Skip to comments.Kentucky Sheriff to Feds: 'You Are Never Going to Pull Guns Out of Jackson County'
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 ...
The feds could get in a snit for the defiance of a county sheriff and cause him problems but the local sheriff could make life a living hell on any federal employee regardless of agency or department if the feds got in a snit about their authority being questioned by some lowly sheriff who is actually elected by the people.
No back up for any fed raids and actually being present to represent the citizens.
Any fed employee for any agency could get pulled over and ticketed for traffic infractions, they could have their cars torn apart continually if the sheriffs drug dog “hits” on the fed car.
Depends on how far the sheriff wants to push the issue but they could make life miserable on federal employees and their families.
The problem is the guarantees given by the Constitution to the States; like the Republican form of government -- is the power of assigning governorship a power delegated the FedGove by the Constitution? That they 'rebelled' is immaterial in that argument; much like prison-rape is not a-ok because the inmates are in prison; this because being convicted, even of the most heinous crimes, does not invalidate unalienable rights [else they are not unalienable].
In short: does another's wrongdoing absolve us of abiding by [the 'right' of] a right/wrong ethos?
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?
I have little opinion on them, either way.
Why do you think they remained loyal?
For this discussion, I actually don't care; the problems I present are discretely separate from such questions, and therefore those questions are irrelevant distractions.
I seriously question that assumption...After all, they are, and have been, demoncrats who voted the last two decades of marxist/socialists into the WH.
in addition, why would serfs who allow the rape of every other aspect of freedom and liberty protected und the former Constitution do anything different about protecting this formerly guaranteed freedom?
These serfs have voted for our current rulers and they will obey all tyrnnical orders from above...That is their genetic political nature...
Okay, but how did Lincoln unite the country? Through radical expansion of federal power and waging war on the states. Obama hasn’t alienated enough of the country to cause the Civil War, Part II some Freepers expect, as Lincoln did merely by being elected. But he has expanded federal power, most famously over the healthcare industry, so that should we ever have the strength to resist whoever’s in power will have more with which to beat us down.
This is also true should the Welfare/National Security State face financial and monetary ruin. For I assume the free market will be blamed, and a more intrusive state will rise in its place. Which undoubtedly will be a poorer state, but the people will be poorer still.
“slavery was an issue that was NOT going to go away and was going to have to take a civil war to resolve it once and for all.”
That’s convenient, as it excuses us from having to justify hundreds of thousands dead, untold Mullins maybe billions in damage, the end of federalism, etc. I believe it’s total bunk. Even Lincoln’s party, the Republicans, were “free soil,” thought slavery was doomed to die where it was, and therefore sought to contain it. If it required a war I’d rather we had gone the John Brown route: arming slaves and helping them revolt. Certainly there’s have been less bloodshed and no fatal wound to our constitutional system.
“slavery was an issue that was NOT going to go away and was going to have to take a civil war to resolve it once and for all.”
That’s convenient, as it excuses us from having to justify hundreds of thousands dead, untold millions maybe billions in damage, the end of federalism, etc. I believe it’s total bunk. Even Lincoln’s party was “free soil,” thought slavery was doomed to die where it was, and therefore sought to contain it. If it required a war I’d rather we had gone the John Brown route: arming slaves and helping them revolt. Certainly there’d have been less bloodshed and no fatal wound to our constitutional system.
From what I was taught in school and I am well past the half-century mark in age, meaning many years ago. I am from southern New England, CT.
The whole slavery issue if I am not mistaken, dogged even the founding fathers. I remember watching the musical “1776” and I do believe there was a song sung about the slave trade Thomas Jefferson wanting to put something in about freeing the slaves, but again I am dealing with a middle age brain here.
I was wondering if the founding wanted to end slavery then and there and not let it fester the way it did until it had to take a huge civil war to end it.
From what I have read, there are many different interpitations of Lincoln, FWIW.
Most average Dems I know don’t know diddly squat about ideological issues. Like my three lib sisters, they think the Dems “care” about them and the nasty Republicans don’t. Of course, like many female Dems, my sisters think the idea that a teenage girl might not be able to get an abortion and homosexual marriage are the nation’s most important issues trumping Islamism or the economy. In short, most Dems are bone ignorant and highly susceptible to demagoguery.
Whatever "unconstitutional" actions Lincoln foisted on the southern states, they brought it all on themselves. Ditto for northern Copperheads who found themselves jailed or removed for seditious actions during the war. I find it risable that you're outraged about Lincoln appointing governors (oh, the horror!!! ) more than some states retaining the institution of slavery.
Indeed there are however, with historians like Eric Foner who writes with a biased bent, the War of Northern Aggression will remain forever lying in a fog of uncertainty. Freeing slaves became a cause célèbre as a reason for that war as it droned on. Lincoln ended slavery but said, "those people must never be allowed to vote". Lincoln was anything but a saint; his abuse of the United States Constitution is legend.
“Lincoln was anything but a saint; his abuse of the United States Constitution is legend.”
.....But then again, the first five Presidents, including Washington were slave holders also. They all were very much human just like the rest of us.
>Surprsed that Mr. Gore even got to the position of being sheriff.
As the “establishment” candidate, he won in a landslide. We had a pro-shall issue CCW candidate running who barely got any votes.
The dopey, uniformed citizens here vote for who they are told to vote for.
‘Alaska - Independent ‘
Alaska - Russia
Here you are ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments -- these are as follows:
Amendment IXClearly, the 9th says that just because it [a right] is not enumerated doesn't mean it doesn't exist: a good example is travel. Would a government that required you get its permission for every movement be considered free or the embodiment of liberty? What if that restriction was only to the place of residence: would that be free? Thus it is entirely possible that there is a right of secession that is retained by the people.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In contrast, the 10th says that the powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are retained by either the States or the people. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a reference to the "perpetual union" -- therefore, constitutionally it cannot be said that the States (or people) do not have the power to secede.
In short, you are using the assertion that secession was illegal as the basis from which to reject any argument for [the legitimacy of] secession. Indeed, in your view the federal government can utterly ignore the Constitution's requirements and restraints and there is utterly no recourse the people or States can take. This is likely compounded by a popular, though incorrect, idea that "the constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is." (If the Constitution is what the USSC says, then it is not the Court under the Constitution's authority, but the Constitution under the Court's.)
Whatever "unconstitutional" actions Lincoln foisted on the southern states, they brought it all on themselves. Ditto for northern Copperheads who found themselves jailed or removed for seditious actions during the war.
So then the perpetration of some injustice is grounds for ignoring injustices committed in pursuing [punishments] so long as you agree? Government agents can legitimately commit felonies in perusing misdemeanors? Any transgression of the law frees agents of that law from following it themselves?
I find it risable that you're outraged about Lincoln appointing governors (oh, the horror!!! ) more than some states retaining the institution of slavery.
Slavery was already starting to go; it is notable that many Western powers abolished slavery without a civil war -- what, then, was the difference between them and the States? Jesus said that a good tree does not produce bad fruit (nor a bad tree good fruit), but things like appointing governors were certainly the fruit of the Civil War: others were the bullying of States to [ensure] adoption of Constitutional amendments. -- If then, the fruits of the Civil War was more central control [and, arguably, more tyranny], what does that say of the [real] causes of that war?
Secession is “illegal”? Please tell me what law it breaks? Why were never any Confederate officials tried for secession? What part of the Constitution told the states the union would be permanent so they could know before they ratified it?
“More than some states retaining the institution of slavery”
Wow, that is a real brick wall nonsequitur, there.
Slavery was going? When? If that’s true, why did Alexander Stephens say slavery was the “cornerstone of the confederacy”?
If any state can leave any time it feels like, what is the point of the union? There can be no such thing if every state is supposedly sovereign. The idea of any binding federal constitution is likewise rendered superfluous. In short, there can be no United States of America because there would be no United States.
But all the southern states agreed to sign the constitution therefore binding them to a united country. It would be no different than dissatisfed people in my state of Wisconsin deciding to secede and firing on federal institutions similar to the firing on Fort Sumter. I'd favor the federal government to apprehend and hang those people. There are no forms for legal secession as set forth by the constitution. The only way to separate is with an illegal rebellion. Like what the southern states did.
August 1834 would be a good date toward the abolition of slavery -- note also that they didn't have a bloody civil war.
If thats true, why did Alexander Stephens say slavery was the cornerstone of the confederacy?
I don't know. I don't know who Stephens is, or why his opinion should matter.
He was the vice-president of the confederacy.