Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 37

Thread: Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures

  1. #1
    Meh.... sgt_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    behind enemy lines in friendly territory
    Age
    47
    Posts
    23,682

    Default Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures

    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.

    the rest (though not much more) here: [*******#800080]http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2525518[/COLOR]

    the bill must die Texans defend your rights!
    http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB2167

  2. #2
    Member entheogen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    la-la land
    Posts
    211

    Default

    This comes out of Texas !? I'm shocked !

  3. #3
    I <3 Alex Jones USA_1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    297

    Default

    I doubt this will gain ground

  4. #4
    Μολὼν λαβέ Hollis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Stuck in the rain and mud again.
    Posts
    23,224

    Default

    Sheriffs tend to be in a unique political/LEO position. Generally they are the most powerful LEO in a state.

    I guess is just shows every state has their wacko elected official.

  5. #5
    Faux Phallus Smuggler
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    wait, you mean a LEO doesn't want to uphold the law that they're supposed to do ,and not expect to be fired ?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deagle View Post
    wait, you mean a LEO doesn't want to uphold the law that they're supposed to do ,and not expect to be fired ?
    If so, most of California, Washington and Colorado LEOs would be fired for not enforcing Federal pot ban or immigration law...
    What would you do as a LEO if state law is conflicting with Federal?

  7. #7
    Μολὼν λαβέ Hollis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Stuck in the rain and mud again.
    Posts
    23,224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deagle View Post
    wait, you mean a LEO doesn't want to uphold the law that they're supposed to do ,and not expect to be fired ?
    I gather you do know much about the LAW and jurisdictions. Jurisdictions are a very big issue in the states. In Europe it would be like telling the French Police they have to enforce Russian Laws in France.

  8. #8
    Senior Member XJ220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Conservaliberaltarian
    Posts
    3,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hollis View Post
    I gather you do know much about the LAW and jurisdictions. Jurisdictions are a very big issue in the states. In Europe it would be like telling the French Police they have to enforce Russian Laws in France.
    Quote worthy

  9. #9
    Moderator James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Washington
    Age
    40
    Posts
    15,644

    Default

    I thought that the whole reason the U.S. has Federal LE is to investigate violations of and enforce Federal Law. Is there a Federal Law that requires local LE to obey Federal Special Agents or enforce Federal Law?

    The really ironic thing is that the DOJ, not local LE, is the failed link in enforcing insisting Federal Firearms Laws. In 2010, 76,000 people were prevented from buying a firearm as the result of a background check. Upon investigation, BATFE referred 4732 cases to the DOJ for prosecution. Of that number, 44 were prosecuted, and 13 were punished.

    Apparently, when the NRA mentioned this in a WH meeting with Biden and AG Holder, Holder said something along the lines of "We have neither the time nor the resources to prosecute all of those cases." Okay... The DOJ isn't able to enforce existing laws, so the answer is to add more laws?

  10. #10

    Default

    I think it boils down to state rights and county rights, local law enforcement heads and sheriffs are voted into office by the people in the community and county and they often get elected into office because they have the support and generally represent the views of the people in the community and if they get out of step then the people in the community and county have the right to get a recall vote to remove them from office and elect a new head of police or sheriff but that is the right of the people in the community to make that decision not the federal goverment or state.. If you get the goverment or state passing a law saying the goverment can remove a sheriff from office because he says he will not enforce a federal law that is contrary to laws on the state books regarding weapons and they say they will remove him from office for making that statement or taking that stance its hindering the peoples right to representation of their choice in the community of a selected and elected official by the people.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,288

    Default

    When Federal Marshal deputy(and later a famed gunfighter) Wyatt Earp pursuing murderers of his brother Morgan, he was several times hindered by local sheriffs with the threat of arrest.
    The only reason that Earp was able to continue on his mission, was because his men were much better armed than local sheriffs at the time...

    This would be unimaginable in most European countries.

  12. #12
    Senior Member NeedsABetterName's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3,716

    Default

    Last I checked, local LEO is not obligated to enforce federal law.

  13. #13
    Banned user
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    България
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NeedsABetterName View Post
    Last I checked, local LEO is not obligated to enforce federal law.
    Is that really true, that they don't have to enforce Federal laws? Because there seams to be many Federal laws being enforced by local LEO?
    This is crazy, prosecuting sheriff's for upholding the Constitution, because actually that's what they do. And what if the Fed's law contradicts with the Constitution? Also there is some crazy Federal laws/requirements that I simply don't understand, like the drinking age.

    P.S. When I flew London-NY I was 20yrs. old and I was prohibited from drinking on the plane.

  14. #14
    Senior Member NeedsABetterName's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dolph BG View Post
    This is crazy, prosecuting sheriff's for upholding the Constitution, because actually that's what they do. And what if the Fed's law contradicts with the Constitution?
    Is that really true? Because there seams to be many Federal laws being enforced by local LEO? Also there is some crazy Federal laws/requirements that I simply don't understand, like the drinking age.

    P.S. When I flew London-NY I was 20yrs. old and I was prohibited from drinking on the plane.
    Drinking age is actually done at the state level. Having said that, the Federal government "encouraged" the establishment of a universal age (21) via interstate highway funds. What you probably dealt with was a US air carrier's policy (we won't sell to minors because we're a business based in a state in which the drinking age is 21).

  15. #15
    Amiable Scoundrel Corrupt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    In a suit, with a pipe, pondering how to retort
    Age
    24
    Posts
    14,596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NeedsABetterName View Post
    Last I checked, local LEO is not obligated to enforce federal law.
    The article says "remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws." I'm accepting the explanation from more knowledgable types like you, Hollis and James when they say that state LEOs are not obligated to enforce federal laws, but I'd be curious about the legality of Sheriffs refusing to enforce State law, hypothetically?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •