Skip to comments.Law would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures
Posted on 03/27/2013 1:04:06 PM PDT by Free in Texas
Supporters of the 380 sheriffs in 15 states who so far have vowed to defy new state and federal gun control laws claim that legislation is starting to pop up around the nation to fire any state elected or appointed law enforcement official who doesn't obey federal orders.
The first effort emerged in Texas. Legislation proposed by Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws.
What's more, it would remove any elected or appointed law enforcement officer for simply stating or signing any document stating that they will not obey federal orders.
A gun lobbyist told Secrets, "Beware because once something like this is introduced in one state, it will be followed very quickly in several other states."
Secrets has charted the growing group of sheriffs opposed to new gun control initiatives. They argue that citizens should be allowed by buy the types of weapons they want to defend themselves. They also claim that there is no way to tell the difference between old rifle and pistol magazines and new ones that President Obama wants to ban.
does this include immigration laws?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 83R5861 JSA-D By: Davis of Dallas H.B. No. 2167 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the removal of a state or local officer for refusing or directing others to refuse to enforce state or federal law. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Chapter 66, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended by adding Section 66.004 to read as follows: Sec. 66.004. FAILURE TO ENFORCE STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. (a) For purposes of Section 66.001, a person holding an elective or appointive office of this state or of a political subdivision of this state does an act that causes the forfeiture of the person's office if the person: (1) wilfully fails to enforce a state or federal law in the course of the person's official duties; (2) directs others subject to the person's supervision or control as a public official not to enforce a state or federal law; or (3) states orally or in writing that the person does not intend to enforce a state or federal law in the course of the person's official duties. (b) For purposes of this section, "law" includes any rule, regulation, executive order, court order, statute, or constitutional provision. (c) This section does not apply to a law: (1) that has been held to be invalid by a court with jurisdiction over the territory served by the officer; or (2) the validity of which is currently being challenged in a court with jurisdiction over the territory served by the officer. (d) The attorney general or appropriate county or district attorney shall file a petition under Section 66.002 against an officer to which Subsection (a) applies if presented with evidence, including evidence of a statement by the officer, establishing probable cause that the officer engaged in conduct described by Subsection (a). The court in which the petition is filed shall give precedence to proceedings relating to the petition in the same manner as provided for an election contest under Section 23.101, Government Code. (e) If the person against whom an information is filed based on conduct described by Subsection (a) is found guilty as charged, the court shall enter judgment removing the person from office and disqualifying the person from public office for a period of 10 years. SECTION 2. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2013.
Of course not. That would hit the law makers and we can’t have that.
(Smiling)I think you know the answer to that question.
Sherrif’s are unique in that they are sworn to uphold The Constitution... not any Federal Law trying to trump it.
Legislation proposed is a whole lot different than legislation passed, especially on this issue, this stance, from a democrat, and in Texas.
I thought the Dems were against sheriffs enforcing federal laws.
I believe Texas will tell them to pound sand.
What's the point of having the people elect someone, if some bureaucrat somewhere has the power to overturn the people's choice at any time?
The only way to remove an elected official is through impeachment, recall elections, expulsion by their chamber, term limits, or failed reelection.
What about a law to fire those who fail to fire the sheriffs?
You can’t fire an elected official.
And just who is going to physically remove a sheriff from his position?
Why are these people helping Obama disarm America and what's in it for them?
I guess Big Sis and her 3 billion bullets...
That is somewhat reassuring. Most of the sherrifs out this way in my county consider armed citizens to be their allies. And they’re all the law we have out here.
Where's her concern over a POTUS, DHS director or U.S. Attorney General who refuse to enforce Federal laws?
I'd guess...this will not pass.
The Constitution means nothing to a democrat..
What would Michael Collins do?
How are you going to enforce that, Yvonne?
Yvonne: "You're not enforcing the law, Sheriff!"
Sheriff: "I haven't found any lawbreakers."
But you can indict an official--like Blago--try and incarcerate him.
Wouldn't they do that?
Related question: is there any way that a judge might deny a defendent a jury trial? What about trying the individual outside of the original jurisdiction. Could a DA move the trial to increase the odds? Prosecutors can also bury defendants with additional charges and seize assets.
This is not cut and dried, I'm afraid.
Many sheriffs have said that Colorado laws banning magazines are unenforceable. The governor has no authority to change the Second Amendment anyway.
“And just who is going to physically remove a sheriff from his position?”
Reminds me of the Andrew Jackson quote- “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”
Look at me, NOT being surprised...
Yes, indeed. Every democrat needs to be put on the spot with the question
“what do you intend to do after the people are disarmed that you can’t do before?”
More proof IMO of why no Democrap should ever be elected to anything. They haven’t a clue about our Constitution, or the reasons for why it is what it is. Over two hundred thirty plus years, and they don’t get it.
It requires too much brainwork from a Democrat.
how about a law that puts legislators in jail for adopting unconstitutional laws. No more valid util judge stops it when you KNOW it is unconstitution on its face.
Look up "Battle of Athens" in Youtube.
Texas doesn’t have recall elections for county or state offices. Our recall is the next election to dump the office holder.
Didn’t the Brady law stipulate that sheriffs were to do background checks? They refused and took it all the way up to the Supreme Court. They won.
Davis is in a “safe” gerrymandered district. She is in one of those districts that even if you were arrested for drug smuggling, she would be re-elected. That being said, she is grandstanding for her ultra-left constituancy. This won’t even get a hearing in committee.
And what happens if the people rally around their local sheriff and block any attempt to remove him from office ... with force if necessary?
This could get very interesting, very soon.
This bill will never get out of committee, let alone become Texas law.
Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis should be the immediate subject of a recall election.
This means Obama will be gone for refusing to enforce any law he doesn’t like.
Come and bathe? It's a nice thought but somehow just doesn't have that fierce a ring to it.
How about a law firing any Representative or other elected official who votes for a law that violates the 2nd Amendment?
I like it, “fire Obam a ramma.”
You have been misinformed. Molon lave means ‘come and get them.’ A FReeper told me that a Greek friend of his confirmed that that is the correct spelling.
I did not know that. Thanks.
I don't know how you go from Beta to a "V".
If you guys are really interested in a debate on it there is one on that forum.
I don't know how you go from Beta to a "V".
Here is what one poster said about that...
My mother is Greek and I speak the language fluently.
What most people don't realize is the Greek alphabet doesn't have a "B" sound. "Beta" is pronounced "Veeta".
That's why the Greek word for Beer is pronounced "Beera" but is spelled (substituting English letters here) the equivalent of "MPyra" because the mu-pi (MP) sound is the closest thing to "B" in the language.
So that's how you go from Beta to V.
Interesting the claim that all the decades of Greek Alphabet tables are wrong...
No one claimed that.
And from your link, the next two posts read:
- - - - -
Yes, Greek doesn’t have a b sound now . 2500 years ago beta was pronounced as a b. Ask anyone who knows classical Greek.
- - - - -
You’re quite right- the ancient pronunciation would have been like a “B”.
However, as you can see from this site, there are additional complications...
Then it is a "B", not a "V".
That isn't what the poster said is it?