Posted on 01/14/2013 4:15:55 AM PST by BO Stinkss
As I wrote on Jan. 11, Jackson County Kentucky Sheriff Denny Peyman has made it clear that gun laws which violate the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution will not be enforced in his county. On Jan. 12, he followed this up with a press conference in which he explained that a Sheriff's powers are predominant over the powers of federal and state agents. When he says these things he drives gun-grabbers batty because he says them with the conviction that rests on knowledge, and he has no intention of backing down. During the press conference, he took time to explain his powers as sheriff: I am responsible for the people inside this county. I am the highest elected official in this county, and this is the only opportunity the people have to speak for themselves and say 'this is what we want.' I can ask federal people to leave, they have to leave. I can ask state people to leave, they have to leave. ...[And] it doesn't matter what [new laws] Obama passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people. He said that if federal gun-grabbers don't understand this, then "they need to go back and study it," because Kentucky "is a commonwealth." Peyman says he has been approached by liberals within the gun-grabbing world since he made his original promise of no gun control in his county, and he told them plainly: "You are never going to pull guns out of Jackson County." Sheriff Denny Peyman represents everything good and brave about America, and about the great state of Kentucky. He is a patriot, first class.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Pretty much agree but WTF do we do with Illinois?
Followed by a transfer of counties in ‘border’ blue states to the nearest red states, leaving the big cities as enclaves of poor Democrats.
That’s why they are setting up the DHS as their enforcement arm. “As large and as well-equipped as the military”.
And the Chinese control the Panama Canal.....
The earlier War of independence against their British compatriots was mostly about the desire of the colonies to expand westward. The Brits back in England didn’t want to have to pay for the defense of the new larger border that would result.
i’m from calyfornia but if it tried to fight arizona i’d be on arizona’s side in a heartbeat..
Alaska - Independent
Hawaii - China
Chicago - Crips, Bloods
Detroit - Hell
Consider Reconstruction where the states had military governors forced upon them.
Indeed. My wife just yesterday told me about a conversation she heard between two men who work with her. The gist was "I don't care what Obama says, I'm NOT giving up my guns". These are liberals she has argued with about other conservative/liberal issues (she as conservative, of course) who she says are "very liberal".
If Hawaii were truly to go it alone, I would suspect half their population to be starved to death with 3 years.
Of course the southern states didn't do anything to initiate those actions, right? And what's your feelings towards those southerners, chiefly in the Appalachian regions of west Virginia and east Tennessee, who remained loyal to the union? Why do you think they remained loyal?
Sheriffs have the interesting power of deputization. A Sheriff could, unilaterally, declare that “all able bodied, adult persons” in their county are hearby deputized as members of the county militia, of which the Sheriff is the commander.
“Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff or other law officer to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon.”
As such, the Sheriff could do the equivalent of Kennesaw, Georgia, and declare that all adults, and thus posse members, must be armed, though there would be no penalty for not being armed.
And as agents of the Sheriff, the federals could not legally disarm them, any more than they could demand that a state or local LEO surrender their gun.
Importantly, not all states have a posse comitatus statute which authorizes this, and the law varies considerably in those states that do. But I think the principle is sound.
“I have been trying to picture for years what the map of the new countries would look like.”
I have described what I think -could happen- in this post, put up some time ago:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2959153/posts?page=51#51
“That’s why they are setting up the DHS as their enforcement arm. “As large and as well-equipped as the military”.”
If you stop to think of the implications, possibilities, and consequences, DHS may be the governmental agency that most threatens the future of freedom in America. Right down to its Orwellian name.
Thanks, G.W.
Meaning the southern states, he wanted centralized control from dc.
Lincoln set the stage for what we have today, centralized control.
During the Chiniese cultural revolution, the local police were told to not interfere with the Red Guard.
I applaud this sherrif but lets acknowledge there is a BIG difference between not getting your guns and standing up to the federal agents.
No, it really started under FDR.
Answer my question: why did the mountain people of Virginia and Tennessee remain loyal to the union?
Will have to look that up later, I am headed back into work now.
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.