Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Police Chief Wants Citizens As ‘Reserve Force’ To Defend Against Feds
Freedom Outpost ^ | February 13, 2013 | Tim Brown

Posted on 02/13/2013 6:52:50 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

My friends, there is hope. Law enforcement officers at the local level are making their stand and they want you to be a part of that. While I’ve written on various sheriffs that have made their own stance to protect their citizens from anyone attempting to confiscate guns, I recently ran across Police Chief Mark Kessler of the Gilberton Borough Police Department in Pennsylvania. He wants citizens to join with his police department in building a “reserve force” that will aid his police force should the need arise to resist Federal authorities when it comes to the Second Amendment.

(VIDEO AT LINK)

I spoke with Chief Kessler and he is most definitely a patriot and a Constitutionalist. The police force is quite small in his town and, much like my own town, criminal activity is not rampant.

The reserve force will be made up of volunteers, they can be past or current police officers with act 120 training, along with non law enforcement personnel interested in joining the reserve force....

(Excerpt) Read more at freedomoutpost.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government
KEYWORDS: banglist; confiscation; guncontrol; pennsylvania; secondamendment

1 posted on 02/13/2013 6:52:56 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I like this.


2 posted on 02/13/2013 6:55:03 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

You betcha! :-)


3 posted on 02/13/2013 6:57:18 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

This is the way LE was supposed to work.


4 posted on 02/13/2013 6:57:27 PM PST by Donnafrflorida (Thru HIM all things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

that’s what I call grass roots!


5 posted on 02/13/2013 6:58:14 PM PST by visualops (artlife.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: visualops

Well looks like Lexington Bridge to me. Expect to.face armed Drones. Zero will not be defied...


6 posted on 02/13/2013 7:03:03 PM PST by VRWCarea51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The police calling up the "well regulated militia" to protect the "security of a free state" vs. the federales. I like it. I bet the gun controllers who stated that the second amendment only applied to a government run militia will have to go through more contortions than Chinese acrobats to claim this isn't the type of militia they meant.

7 posted on 02/13/2013 7:09:56 PM PST by KarlInOhio (Choose one: the yellow and black flag of the Tea Party or the white flag of the Republican Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

He may have a few problems that some coordination can solve.

To start with, common law recognizes county Sheriffs as the de facto leader of the actual posse comitatus or militia (not the Posse Comitatus Act).

“Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff or other law officer to conscript any able-bodied adult person to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon. It survives in the United States, where a Sheriff might in effect declare some or all “adult persons of good character” to be deputized and thus authorized to bear arms in circumstances where the federal government might attempt to seize the arms of citizens.”

This, in effect, establishes them as law enforcement officers of the state, so the federals would have to order the disarmament of the states police at all levels to disarm these few.

By judicial precedent, the congress overrides state legislatures, and federal courts override state courts; but the Supreme Court has *never* found that the president is superior to state governors. Therefore if a governor refuses to obey, the only presidential recourse is to send in the US Army to enforce his authority.

And this is greater than the standoff of the 101st Airborne Division against the Arkansas National Guard to force integration in their high school. In effect, it would be the president invading a state to take over its government.

The last time this happened was the Civil War, when the Union Army was loyal to the president. I’m not so sure this can today be taken as a given.


8 posted on 02/13/2013 7:16:53 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Bump for forwarding to anti gun lefties, they need to know it’s not going to be a cakewalk.


9 posted on 02/13/2013 7:23:11 PM PST by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s.....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Interesting. Thanks for the post.


10 posted on 02/13/2013 7:24:12 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Outstanding post. Should be read by all. Kudos.


11 posted on 02/13/2013 7:31:07 PM PST by RightOnline (I am Andrew Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I must be dreaming.


12 posted on 02/13/2013 7:31:52 PM PST by samadams2000 (Someone important make......The Call!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SLB; Travis McGee

An interesting plan; not sure how tough the logistics aspect will be, but interesting nonetheless.


13 posted on 02/13/2013 7:35:45 PM PST by Stonewall Jackson (Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Bookmark


14 posted on 02/13/2013 7:37:37 PM PST by DocRock (All they that TAKE the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52 Gun grabbers beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If my Sheriff does this I will be one of the first in line to sign up and support him.


