Posted on 03/15/2013 2:52:48 PM PDT by marktwain
FRANKLIN, Ind. (AP) — A central Indiana sheriff says if his county's commissioners pass a law ordering him to ignore a federal assault weapons ban, he might just ignore them instead.
(Excerpt) Read more at ctpost.com ...
Bammy bringing change.
Traitor Roberts didn’t help.
Time for a recall election!
A state or county employee...under an oath, is usually bound to what the state or county has decreed. I can’t think of too many law enforcement characters that have said they’ve arrested folks on federal charges. That just doesn’t happen. If anyone can cite such a county or city or state law enforcement individual ever doing something like that...I’d like to know the story.
So, if Sheriff Cox is going to enforce federal gun laws, is he also going to enforce federal immigration laws?
If Indiana is a strong home-rule state, it’s time for patriots to organize and recall this sheriff immediately. You don’t want a boot-licking, Buckwheat-worshipping traitor in your midst if the SHTF.
Looks like this guy is debating theoreticals that might result from theoreticals. I wonder why?
Indiana experienced about 90% of its history WITHOUT the homerule doctrine. I suppose they could go back to that pretty darned quick if they needed to ~ but this is a dispute between a sheriff and the county commissioners ~ they can cut his budget so bad he’ll have nothing left but his best dress skivvies.
http://www.recalltherogues.org/states.html This says Indiana is still unsullied by make-believe legislative practice.
“...he might just ignore them....”
Why wait, begin the recall now. I wouldn’t even negotiate with this guy. Yes, it’s that important.
This sheriff sounds like a good little Bundist.
I agree.
Not knowing the sheriff personally, I'll give the sheriff the benefit of the doubt and say that his intentions are probably good, arguably patriotic. However, given the sheriff is a product of the public education system, he was probably fed politically correct ideas about the Constitution, particularly the Supremacy Clause (6.2), but possibly having no clue about Congress's Section 8-limited powers.
And given that he wrongly believes that the Supreme Court is the end of the road with respect to deciding what the Constitution says about an issue, somebody needs to clue the sheriff on the Supreme Court's clarification of 2A. The Supreme Court has clarified that the Founding States had made 2A not to confer the right to bear arms, but to clarify that guns are an appropriate way (my term) to exercise the natural right to self-defense.
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." --United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.
I would not go that far. Heonly wants to control the slaves, not be a fantic.
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.