Utah Sheriff's Association Writes Letter to the President

[Sera63]

originally posted by hopyard:
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.

Actually, the state reaction against Brown v Board of Education is the inverse of my example. The federal government was justified in its actions because of the Supreme Court ruling. Just as individual states would have standing against orders and/or legislation that would try to negate 2nd Amendment rights confirmed through Heller. And, due to the 10th Amendment, they could use their legal standing just as the federal government did after Brown. Conversely, if an individual state rejected McDonald, the feds (if they were willing) could enforce it. It is, after all, the law of the land.

originally posted by hopyard
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.

Yes they did. A clear decision that stated an Individual right...not as part of a "state militia"...not under the auspices of "hunting, or recreation"...not even a statement that it would pertain only to single shot weapons or weapons from the 18th century...but a decision of individual protection with commonly owned weapons of today.

So, DC worked to change their laws enough to satisfy "reasonable regulation" requirements. Those requirements will have to be fought up the legal ladder as well. Chicago has been ordered to tweak its laws, and Illinois told to pass better legislation with "reasonable requirements". What they look like, and whether or not they stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny is still to be determined. However, outright bans, or regulations resulting in de facto bans are clearly un-Constitutional.

Did either decision turn D.C. or Chicago into Arizona, Alaska, or Utah? No, they didn't. Yet, Heller was a landmark decision on the federal level, and McDonald one for the state level. The Court could have agreed with the post-modern interpretation and ruled "hunting, recreation, or early-American weapons" only. Or, they could have ruled that the National Guard fulfilled the militia requirements and that we do not possess an individual right to a firearm. The majority didn't. They held that we, as law abiding citizens, do possess the individual right to keep and bear arms for our self defense.

Members of state and local governments take a similar oath to the Constitution as do federal officials. They possess as much right to defend their citizens and those rights as does the federal government. That was my take on the letter from the Sheriff's Association: "We will defend our citizens' Constitutional rights."

State governments were the instruments of soft and hard "tyranny" during the Civil Rights struggle. My parents were turned down for apartments, jobs, etc. simply due to our hispanic last name and heritage. The Civil Rights Act changed that. Sometimes slowly...sometimes swiftly. Almost 50 years later, it is very different for my children than it was for my parents, or myself. The federal government, following Supreme Court decisions and legislation based on many of those decisions, forced the necessary changes to make that difference. Today it is quite often the federal government that engages in soft and hard "tyranny" and many states are following the Supreme Court decisions and precedents. To me, the states have an equal obligation to preserve our rights today, as the feds did years ago. Hopefully, my children and grandchildren will have a very different view of our federal government. And they will walk in to their voting booths with their quite legal openly-carried personal firearms. (I can dream, can't I?)...just my .02

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Rcher]

What most people don't understand or realize is that an elected Sheriff is the supreme law enforcement authority of his land. No one else is higher. Within that jurisdiction, inside his county, the Sheriff has more power than the Governor of his state. Indeed, the Sheriff has more power in his county than the President of the United States.

Being a duly elected law enforcement official, a Constitutional Sheriff takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, we all know that oath. Thirty years ago, I took that very same oath and honor it yet today.

If the Sheriff of my county is willing to stand up to the Federal Government and fight to protect the Constitutional Rights of his/her constituents, then I stand beside my County Sheriff 100%.

[91wm6]

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.

Threatening to interfere with Federal authorities is a gravely foolish move. That is why I stated that the Governor of that
state needs to repudiate the letter-- if it is authentic.

Thank you Noway. You really got to the essence of the issue and my concern and stated it far better than I did.

Hop, why are you not convinced the letter is authentic? It is on the website of the Utah Sherriff's Association here:
http://www.utahsheriffs.org/USA-Home...20Letter_1.pdf

[QKShooter]

HopYard. Go here and read. Your opinion?

Constitutional Law Enforcement Association

[pittypat21]

This is a message from oath keepers. Like they said, they, along with the president, have taken vows to support and defend the constitution. They are stating their intent to uphold their oath, even if the president won't uphold his. Nobody has ANY obligation to obey an unlawful order. The only right way to go about this is to stand firm in your decision and make your decision known.

[SpringerXD]

And right there in that part in bold they made a huge mistake. The sentence may as well have read, "no federal official
is going to descend on (name the state) and take away... whatever. That is an open letter of defiance against
Federal authority, a veiled threat to use force against Agents of The United States, and a sad thing to come from
people who pretend to be law abiding upholders of law. The complex issues we are dealing with are political and
need to be sorted out by the legislatures and by the courts. Sending veiled threats of resistance to The President
is once again how we gun owners get a reputation for being thoroughly nuts.

Added a moment later--- Is there any way to know if the letter is even authentic?

Okay, so would you have it read like this?

"We politely and respectfully beg you, sir, to allow us to continue to bear arms. We bow before you as the ultimate authority of this country, and we'll comply with whatever you say, but please let us keep our guns. Pretty please?"

In all fairness, they actually did drop a certain misnomer in their letter: ".......and take from them what the Bill of Rights—in particular Amendment II—has given them."

This is actually incorrect; the 2nd Amendment doesn't give anyone anything. If it did, then what is given by government can also be taken away by government. The Bill of Rights is comprised of exactly that: RIGHTS. A right is inherent to a human being and bestowed by God, not granted or removed at the whims of whatever politician happens to be in office at a given time.

The Founding Fathers were very cautious in this regard. They wanted to prevent our constitutional republic from becoming a democracy, a word that is dangerously misused today. In a democracy, 51% of the population can legally vote to trample the rights of the remaining 49%. Conversely, in our constitutional republic, we have inherent God-given rights as human beings and it doesn't matter who might disagree.

Otherwise, good letter.

[TN_Mike]

I support these Sheriffs, and any who stand against the current trend of rights violations that the federal government is on. I think it is high time that this kind of thing be more common, not only with Sheriffs but with we, the People of this country. It is time for the government to fear the People again. It's the only way government stays honest.

[SpringerXD]

If it is real, even from the pens of a small minority of that state's sheriffs, the Governor of Utah needs to repudiate it
and take whatever punitive action his office enables him to take.

Now that would be a sight to see, wouldn't it? To punish the sheriffs for stating that their allegiance is to the U.S. Constitution?

[Eagleks]

To add to the discussion , Utah... is not the only place :

http://www.jocosheriff.org/index.asp...=%2findex.aspx

News Review
Sheriff Denning and the Gun Control Issue
Posted Date: 1/18/2013

Sheriff Frank Denning
Johnson County, Kansas

Where I Stand on Unilateral Personal Disarmament (Gun Control):

Since the atrocity in Newtown, Connecticut and the resulting proposals from Washington, D.C. for stricter “gun control” measures, I have been inundated with questions regarding my position as the Sheriff of Johnson County on this issue.
Along with everyone else, my heart was broken by the senseless act of criminal violence by an obviously deranged individual. I also watched with great concern, the bizarre actions of another, similarly afflicted madman in Aurora, Colorado.

From reading the proposed changes and suggestions for future legislation from Washington, I see nothing whatsoever that would have prevented these past atrocities from occurring, nor do they pretend to effectively prevent future incidents from happening. We seem to be caught up in a tidal wave of mindless emotion that demands, “Do SOMETHING! Even if we know it is ineffective, meaningless and purely symbolic!” Even in our national grief, we must adhere to reason and logic.

In past similar incidents, the most effective response to stop the bloodshed has been resistance by gunfire or the presence of a gun in the hands of a potential victim that stopped the killer or caused them either to surrender or, in many cases, to take their own lives. Logic dictates to us that armed individuals; whether armed private individuals or hired security personnel, are the answer to prevent future tragedies in those places that we have inadvertently made free-fire zones with the totally useless “No Guns Allowed” signs.
Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights based on the harsh lessons they had endured under the tyranny of a British King. Those great men would marvel at the technology of today. They would be awestruck by jet airplanes, modern automobiles, computers and cell phones. They would be in awe of modern firearms available to soldiers, law enforcement officers and law-abiding citizens. However, they would be all too familiar with the actions of politicians who would impose legislative restrictions on responsible, reasonable, law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens for “our own good.” (If you hear a faint humming noise, it is them spinning in their graves.)
The Bill of Rights does not grant us certain rights as the government sees fit. This sacred document simply acknowledges our rights as they exist. The right to worship your God; the right to speak your mind; the right to vote for your candidate in free elections; the right to own and possess the means to protect yourself, family, home, community, state and country.

The militia mentioned in the Second Amendment pertains to all able-bodied citizens capable of bearing arms. That is US! “to Keep and Bear arms” means, “to OWN and CARRY arms.”
As Sheriff, I will never support, nor advocate for, ANY legislation at ANY level (local, state or federal) that would restrict the legal possession or ownership of any type of firearm (or high-capacity magazine) by lawful, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens of Johnson County, Kansas and of the United States of America.

/s/ Sheriff Frank P. Denning, Johnson County Sheriff

[Eagleks]

Now that would be a sight to see, wouldn't it? To punish the sheriffs for stating that their allegiance is to the U.S. Constitution?

State and Local Law Enforcement, are not obligated to endorce any Federal Laws per se. Didn't the O-man take Arizona to court over immigration laws, to make that very point ????

[Crowman]

And right there in that part in bold they made a huge mistake. The sentence may as well have read, "no federal official
is going to descend on (name the state) and take away... whatever. That is an open letter of defiance against
Federal authority, a veiled threat to use force against Agents of The United States, and a sad thing to come from
people who pretend to be law abiding upholders of law. The complex issues we are dealing with are political and
need to be sorted out by the legislatures and by the courts. Sending veiled threats of resistance to The President
is once again how we gun owners get a reputation for being thoroughly nuts.

Added a moment later--- Is there any way to know if the letter is even authentic?

Its authentic and this is not an isolated case..... Sheriff's in other part of the country vow the same. States are either proposing/have have proposed relatively the same as this letter to President Obama...... Granted all it amounts to is it's symbolic in that they are telling the president to back off circumventing the people's rights under the Constitution.

This letter and other things really do not play into gun owners having a reputation of being "nuts"... The anti-gun crowd doesn't need any help in there propaganda campaign.

Some lawmakers vow to ignore Obama gun control laws | 7online.com


However, a constitutional provision known as the Supremacy Clause holds that federal laws, whether passed through Congress or made through a properly authorized executive order, “shall be the supreme law of the land.”

“A state cannot pass a statute that blocks enforcement of an otherwise enforceable federal law,” according to Stanford University law professor Jeffrey Fisher.
Texas bill would block Obama?s executive actions on guns | The Daily Caller

[Cokeman]

Republican Brian Greene drew some of the biggest cheers from the 1,500-strong crowd, saying he would unveil legislation next week giving local sheriffs the power to arrest any federal agent attempting to seize firearms from Utah residents.

Utahns dare federal government to enforce gun control | The Salt Lake Tribune

[pittypat21]

Its authentic and this is not an isolated case..... Sheriff's in other part of the country vow the same. States are either proposing/have have proposed relatively the same as this letter to President Obama...... Granted all it amounts to is it's symbolic in that they are telling the president to back off circumventing the people's rights under the Constitution.

This letter and other things really do not play into gun owners having a reputation of being "nuts"... The anti-gun crowd doesn't need any help in there propaganda campaign.

Some lawmakers vow to ignore Obama gun control laws | 7online.com


However, a constitutional provision known as the Supremacy Clause holds that federal laws, whether passed through Congress or made through a properly authorized executive order, “shall be the supreme law of the land.”

“A state cannot pass a statute that blocks enforcement of an otherwise enforceable federal law,” according to Stanford University law professor Jeffrey Fisher.
Texas bill would block Obama?s executive actions on guns | The Daily Caller

That supremacy clause specifically states they can't block enforcement of an "otherwise enforceable federal law". But an unconstitutional law is NOT an enforceable one. This clause does not apply.

[Eagleks]

Its authentic and this is not an isolated case..... Sheriff's in other part of the country vow the same. States are either proposing/have have proposed relatively the same as this letter to President Obama...... Granted all it amounts to is it's symbolic in that they are telling the president to back off circumventing the people's rights under the Constitution.

This letter and other things really do not play into gun owners having a reputation of being "nuts"... The anti-gun crowd doesn't need any help in there propaganda campaign.

Some lawmakers vow to ignore Obama gun control laws | 7online.com



However, a constitutional provision known as the Supremacy Clause holds that federal laws, whether passed through Congress or made through a properly authorized executive order, “shall be the supreme law of the land.”

“A state cannot pass a statute that blocks enforcement of an otherwise enforceable federal law,” according to Stanford University law professor Jeffrey Fisher.
Texas bill would block Obama?s executive actions on guns | The Daily Caller

they "can" argue several things ; remember this is a Republic, and the Fedl Govt is given only those powers the Constitution gives them and all of the rest falls to the States..... that is one of the foundations.
So, if it violates the Constitution and/or the "authority" granted under the Constitution to the Fedl Govt.... it can definitely be challenged, and won. The Fed's cannot violate those things left to the states , nor over-ride the State's authority.
Thus, you see no laws per se for murder, on the Fedl level... they are 'state laws'. The right to own guns manufactured, bought, and kept within the borders of the state ..... is not strongly supported that the Feds would NOT win based upon it can govern it .... because of the interstate commerce clause, as it does generally on gun laws.

The state law enforcement agencies have no obligation to report nor to enforce federal laws, nor in many cases can they.

[Frogman]

I agree with the letter. Wonder how long it will be before Utah looses all its Federal funds??

Jim