Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama demands sheriffs enforce federal gun control legislation whether constitutional or not
Coach is Right ^ | 4/1/13 | Doug Book

Posted on 04/01/2013 8:53:02 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax

“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” Though Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision in the landmark case Marbury vs Madison has led to 2 centuries of power-abusing mischief on the part of our federal government, he did have the premise correct—a law which is unconstitutional is not a law at all. What he did not add, but might have I suspect, is that such a “law” need not be followed and should not be enforced, especially not by those who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend that Constitution.

For months the American people have been threatened with legislation promoting gun confiscation, “assault weapons” bans and schemes which would lead quite inevitably to the national registration of firearms and their owners. New York and Colorado have already enacted such legislation, all in typical leftist, knee-jerk response to the Newtown killings.

Each new piece of gun control legislation proposed by the left, whether at the state or national level, has one thing in common—an utter disregard for...

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; backoffbarry; banglist; barackobama; bhofascism; bloodoftyrants; cwii; cwiiping; democrats; donttreadonme; govtabuse; gunconfiscation; guncontrol; obama; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed; treason; tyranny; waronliberty; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

1 posted on 04/01/2013 8:53:02 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
If they are required to enforce federal gun law, are they also required to enforce federal immigration law?

Or does the feral government enforce laws cafeteria-style?

2 posted on 04/01/2013 8:55:43 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("Somebody has to be courageous enough to stand up to the bullies." --Dr. Ben Carson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

I trust my county sheriff a hell of lot more than I trust obama.


3 posted on 04/01/2013 8:55:44 AM PDT by bergmeid (I told you so - now pass the ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
“I swear to support and defend the Obama of the United States of America...”
4 posted on 04/01/2013 8:58:13 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Shove it, Obamadork.

Shove it deep.

Shove it often.

We really don’t give a smelly Obama what the h*** you say or think.

You are slime.


5 posted on 04/01/2013 8:58:39 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

“Demand” all you want, Odumbass... Stomp your feet too..

what are you going to do about it?


6 posted on 04/01/2013 8:59:01 AM PDT by Mr. K (There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and democrat talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

The question becomes who decides if a law is repugnant to the Constitution? Marshall answered that as well - the courts, not the president or the sheriff. So if Obama's gun control legislation is ruled unconstitional by the courts then the law enforcement agencies cannot enforce them, no matter what Obama says. But before then...?

7 posted on 04/01/2013 8:59:17 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Why does the federal government insist that certain federal laws be enforced, but then allows sanctuary cities where federal immigration law is not enforced?


8 posted on 04/01/2013 8:59:19 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

BTT, E! Perfect point made. Essentially, it is “enforce what I want and don’t enforce what I don’t”.


9 posted on 04/01/2013 8:59:28 AM PDT by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
“Don't you foolish sheriffs know who I am? I am Barry Hussein Soetoro-Obama, the great and powerful ruler of this kingdom. Bow down before me and my minions!”

The county sheriffs blow a collective Bronx cheer to the adolescent boy POTUS.

10 posted on 04/01/2013 8:59:42 AM PDT by MasterGunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Those who seek to enforce unconstitutional laws are themselves outlaws and should be dealt with as such. This, I think, is the very definition of tyranny and the very definition of resistance to such tyranny.


11 posted on 04/01/2013 8:59:52 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The ballot box is a sham. Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

The Sherrif is an institution going back to Saxon Britain that provided local autonomy and a check on a rapacious Monarch.


12 posted on 04/01/2013 9:03:07 AM PDT by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Excellent reply at your link:

.... I suppose it is academically interesting to still speak of what is or is not constitutional in 2013. But, considering that 90% of what the Feds do is unconstitutional, why split hairs?

After the Civil War, the Constitution essentially ceased to exist, but sentimentalists wish to search for a more recent date for its passing.

OK, how about this trifecta from the 1960s, then…

1964 Civil Rights Act—Installed permanent victim “remedy” as a federal function—for all time

1965 Medicare–Fed intrusion into health care brought us to where we are today.

1965 Immigration reform–Purposely set up to turn US into a third world country

Each of these led to massive, uncontrollable bureaucracies, and ever-increasing Federal power.

The only hope is that this miserable system runs out of money.


13 posted on 04/01/2013 9:07:03 AM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

I saw a brand new shiny Homeland Security mini 18 wheeler in our suburban town the other day


14 posted on 04/01/2013 9:08:22 AM PDT by oldtimer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AU72
What is the relationship between Sherrif and the local PDs..??

Is one subservient to the other, does one agency have more jurisdiction?

15 posted on 04/01/2013 9:09:37 AM PDT by Victor (If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert." -David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Obamanation Counterculture File.


16 posted on 04/01/2013 9:09:56 AM PDT by Graewoulf (Traitor John Roberts' Commune-Style Obama'care' violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

ClearCase_guy~:” Those who seek to enforce unconstitutional laws are themselves outlaws and should be dealt with as such.
This, I think, is the very definition of tyranny and the very definition of resistance to such tyranny.”

Exactly so !
Selective enforcement of some Constitutional laws
while ignoring other Constitutional laws
is illegal and unConstitutional .

Sheriffs meet regularly with their constituants daily
and are responsive to the rights of its citizens.
Federal bureaucrats isolate themselves from the constituants,
remain geographicaly isolated in Washington and purposely ignore citizens’ rights (until re-election time)
and performan intellectual “daisey-chain” of information by telling each other what they want to hear.


17 posted on 04/01/2013 9:12:22 AM PDT by Tilted Irish Kilt (“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

So when is Obama going to start removing officially elected county sheriffs....???


18 posted on 04/01/2013 9:13:08 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

the same way Obama decided to not enforce a law about homsexuals in exchange for campaign/library contributions?

we need to out any law enforcement officers who are pro-obama and anti-second. They should be forced to wear this albatross as a career ending decision.


19 posted on 04/01/2013 9:13:40 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
The question becomes who decides if a law is repugnant to the Constitution? Marshall answered that as well - the courts, not the president or the sheriff.

And President Andrew Jackson answered Justice Marshall regarding Worcester v. Georgia "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," (that is, the Court's opinion because it had no power to enforce its edict) (which was popularized as "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

Neither Obama nor the Supremes have a mechanism for removing a sheriff for refusing to expend resource to enforce a federal law he disagrees with.

20 posted on 04/01/2013 9:15:34 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson