One cannot legislate laws that
contradict existing laws. One must first
abolish the existing law… This whole
Federal and state gun confiscation program may just backfire on them, big time!
By de Andréa
June 3, 2013
If any government, federal, state, or
local, creates law that violates their own constitutions, they’ themselves are
in violation of the law. This fact of
law has been decided by courts including the Supreme Court many times over from
as early as the first U.S. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay. What is the matter with these people, don’t
they teach law in law schools anymore?
In January I wrote an a rticle
titled: “Sheriffs
to FBI – Go Suck an Egg”, you might want to reread that… it is yet
another Supreme Court decision that these law makers seem to know nothing
about.
Efforts at the national and state level
to pass new gun-control laws have stirred up I’m sure, an unintended backlash –
local officials are not only rejecting the new gun 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:
were 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, “ it 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 everything to do with freedom from
tyranny.” Kessler
is historically, constitutionally and
legally correct.
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.
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 existing law of 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
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 Nations 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 one of the many
Supreme Court decisions Norton v. Shelby
County
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.”
Attendees
of CSPOA annual conference
As
WorldNetDaily 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 illegal provision.
Police Chief Larry Kirk of Old Monroe , Mo. ,
said, “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 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 WorldNetDaily 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 me
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 will 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 and 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 said 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.”
THE BOTTOM LINE: As I wrote in the article titled Sheriffs to FBI – Go Suck an Egg “ Most people, especially brain-dead legislators fail to realize that the ultimate legal authorities in the land are not the FBI or the ATF or even the Military, it is the county sheriffs. This was well established from the time of the Founding Fathers and upheld by the US Supreme Court as recently as the 1997 case of Printz v. United States. Initially, this case was called “Mack v.
“The case involved
new federal regulations involved with the “Brady Bunch” Bill and gun control
INC. FBI agents went around to the various county sheriffs and ‘demanded’ that they follow the new federal
guidelines. Then Graham County (AZ) Sheriff Richard Mack and several
others saw the Brady Bill as being unconstitutional and refused to impose the
new federal guidelines. Part of their defense was that the county sheriff
was the supreme law enforcement officer over their county and that the federal
government could not supersede their legal authority. Oh’ Yeah!” The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
Sheriffs.
Make Note: Your County Sheriff
Thanks for
listening – de Andréa
Copyright © 2013
by Bottom Line Publishing - Permission to reprint in whole or in part is
gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment