Utah Sheriff's Association Writes Letter to the President

This is a discussion on Utah Sheriff's Association Writes Letter to the President within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by G26Raven I've never been in the military or law enforcement, but my understanding is that in these positions, you have a legal ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 61
Like Tree131Likes

Thread: Utah Sheriff's Association Writes Letter to the President

  1. #31
    Member Array Naufragia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Black Hills, South Dakota
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by G26Raven View Post
    I've never been in the military or law enforcement, but my understanding is that in these positions, you have a legal and moral obligation to disobey unlawful orders. Is that not correct?
    You are correct.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Sera63 View Post
    I respectfully disagree...in at least two areas. First, how many states/cities have faced federal penalties for being "Sanctuary" for illegal immigrants? How many cities/states have petitioned the courts to overthrow federal immigration laws? Are they enforcing those laws until a case makes it way to the Supreme Court? Or, are they continually ignoring those laws? It seems to me that a certain political/ideological bias rests behind this action, and that a compliant President's agreement with the ideology is why there have been no federal actions. (Unless a state desires to actually enforce laws similar to the federal laws of course.)
    You are touching on a point that Hopyard has also raised in a post a few days / weeks ago. That by not enforcing the existing laws in key areas, like immigration and marijuana that it may have irreparably damaged their ability to maintain authority over the states in ways that they had previously asserted. Whether they ever had this authority is a valid question. In the case of immigration they did, but they also failed to enforce it and caused a lot of problems as a result. I also think that a lot of the trouble stems from the federal govt asserting it self in roles that it really shouldn't have, things that don't directly relate to its role of national and international interests.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Very well put, and as for the last paragraph, the courts can take nothing up unless litigants go to them with a complaint.
    Laws passed by Congress are presumptively constitutional until such time as they are found otherwise.
    This particular situation presents a lot of unique challenges in addition to those I mention in the paragraph above. First and possibly foremost is that we, the people of this nation, have valid reason to believe that the President wants to push a law that very well could be illegal. While he may act within the limits of his role, he has made his views clear that he doesn't agree with it and would rather function as a dictator. Given where he comes from and the rampant corruption that rules the place this comes as no surprise. Furthermore, I think he knows that it would be illegal but is hoping to do enough damage in the name of his cause before it is stopped. In other words, he plans to take advantage of the assumption that a law is valid until it isn't. Second, we have an exceptionally dysfunctional congress that so far has taken a semi passive stance against the President. This congress has also shown a propensity for using various dirt bag tactics to pass things in underhand means rather than allowing the process to work as designed. This alone has heightened the tensions and contributed to the soup we currently find ourselves in. Next we come to the courts, who have demonstrated themselves as being decisively partisan. Looking at the health care ruling, where one of them explicitly said that they felt they needed to rule opposite their appointing party least their impartiality be called into question tells you that even they know it is a problem.

    Lastly, the people that are making the affirmative defiance statements are doing so because they believe, and I have to say rightfully so, that this administration needs to get the message. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to wait until a law was passed and then say that they wouldn't enforce it for the reasons of it being illegal and then make a challenge of it. However, I think that a large part of the objective is to also send a message to the congressional representatives many of whom have demonstrated the fact that they are not representing anything other than their own wallets.

    The danger is real. And the consequences could spell the doom of the nation.

  4. #33
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,657
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    The message is that local law enforcement is not going to support federal violations of the US Constitution, and that state law enforcement is not required to enforce federal laws. A "wake up" call.
    Had that (above quoted material) been the message, there would be no problem and nothing wrong with what they said.
    But they wrote this: "No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents "


    How would they not "permit federal officials to do something?" A threat of interference is implied.

    There are numerous laws on the books regarding interference with Federal (or state officials for that matter) while they are performing their official duty. There are numerous laws on the books regarding threatening Federal officials to prevent
    them from performing their duties.

    It is one thing to say you won't help or you will not act; it is another to say you will "not permit."

    I know I've posted the relevant USC on here several times.

    Now, what we have here is a group of sheriffs sworn to uphold the law and threatening essentially to violate US law
    if they don't get their way.

    Meanwhile, for all the bluster, there is no new Federal law and no one is descending on their constituents; which makes
    their letter even more foolish than the threat implied within its text.

    Guys, if we are to prevail we have to be much smarter than stuff like this.

    Again, the Governor of that state would be wise to repudiate what the sheriffs posted and take some sort of punitive
    action. Its not a game, and rhetoric of the sort in that letter can have extremely serious if not dire consequences for
    all involved.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #34
    Member Array tony1990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    454
    I don't know who could have said it better. Hooray for The Utah Sheriff's Association.

    Always Fight Crime - Shoot back until it stops.
    NRA member and supporter.
    A Gun without Ammo is called a door stop.


  6. #35
    Sponsor
    Array SHTFGearLLC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Again, the Governor of that state would be wise to repudiate what the sheriffs posted and take some sort of punitive
    action. Its not a game, and rhetoric of the sort in that letter can have extremely serious if not dire consequences for
    all involved.
    Why would you expect the governor to repudiate what the Utah Sheriffs' Association stated even if he disagreed with it? County sheriffs are not appointed by the state and the association is not run by the state of Utah, it is a professional organization made of people who voluntarily chose to join. Would you expect the governor to repudiate a statement made by other professional associations based in the state, say the Structural Engineers Association of Utah or the Utah Association of CPA's?

  7. #36
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,961
    I have to respectfully disagree with Hop on this. A lot of the past over reaching of government has been a result of that exact wait and see attitude. We are beyond that point not only with 2a but other areas as well.

    The federal government has for years operated as though if it passes something that automatically means the country will obey it. And gotten very comfortable with that idea.

    What these Sheriffs and some states and others are doing is exactly what should be done. Giving fair warning that a limit to what the country in general will tolerate as far as Federal abuse of power and a gentle wake up call before more direct action is forced to be taken to maintain our freedoms and rights. I see this as a good thing. As opposed to what may come next if the Feds dont get the message.

  8. #37
    New Member Array Sera63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    14
    Originally Posted by Sera63
    I respectfully disagree...in at least two areas. First, how many states/cities have faced federal penalties for being "Sanctuary" for illegal immigrants? How many cities/states have petitioned the courts to overthrow federal immigration laws? Are they enforcing those laws until a case makes it way to the Supreme Court? Or, are they continually ignoring those laws? It seems to me that a certain political/ideological bias rests behind this action, and that a compliant President's agreement with the ideology is why there have been no federal actions. (Unless a state desires to actually enforce laws similar to the federal laws of course.)

    originally posted by noway2:
    You are touching on a point that Hopyard has also raised in a post a few days / weeks ago. That by not enforcing the existing laws in key areas, like immigration and marijuana that it may have irreparably damaged their ability to maintain authority over the states in ways that they had previously asserted. Whether they ever had this authority is a valid question. In the case of immigration they did, but they also failed to enforce it and caused a lot of problems as a result. I also think that a lot of the trouble stems from the federal govt asserting it self in roles that it really shouldn't have, things that don't directly relate to its role of national and international interests.
    Here we agree. Not only in the area of turning a blind eye to the local enforcement of drug and immigration laws, but also to the overreach of the federal government in areas the Founders clearly considered were to be left to the states, and to the people. Great points...
    TN_Mike likes this.

  9. #38
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,657
    Quote Originally Posted by SHTFGearLLC View Post
    Why would you expect the governor to repudiate what the Utah Sheriffs' Association stated even if he disagreed with it? County sheriffs are not appointed by the state and the association is not run by the state of Utah, it is a professional organization made of people who voluntarily chose to join. Would you expect the governor to repudiate a statement made by other professional associations based in the state, say the Structural Engineers Association of Utah or the Utah Association of CPA's?
    With the clarification you offered, then yes, it is none of the governor's business. I though they were speaking for
    the state.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  10. #39
    New Member Array Sera63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    14
    How would they not "permit federal officials to do something?" A threat of interference is implied.

    There are numerous laws on the books regarding interference with Federal (or state officials for that matter) while they are performing their official duty. There are numerous laws on the books regarding threatening Federal officials to prevent
    them from performing their duties.

    It is one thing to say you won't help or you will not act; it is another to say you will "not permit."

    I know I've posted the relevant USC on here several times.

    Now, what we have here is a group of sheriffs sworn to uphold the law and threatening essentially to violate US law
    if they don't get their way.

    Meanwhile, for all the bluster, there is no new Federal law and no one is descending on their constituents; which makes
    their letter even more foolish than the threat implied within its text.

    Guys, if we are to prevail we have to be much smarter than stuff like this.

    Again, the Governor of that state would be wise to repudiate what the sheriffs posted and take some sort of punitive
    action. Its not a game, and rhetoric of the sort in that letter can have extremely serious if not dire consequences for
    all involved.
    Would you feel this way if the situation affected areas other than the 2nd Amendment? If a president were to issue executive orders that effectively invalidated Brown vs Board of Education would a city, county or state be justified in civil disobedience? If that same president ordered the DOJ to enforce his/her orders, would a county sheriff be justified in stating that he/she would not allow federal agents to enforce an unlawful executive order? Would American citizens have to wait for a case to be brought, and work its way up the federal court ladder? Or, could state and local governments simply point to Brown vs Board of Education as justification for their disobedience? See the problem? The case has been resolved...the Supreme Court has spoken, and the law of the land (their constitutional judicial review) is essentially written in stone. Would anyone seriously entertain the thought of a back-door repeal of such a landmark decision? I doubt it. However, that is no different than District of Columbia v Heller, or McDonald v Chicago.

    Our Supreme Court has clearly stated what the Constitution reads concerning the 2nd Amendment. Back-door moves by federal or state officials is, and rightfully should be, considered unlawful and un-Constitutional. Just as governors, mayors, sheriffs, and school districts would be justified in standing up to an egregious attack on Brown v Board of Education; so should they be concerning an attack on the 2nd Amendment and recent Supreme Court rulings that uphold its clear language...again, just my .02
    Ghost1958 and Naufragia like this.

  11. #40
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Sera63 View Post
    Would you feel this way if the situation affected areas other than the 2nd Amendment? If a president were to issue executive orders that effectively invalidated Brown vs Board of Education would a city, county or state be justified in civil disobedience? If that same president ordered the DOJ to enforce his/her orders, would a county sheriff be justified in stating that he/she would not allow federal agents to enforce an unlawful executive order? Would American citizens have to wait for a case to be brought, and work its way up the federal court ladder? Or, could state and local governments simply point to Brown vs Board of Education as justification for their disobedience? See the problem? The case has been resolved...the Supreme Court has spoken, and the law of the land (their constitutional judicial review) is essentially written in stone. Would anyone seriously entertain the thought of a back-door repeal of such a landmark decision? I doubt it. However, that is no different than District of Columbia v Heller, or McDonald v Chicago.

    Our Supreme Court has clearly stated what the Constitution reads concerning the 2nd Amendment. Back-door moves by federal or state officials is, and rightfully should be, considered unlawful and un-Constitutional. Just as governors, mayors, sheriffs, and school districts would be justified in standing up to an egregious attack on Brown v Board of Education; so should they be concerning an attack on the 2nd Amendment and recent Supreme Court rulings that uphold its clear language...again, just my .02
    What ifs aren't arguments. And using Brown v Board of Education is precisely the best example to argue against
    your viewpoint.

    Ike enforced that court ruling against the states using both Federal troops and Federal LEOs.
    The use of Federal Marshals, the 101st Airborne, and Federalization of the National Guard were precisely necessary because
    local officials determined that they would not obey what they considered unconstitutional Federal laws no matter what the
    Supreme Court had to say or order on the matter. History proved them wrong.

    As for what you claim, the Supreme Court has clearly stated what the Constitution reads concerning the 2nd Amendment,
    you are right. But they didn't say what you think they said. That's why D.C. still has horribly restrictive anti-gun-owner laws,
    and not much has changed since Heller.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #41
    Ex Member Array gregnsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    455
    Seems a lot of sheriffs are.I saw in the paper today,three S.C sheriffs,said they wouldn't enforce any federal laws.What they are now trying to figure out,according to them,is how to stop the feds from coming in,and doing something.The sheriffs did say,obviously,if the feds came in,nothing they could do.

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    What ifs aren't arguments. And using Brown v Board of Education is precisely the best example to argue against
    your viewpoint.

    Ike enforced that court ruling against the states using both Federal troops and Federal LEOs.
    The use of Federal Marshals, the 101st Airborne, and Federalization of the National Guard were precisely necessary because
    local officials determined that they would not obey what they considered unconstitutional Federal laws no matter what the
    Supreme Court had to say or order on the matter. History proved them wrong.

    As for what you claim, the Supreme Court has clearly stated what the Constitution reads concerning the 2nd Amendment,
    you are right. But they didn't say what you think they said. That's why D.C. still has horribly restrictive anti-gun-owner laws,
    and not much has changed since Heller.
    Sending in Federal whatevers to UPHOLD the Constitution and sending them in to blatantly violate it is entirely two different things. Federal officals LE state LE and about any public office holder takes an oath to DEFEND the Constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Brown was doing that. Sending in Feds to take away a clearly stated right in the Constitution is breaking it, committing treason and those doing that the rest of us have a DUTY to resist to whatever extent warranted. End of story. No ifs what ifs or buts

  14. #43
    Ex Member Array gregnsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    455
    After reading about those three sheriffs in my state,that said, they wouldn't enforce any federal laws,it makes me feel a little better.If,they really meant what they said.

  15. #44
    Member Array 8th ID's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    488
    Seems to me that the Sheriiff's who are ELECTED and took an OATH to uphold the CONSTITUTION have the DUTY to protect their ctizens through any means they see fit.


    Here's a quote for everyone: "The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."

    --Thomas Jefferson (anyone ever heard of him?)
    Crowbait and TN_Mike like this.
    SOLD my guns.
    Proud owner of a 12lb. Chinese pug that is DANGEROUS and is soon to be registered!

  16. #45
    Sponsor
    Array SHTFGearLLC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    With the clarification you offered, then yes, it is none of the governor's business. I though they were speaking for
    the state.
    Ok, cool. Definitely an easy mistake to make. I only know because I used to work at the office who posted this letter up so I had previous exposure to the organization.

    Thanks!
    Clay

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

statement from utah sheriff's association
,
tennessee sheriffs association letter to president
,
the letter to president oboma from the state of utah
,
utah sheriff 2 amendment letter
,
utah sheriff letter
,
utah sheriff's association letter
,
utah sheriff's vs. obama
,

utah sheriffs association

,
utah sheriffs association letter
,
utah sheriffs association obama letter
,
utah sheriffs department 2nd adminment statement
,
utah sherriff's send message to obama
Click on a term to search for related topics.