15 posted on 02/13/2013 7:57:50 PM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

BFL


16 posted on 02/13/2013 8:00:15 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline

Re your post 11, I concur. Yefragetuwrabrumuy’s posts are always highly informative.


17 posted on 02/13/2013 8:10:07 PM PST by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

i know the president can nationalize the natioonal guard in emergencies. could the president nationalize the state national guard in order to subvert the will and power of the governor to defend against federal troops?


18 posted on 02/13/2013 8:12:42 PM PST by bravo whiskey (“People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps

“If my Sheriff does this I will be one of the first in line to sign up and support him.”

Yes, Sheriff’s have become a problem they had not considered.

Now they are actively looking to strip them of their powers by making them appointed positions of the City Manager, (see Cleveland Ohio), who serve at their leisure, instead of being elected positions.

I would deputize every citizen in my county who did not have a criminal record to shield them from these tyrannical despots.


19 posted on 02/13/2013 8:50:11 PM PST by Bshaw (A nefarious deceit is upon us all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
You betcha! :-)

Before you dive in head first, I suggest you measure the depth of the water (just don't use BOTH feet!). If the Chief is a fellow you know well, a brother lodge member, sings with you in the church choir, &c, well and good.

Conversely, if you've never met and all you have to go on is his invitation to join up with the local "gun nut" crowd in annoying DHS, BATFE, FBI, CIA, ICE, consider the possibility that this might be a great way to get all the kindred spirits to march right into a FEMA re-education center.

A Word to the wise;
Make damn sure you know what you're doing before you start doing it. The less said the better, trust your friends but not completely. It takes time to organize and caulk all the leaks.

I hate being a wet blanket...

Regards,
GtG

20 posted on 02/13/2013 9:05:44 PM PST by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
By judicial precedent, the congress overrides state legislatures, and federal courts override state courts; but the Supreme Court has *never* found that the president is superior to state governors. Therefore if a governor refuses to obey, the only presidential recourse is to send in the US Army to enforce his authority.

Is this [the underlined] correct though? Consider, for example, the case where the representatives/senators enact something contrary to their respective state's Constitution. If they are commissioned under the State, then they fall under the authority of the State Constitution and to act contrary is lawlessness (and contrary the 10th amendment).

As a specific example, let us consider H.R.5122 of 2006 -- that it has apparently since been repealed is no concern -- which allowed the President to "take charge of United States National Guard troops without state governor authorization." Now many, if not most, States have language similar to the New Mexico state constitution which says: "The militia of this state shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or of this state. The organized militia shall be called the 'national guard of New Mexico,' of which the governor shall be the commander in chief."

But HR 5122 effectively alters the New Mexico constitution, removing the governor as its commander in chief. If valid, then the Constitution of a State means nothing, as the [federal] ruling class could simply enact [federal] law negating any particular state's constitution in any particular area.

21 posted on 02/13/2013 9:10:09 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray
...to march right into a FEMA re-education center.

You'll have to say something that doesn't make me break out laughing to dampen my fire. ;-)

22 posted on 02/13/2013 9:10:30 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Bshaw
Yes, Sheriff’s have become a problem they had not considered.
Now they are actively looking to strip them of their powers by making them appointed positions of the City Manager, (see Cleveland Ohio), who serve at their leisure, instead of being elected positions.
I would deputize every citizen in my county who did not have a criminal record to shield them from these tyrannical despots.

Interesting; do you have some links showing this heartening news?

23 posted on 02/13/2013 9:12:23 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Where I live, in northeastern calif., we have five county Sheriffs that have signed and pubicly announced, that they will abjure from any further restictions on RTKB, by the state or federals.


24 posted on 02/13/2013 9:35:29 PM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

great, but it would be better if sheriffs were asking for this, as they are the top lawman in the county and have county-wide juridiction.


25 posted on 02/13/2013 9:40:11 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

From http://sheriffmack.com/ Scroll down the page some.

The Attorney General of Delaware is the son of Joe Biden. Obviously he did not fall far from the “lack of intelligence” tree as he gave an opinion that the sheriff has no arrest authority!!! How is it that the State Constitution states that the sheriff is in fact the “conservator of the peace”, yet according to Beau Biden, he lacks the authority to arrest anyone who may violate the peace? This is why I (Richard Mack) and the CSPOA are helping Sheriff Christopher fight the political stupidity of some out of touch Delaware politicians. We must make certain that Delaware does not repeat the outrageous unconstitutional removal of the office of sheriff from the State as Connecticut did about 12 years ago.


26 posted on 02/13/2013 11:05:14 PM PST by MurrietaMadman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Um. I would be concerned just who might have access to the list of names of these public-minded citizens who sign up for this. Could be awkward if the Feds ask for the list.


27 posted on 02/13/2013 11:18:34 PM PST by Hetty_Fauxvert (FUBO, and the useful idiots you rode in on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCarea51

28 posted on 02/14/2013 12:09:37 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nailbiter

bflr


29 posted on 02/14/2013 12:17:25 AM PST by Nailbiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray
 
 
I also hate to join in on the wet-blanket party - Kessler's statement "I will take my uniform off and I will stand with freedom" I will honor and respect, but it brings up the A-Word, attrition. If all the good guys remove from the ranks what will be left will amount to barely trained third stringers not used to having to function without capable and experienced supervision and mouth breathers with loose screws like the late Mr. Dorner, exponentially escalating departmental incompetence and danger to the community at large on multiple levels. NO, the good guys must stick it out and expand the culture by finding and hiring other good guys and protect that culture by thoroughly training those who have aptitude and can be trained while weeding out leftists and screwballs. You cannot survive by abdicating you institutions to the enemy by default. Every community must realize that in reality the fight is a local one and there have been too many compromises already. Lines must be drawn - "here, this far, NO further".
 
 

30 posted on 02/14/2013 12:24:12 AM PST by lapsus calami (What's that stink? Code Pink ! ! And their buddy Murtha, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Police Chief Wants Citizens As ‘Reserve Force’ To Defend Against Feds

It's called a "militia".

31 posted on 02/14/2013 2:57:50 AM PST by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I told’ya law enforcement would split.


32 posted on 02/14/2013 4:27:26 AM PST by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I cannot help must wonder what would have been the outcome in the recent Dorner manhunt had the LA police or the county sheriffs had instead formed a public militia to head out hunting for Dorner.

I know many consider the 2A to be used specifically to keep the government in check and may say thats as far as it should proceed. But Dorner was a rabid dog with lots of firepower and training, nobody can say if he could have created a plan to kill on a collosal scale, so I would say its always possible and that law enforcement absolutely needs public assistance.

The problem is to what degree is the law enforcement still attached to the Federal pipeline and policies?

And the FBI and CIA plus a whoever else out there is under orders to sting any militia as often as possible, so personally I won’t just jump in my truck and rush down to the police station or troopers office in a mad rush to be “enlisted”.


33 posted on 02/14/2013 4:38:12 AM PST by Eye of Unk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bravo whiskey

The nationalization of a state’s National Guard is extremely tricky, and to a great extent cannot be done without the permission of the government.

An excellent, recent example, was when hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi. Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi immediately coordinated with W. Bush to have an ordered response to the disaster in his state; but Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco froze up, and despite repeated entreaties by W. Bush, she just would not do anything.

Importantly, this meant no coordination with state authorities at all, not because she opposed it, just because she didn’t approve it. The feds, even FEMA, just had to sit on Louisiana’s border waiting for permission to enter.

Now granted, *since* then, the US National Guard *Bureau* (note, not “Command”, as such) (federal) has been reorganized somewhat, with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau now sitting on the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military branches. But the same principal still applies.


34 posted on 02/14/2013 5:36:26 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

According to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, says that the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties are “the supreme law of the land.”

However, there is a conflict there. That is, the constitution dominates, and only if they are constitutional do federal statutes apply, and only if treaties both follow the constitution and federal law, do they apply.

“The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution.

“Nullification, is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers.

“The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.”

However, this is not as clear as it seems. Because states have some degree of autonomy, while congress can push around state legislatures, and federal judges can push around both state judges and state legislatures; neither the POTUS, nor the congress, nor can federal judges (for the most part), can push around state governors.

But this is somewhat muddy, and instead of clearly being dictated by the constitution, over time it has instead become a “contest of wills”.

And to make things even more interesting, the Roberts’ decision in Obamacare opened the door to what in the future can be a “great return to constitutionalism.”

That is, FDR abused the constitution, horrifically extrapolating the Interstate Commerce Clause to mean “all commerce”, an extrapolation which has existed since; and LBJ made just as bad an extrapolation of the General Welfare Clause, to create a welfare state. And *that* is still being used, though clearly violating the constitution.

And they are still at it, the most recent effort to extend the federal government’s authority over “navigable waterways” to *all* water in the US, is downright obscene.

But the Roberts’ decision might change all that, because though the Supreme Court was humbled by FDR into rationalizing his clearly unconstitutional actions, the SCOTUS is starting to lose its fear, and may now undo a lot of the villainy that was done.

But he did so by opening the door to a future congress to change things back to constitutionality, and making it easier for them to do so.


35 posted on 02/14/2013 5:57:37 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

...and it should be called...LEGALLY...a militia. That would start solving many problems. (Where can I sign up?)


36 posted on 02/14/2013 6:09:35 AM PST by ThePatriotsFlag (...and to the Republic for which it STOOD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Sign me up!


37 posted on 02/14/2013 6:19:08 AM PST by Little Ray (Waiting for the return of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Roberts is probably subject blackmail over his children who were, apparently, adopted by circumventing Irish law.


38 posted on 02/14/2013 6:26:23 AM PST by Little Ray (Waiting for the return of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
But the Roberts’ decision might change all that, because though the Supreme Court was humbled by FDR into rationalizing his clearly unconstitutional actions, the SCOTUS is starting to lose its fear, and may now undo a lot of the villainy that was done.

I don't know; I think the resultant Affordable Care Act (which is what you're talking about, no?) majority opinion was addled, written like a drugged man. It's not indicative of someone in a sound state of mind. Overwhelming fear could account for it, as could the aforementioned drugs. In neither case, however, does the opinion read with the real confidence/assurance of one without fear.

But he did so by opening the door to a future congress to change things back to constitutionality, and making it easier for them to do so.

Congress always had that option; the "it's not the SCOTUS's job to protect the people from unconstitutional acts" statement was completely and utterly false: it is the Supreme Court's job... just like it's the Congress's, or the President's. What else can the oath of office mean?

“Nullification, is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.”

I somehow get the uneasy feeling that this is nothing more than the legal attempt to discredit jury nullification. By overloading the word 'nullification' an agent of the Judiciary can say "the supreme court has found nullification to be unconstitutional" and technically be making a true statement but, deceiving nonetheless, let people think that he is talking about jury nullification. (It seems to me the judiciary [and prosecution] hates and despises jury nullification; which is why they work so hard on making it seem like the jury must convict if the accused was in violation of some statute/ordnance/law even [especially?] if it is unlawful -- simply because of the fact that they lose power the more autonomy the jury has.)

39 posted on 02/14/2013 7:32:24 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

State nullification is very real and unto itself, apart from jury nullification (which is actually a tacit thing, based on the efforts of British judges to ‘direct a conviction’ from a jury that did not want to convict. In other words, it is the recognition that a juries say for acquittal is *final*, and while a judge, detecting unfairness, can set aside a conviction, he cannot set aside an acquittal, even if he judges that a defendant is guilty.)

State nullification first came about, as such, during the reign of Andrew Jackson, the “Nullification Crisis”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis

Ironically, Jackson threatened to take the US Army into his home state, and hang any legislator who had voted to nullify.


40 posted on 02/14/2013 7:47:28 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
You'll have to say something that doesn't make me break out laughing to dampen my fire. ;-)

OPSEC
Learn it, live it!

Your life depends on it.

Regards
GtG

41 posted on 02/14/2013 10:24:19 AM PST by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Bookmarked


42 posted on 02/14/2013 12:15:13 PM PST by EnigmaticAnomaly (Dim Logic: "Let me vote Democrat. Hey, I got screwed! Let me vote Democrat. Hey, I got screwed!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray
...to march right into a FEMA re-education center.

My life depends more on not worrying about ridiculous crap like that that won't happen.

43 posted on 02/14/2013 1:05:12 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson