Printable View
Fred Wegener has already emailed at least one person here (might have been that other site) to say that he's on the side of the good guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melvin
Did anybody else notice, TWELVE sheriffs from California? None from LA, Marin, Contra Costa, SF, Sonoma, etc, but still!
I'm glad to see these sheriffs supporting the second amendment but I don't think this is the way to do it. The issues I see with this approach are twofold.
First, no one knows what this potential legislation is. How does it make any sense to come out against legislation that doesn't even exist yet? Further, I still see the chances of any legislation passing as slim to nil with the House under Republican control and several Democrats unlikely to support an AWB anyway.
Second, as pointed out very effectively by Mr. Robinson above, sheriffs have no power to determine the constitutionality of laws. These issues are for courts to decide and sheriffs to enforce. I see a lot of potential problems with individual sheriffs from county to county deciding that they have the authority to declare laws "unconstitutional."
The second amendment states that:
So, now that we have sheriffs providing their own personal interpretations of the Constitution, what happens when we get New York and Massachusetts sheriffs requiring gun-owners to register and join "well regulated militias" in order to keep their guns? Conversely, maybe we get a local sheriff who goes a little overboard on the "shall not be infringed" and decides to legalize private ownership of WMD. Need some VX gas to protect your family? Talk to my guy Stanley Goodspeed. History buff mixed up with the wrong people? I think I saw some guys down on Colfax slingin' mustard gas. Maybe you've got a lot of money and you really want to make a statement? I can hook you up with an old Soviet briefcase nuke, but you'll need an NFA stamp for that one.Quote:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I recognize the absurdity in both scenarios, but I think the point is made. I expect (and obviously hope) that this is all moot anyway, since I don't see an AWB passing again, but I just don't like the idea of elected officials treading on the judicial branch by making their own determinations on Constitutional issues.
I'm not a veterinarian, but I know road-kill when I See it.
The Sheriffs stating that they will not enforce unconstitutional laws is allot like that. It Doesn't take a triple doctorate in Constitutional law and an appointment to the SCOTUS to know that gun confiscation is not constitutional.
Stating that they will not be pawns in a government power-grab is something to be thankful for.
I align these men with the Oathkeepers. I am sure a few are Members
I bet a few million Jews wish Guards had not simply "followed orders"
Or how about Pol Pot- Khmer Rouge
or Mao Tse Tung-PRC
How about the United States 1492-~1890, 1942, or even as recently as February 1993