess he has his mind on other things...

    David
     
  10. HSLDS

    HSLDS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,398
    Location:
    S-E PA
    Rick,

    I can't wait to see how many of these new laws 'fail' when placed under constitutional scrutiny...

    Sad to see what they've done to your glorious state. Colorado, Wyoming, and Idaho are all on my bucket list. I think I live in an airplane, have been most everywhere else one can go in the world for work, but still have only 'flown over' your neck of the woods.

    Guess I should get out there before they totally ruin the place...
     
  11. b12

    b12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,049
    I have been checked twice in the last 4 yrs. on concealed weapons permit. As has been stated before in front of a judge. The 2nd admentent is my permit. If you can show me anywhere it is illegal to carry a pertection device or hand gun for my saftey by charging me for it then I will pay the fine. States cannot overwrite any provisions of the 2nd admendment or add to. This right is a given and theirfore cannot be taken away. You cannot be fined or charged of any amount for the given by the founding.
    I had no lawyer only me. I went before the judge and explained that if any law anywhere on the books that I can be surley fined then I will spend the amount of the fine in jail and am ready to go now. In both cased the charges were dismissed.
    Please excuse the typing but I am in a very big rush to get to work. bill
     
  12. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    If Obama and his ilk can chose to not enforce the law, why can't a sheriff?
     
  13. NMULTRARUNNER55

    NMULTRARUNNER55 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    425
    From my perspective the sheriffs that refuse to enforce the law (any law) are just as bad as Obama and the Justice Department that refuse to uphold the law. Both swear a similar oath. Two wrongs don't make a right just because many here don't like the laws the sheriffs say they won't enforce (including me, I don't like many of the new gun-related laws or proposed laws either).

    I have no problem with law enforcement personnel and understand they get some constitutional law training. EMTs get medical training too but I wouldn't want one to perform open heart surgery on me.

    Everyone is welcome to their opinion but people that have a different opinion should be able to express it on here without being called names or otherwise being criticized, especially by those that don't include their real names.

    The process is important to me. Law enforcement personnel should enforce the law not decide which laws to enforce. That's a bad process and bad processes usually yield bad results.

    Steve Nunley

    Albuquerque, NM
     
  14. husker

    husker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    69
    GOOGLE: Jury Nullification. A nifty little legal concept.
     
  15. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,649
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    I guess it all went right over Steve's head.

    The Constitution takes precedence over any and all laws made by any government entity in the land.

    The problem is when despotic leaders trash the constitution and install illegal laws, it usually takes a VERY expensive trip to at least the State Supreme Court and possibly even further, to rectify the matter.

    Kessler, Peroutka, Mack, et al are to be lauded for their recognition of the founding principles of this country.

    Detractors need to read Judge Napolitano's book.

    HM
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.