Posted on 02/13/2015 6:39:51 AM PST by SandRat
PHOENIX — Declaring state law to be above all others, a Senate panel voted Tuesday to both block federal gun laws they believe violate the Second Amendment and punish the city of Tucson for enacting its own restrictions.
They also agreed to bar state and local governments from helping any federal agency that collects metadata like phone and email records without a warrant. Any official who cooperated would be forever barred from holding public office.
And if that isn’t enough, the same committee declared that county sheriffs are supreme, meaning they can arrest federal officials — including police — who try to arrest someone or seize property without first getting their consent. And county attorneys who refuse to bring charges of kidnapping for arrests done without the sheriff’s permission would be subject to prosecution themselves by the state attorney general for “official misconduct.”
All four votes, along party lines in the Republican-controlled Committee on Federalism, Mandates and Fiscal Responsibility, follow arguments that the state has to step in to block individual rights from being trampled.
Potentially the most far reaching is SB 1384, drawing a line in the sand over which federal employees and officials dare not step without first seeking local permission. Sen. Judy Burges, R-Sun City West, said it simply recognizes the supremacy of the state over the federal government — and of the sheriffs as each county’s chief constitutional and law enforcement officer.
“No police power is granted to anyone in the county without first consent of the sheriff of that county,” she said. Burges said sheriffs have a duty to protect the federal and state constitutions.
“And it is equally a duty of the sheriff to protect and defend the citizens’ business of his county from any and all abuses of constitutional rights and freedoms, even in the name of law enforcement,” she said.
SB 1384 would make it illegal for any federal employee, including a law enforcement official who has not been first given permission by the sheriff, to make an arrest, conduct a search or seize property.
Exceptions are provided for incidents on federal lands or where the officer has witnessed a crime that requires immediate arrest. And it would not apply to customs or border patrol officers.
Burges said there are things already happening in Arizona that are “potential flash points.”
She said federal agencies have come into the state, closed roads and in one instance in Greenlee County, even confiscated cattle and sold them at auction in a dispute between the U.S. Forest Service and the rancher.
That incident never got to the boiling point reached last year when Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who had refused to pay the rent for his cattle grazing on federal land, had a multi-day standoff with federal agents. Burges said her bill, rather than exacerbating such a situation, could actually prevent it by ensuring federal officials coordinate with the local sheriff before doing anything similar here.
Burges also sees her legislation as a way for the state to fight back against things like the federal government requiring that wolves be accommodated in Arizona.
She said these are issues to be litigated in federal court. And two other Senate committees already have voted to appropriate $250,000 to fight the expansion of the Mexican gray wolf program in Arizona.
But Burges said there already are problems with wolves stalking children. She said her legislation, in affirming the right of the sheriff to defend Arizonans, would assure deputies they could shoot a wolf without fear of a $50,000 federal fine.
The broader bill on gun rights approved Tuesday, SB 1330, was crafted by Sen. Kelli Ward, R-Lake Havasu City.
“The intent of the law is to allow Arizona to function under Arizona’s own power and not allow any current or future federal laws that go into effect the Second Amendment to affect people who live in Arizona,” she said.
The measure makes it illegal for any public official or employee to “enforce any federal act, law, order, rule or regulation that relates to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition within the limits of this state.” It also criminalizes providing assistance to any federal agency trying to enforce a federal law or rule.
But it’s also would cut off state aid to communities that adopt ordinances or rules to comply with federal law that are found by a court to violate the Second Amendment. Dale Wiebusch, lobbyist for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, said that puts them in an “untenable situation.”
He said a city may adopt an ordinance in compliance with a federal law, only to learn years later, after a court hearing, that federal law is unenforceable. Wiebusch said it would be unfair to cut off state aid for something city officials had no way of knowing at the time would be found illegal.
Sen. David Farnsworth, R-Mesa, was unsympathetic, saying he believes the federal government is a creation of — and subservient to — the states.
The panel separately targeted Tucson in SB 1291, voting to punish any community enacting its own gun laws found to conflict with state statutes.
State law already bars cities from enacting regulations stricter than state statutes. But Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, said Tucson has ignored that preemption.
One ordinance allows police to request a breath sample from someone who has negligently discharged a firearm and appears intoxicated. A second requires people to report the loss or theft of a gun.
In a formal legal opinion two years ago, then-Attorney General Tom Horne said both measures are pre-empted by state law. City officials said Horne’s opinion is just that, and both measures remain on the books.
This measure would allow any individual or membership is “adversely affected” to sue, with the ability to collect legal fees and damages up to $100,000. SB 1291 also would let a court assess penalties of up to $5,000 on elected or appointed government officials who knowingly and willfully violate state law., with that person subject to removal from office.
Wiebusch said local councils should be able to enact local laws that their constituents want. Smith said that argument is “irrelevant.”
“Frankly, they could want a complete repeal of the Second Amendment,” he said. “If it is direct violation of state law and state constitution law, I don’t care what they want.”
Philosophical issues aside, Wiebusch questioned whether lawmakers could mandate that an elected official be ousted.
“I don’t think you can fire the mayor,” he told lawmakers. “I think you have to go through a recall.”
A similar measure was vetoed last year by then-Gov. Jan Brewer who called the measure unnecessary, saying there already are ways for people to challenge local laws they believe to be illegal.
BANG!!!
Bravo, the people’s revolt has begun. Hope they plan on taking on the FCC to save the Internet.
Arizona has always been very conservative. As a history footnote, the Arizona territory actually voted to secede from the Union at the start of the Civil War and a battle or two was fought there.
I wonder when commifornia is going to build a DMZ with Az? lol
That would be Sibley and his boys who were stopped by the 1st Colorado at Glorietta Pass in 1862. While acting for the Confederacy, he really wanted to form his own country. How can AZ be so conservative and continue to vote for a$$holes like mcvain and flake? Of course we have our own set of idiots in Colorado.
Good for AZ. But I not sure they can buck King Obama’s gestapo which is by far more powerful than anything Arizona could dream up. We are living in a dictatorship and it is growing every day. We are being destroyed from within by the communists Democrats and face devastation from outside.
This is a continuation of the debate we had about how much authority do sheriffs have when dealing with federal LEO’s.
We are being destroyed from within by the DemoCOMMIES...
There! Fixed.
“But I not sure they can buck King Obama’s gestapo which is by far more powerful than anything Arizona could dream up.”
Take a walk through any federal agency and look at the fat, lazy, 50 IQ sloths munching doughnuts. I’m sure any general would be flabbergasted and horrified at the prospect of leading these primitive jellyfish onto a battlefield.
All federal gun laws that infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms are in fact unconstitutional. Anyone who exhibits uncertainty on that question is an enemy of the American people and will not get my vote.
“the same committee declared that county sheriffs are supreme”
Did not the Supreme Court rule as such in a case?
Sheriff Joe approves.
9th and 10th Amendment
And by the indifference of Republicans who want to watch the hearse go by and have no emotion attached because their ascension was more important than the people they should serve and the constitution they swore to uphold is either some distant memory or they feel fine living on their island marooned from Americans.
Maybe.
Whuhuyuh mean?
I copied those whose handles I could see in the ping list. (Also copying a friend and attorney.)
Vendome: Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, friend.
Note to all: IANAL. Any errors are unintentional and subject to correction by others with more knowledge. I am posting from my phone and so am not including links or citations, but I can provide them upon request.
From my limited research, I see several factors:
- Federal law (Constitution & U.S. Code)
- State constitutions and laws
- SCOTUS decisions
- Federal agency (FBI, IRS, DEA, CBP, etc.) policies
State and local law enforcement are not subordinate to federal law enforcement agencies. A violation of federal law is required for a federal agency to act without permission (implicit or explicit) from the controlling state/local authority.
- Implicit permission is (generally) granted through state law by granting peace officer status/certification (POS/C) to federal law enforcement officers (FLEO) and is usually conditional in nature and limited in time. With POS/C, federal LEOs can enforce state and local laws in addition to federal laws and have state/local arrest powers. Conditions vary from state to state. Sometimes the county sheriff must certify POS/C for each FLEO operating in his county. Sometimes the state’s Department of Public Safety (DPS) maintains a list of FLEOs who have POS/C. Rarely are there no conditions imposed by the state.
- Explicit permission is (generally) granted directly (verbally or in writing) to the FLEOs by the controlling state/local authority for a specific operation.
Each federal agency has its own policies that dictate what actions law enforcement personnel can or cannot take and the conditions for same.
When a violation of federal law occurs, FLEOs can act without permission from state and local agencies. The nature of the crime and the respective agency policy dictate the conditions under which force may be used and whether or not state/local consent for action is required. Federal law prescribes fines and/or imprisonment for impeding a FLEO in the commission of his official duties.
State/local LEOs can arrest FLEOs for violation of state laws. (e.g. DWI)
SCOTUS says:
- Federal LEOs cannot compel state/local LEOs to act on behalf of FLEO or to assist in enforcing or implementing federal law. This principle is known as the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine. (See Ann Althouse, Tenth Amendment Center, and Vanderbilt Law Review publications for more.)
- FLEOs are citizens of the U.S. and have the power to execute a citizen’s arrest. They are subject to criminal prosecution and civil liability for false arrest just as we are.
- LEOs do not have a legal obligation to protect
individual citizens from harm.
Bingo!!!
Yer the best as always
“Did not the Supreme Court rule as such in a case?”
The USSC ruled in Printz v US that the federal government cannot compel, draft or order state officials to carry out federal laws. The court ruled that the federal government, state government and county governments are sovereigns. In legalese, we’re talking about the concept of dual sovereignties.
So, with my limited understanding, can the county Sheriff arrest federal officers carrying out Constitutional duties? I’d guess no. Can the sheriff arrest federal officers who blatantly violate Constitutional and state laws? Yes.
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.