Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

new proposal would hit feds with charges
WND ^ | January 12, 2011 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 01/13/2011 9:35:56 AM PST by Cowman

A new legislative proposal would declare that the state's local county sheriffs are the pre-eminent law enforcement authority in their jurisdictions, and federal agents such as those working for the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and others, would be required to get permission from them before they could take any action.

The proposal, Senate Bill 114, is called "An act regulating arrests, searches, and seizures by federal employees; providing that federal employees must obtain the county sheriff's permission to arrest, search, and seize; providing exceptions; providing for prosecution of federal employees violating this act; rejecting federal laws purporting to give federal employees the authority of a county sheriff in this state; and providing an immediate effective date."

Inside that mouthful of provisions is a requirement that federal agents work through and get permission from sheriffs before taking any action to arrest anyone, seize any object or search anywhere. And it includes a promise of consequences if that is not followed: "An arrest, search, or seizure or attempted arrest, search, or seizure in violation of [section 2] is unlawful, and the persons involved must be prosecuted by the county attorney for kidnapping if an arrest or attempted arrest occurred, for trespass if a search or attempted search occurred, for theft if a seizure or attempted seizure occurred, and for any applicable homicide offense if loss of life occurred. The persons involved must also be charged with any other applicable criminal offense in Title 45," the bill explains.

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


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: criminal; irs; liability; montana
I know that to solve the tyranny problem we need to repeal the 16th amendment but If this would make IRS agents personally guilty of theft when they decide to seize property without a warrant and therefore the state would be able to send them to jail for their crimes Then I’m all for it
1 posted on 01/13/2011 9:35:58 AM PST by Cowman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cowman
Good luck with that.
2 posted on 01/13/2011 9:40:56 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." -- Barry Soetoro, June 11, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowman
Locally elected sheriffs are accountable to the people and are supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer of the county, bar none.

Amen to that.

3 posted on 01/13/2011 9:43:57 AM PST by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowman

Reading the excerpt only it sounds good to me.


4 posted on 01/13/2011 9:46:27 AM 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: Cowman

If this law was passed here in IL, and could somehow be enforced against the Federal Government, and Federal authorities had to alert local LE to corruption investigations, corruption would be completely out of hand - Federal investigation and prosecution is effectively the *only* check on corrupt LE and it’s “Friends in High Places” in this state.


5 posted on 01/13/2011 9:57:13 AM PST by M. Dodge Thomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowman

I kinda like it.


6 posted on 01/13/2011 10:00:06 AM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do chel denmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowman

From this excerpt it sounds good to me. The federal government is too powerful and wields unconstitutional authority it was never supposed to have. If we don’t remove much of this gestapo like authority we will become no better than any communists nation on the earth.


7 posted on 01/13/2011 10:02:06 AM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas
Then it falls on the people of Illinois to make sure they are informed and take necessary action to eliminate the corruption with their vote. Cannot have everything both ways or we will stay the way we are with less freedom and less voice an any part of government. What do we have now? Corrupt local and corrupt Federal and we now have so little say that we are almost lost.
8 posted on 01/13/2011 10:07:35 AM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cowman

Sounded relatively good until I realized Dupkin is a Sheriff.


9 posted on 01/13/2011 10:08:17 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (We conservatives will always lose elections as long as we allow the MSM to choose our candidates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
"Sounded relatively good until I realized Dupkin is a Sheriff."
Yes, he is. And therefore can be voted out of office.
The same can't be said for the IRS, DEA, FBI...
10 posted on 01/13/2011 10:31:46 AM PST by astyanax (Liberalism: Logic's retarded cousin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas

This is exactly spot on.

If our local authorities here in Illinois were the only check valve, Cicero or Chicago would be running the state.

Remember, this is a senate bill, which means the dems have something to gain by this.

I am against any senate bill at this point, I don’t trust the bastards.

Imagine if the feds needed Daley’s approval to have gone in and wire tap Blago? It would have been leaked to him in a heartbeat, and the wiretaps would have for naught.


11 posted on 01/13/2011 10:36:36 AM PST by esoxmagnum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

“Then it falls on the people of Illinois to make sure they are informed and take necessary action to eliminate the corruption with their vote”

How would you do that, if the local officials are the ones who would have to OK an investigation into vote fraud?

I don’t see Cook County officials giving the OK to the feds to investigate such things. You would have no recourse, no where to turn when vote fraud does pop up. Not that you have much recourse now, because the dems are in power, but the dems see themselves losing power, and they also see conservatives gaining power, which means eventually investigations into local elections and the like will happen. They are insulating themselves from such probabilities.

Anything the dems are doing right now in the senate, is an attempt to game the rules for when conservatives do get in power.

Don’t kid yourself.


12 posted on 01/13/2011 10:41:42 AM PST by esoxmagnum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: esoxmagnum

You could move.


13 posted on 01/13/2011 10:51:07 AM PST by Darth Reardon (No offense to drunken sailors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: astyanax
And therefore can be voted out of office.

With all due respect, he'll never be rejected by leftist Tucson voters. So this means, if I live in a place like Tucson, I'm screwed until I can land a better job in Phoenix.

14 posted on 01/13/2011 11:06:50 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (We conservatives will always lose elections as long as we allow the MSM to choose our candidates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: esoxmagnum
I have to admit I thought the idea sounded good in theory.
Then I read your post.
Now all I can imagine is a Soros Secretary of State County Sheriff Project.
15 posted on 01/13/2011 11:24:52 AM PST by astyanax (Liberalism: Logic's retarded cousin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Darth Reardon

Darth Reardon wrote:

“You could move”

Why would I do that? I’m not the surrendering type.

When all the conservatives leave an area, the area collapses. When it collapses, then the leftists move into the conservative areas and start over again. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

I guess I could flee the United States as well, because I don’t like the dems in control? Nah, I’d rather fight. I’ll leave the fleeing for those without the stomach to stand their ground.

And if you think whatever area you are in now, is protected from such corruption, think again. It is laws like these that will bring the corruption to your town as well. This is why the libs are spending tons of money now on local elections, States Attorney elections, and state judicial spots.

Someone has to stand ground, dig their heels in, and tighten the upper lip. Only cowards run away from their problems.


16 posted on 01/13/2011 11:27:15 AM PST by esoxmagnum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: esoxmagnum
"Remember, this is a senate bill, which means the dems have something to gain by this."

The cited article can be a bit confusing on first read - the bill was introduced in the Montana State Senate, not the US Senate.

17 posted on 01/13/2011 11:48:08 AM PST by M. Dodge Thomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: esoxmagnum
"Then it falls on the people of Illinois to make sure they are informed and take necessary action to eliminate the corruption with their vote”

Problem is, without the Feds to investigate, much corruption never comes to public notice.

One of our recent IL Governors (now in Federal Prison) is a good example, during his tenure as Secretary State commercial drivers licenses were for sale to convicted drunk drivers, illegal aliens, those who had lost their licenses, etc. - such drivers are known to have caused at least 55 accidents and 11 deaths.

And who had the responsibility to investigated such bribes at the state level?

The Secretary of State.

18 posted on 01/13/2011 12:00:00 PM PST by M. Dodge Thomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas

I’m in agreement with you, you are quoting a previous poster, who I was quoting.


19 posted on 01/13/2011 12:04:10 PM PST by esoxmagnum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cowman

This happens already in many instances. Its called “courtesy”.


20 posted on 01/13/2011 3:16:32 PM PST by goseminoles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goseminoles
This happens already in many instances. Its called “courtesy”.

That's the first time I've seen that word used in association with the feds -- Particularly the IRS.

21 posted on 01/14/2011 6:55:01 AM PST by Cowman (How can the IRS seize property without a warrant if the 4th amendment still stands?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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