This is the part that is concerning:
“I did not swear to uphold just part of the Constitution. Our Constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms, but it also includes the “supremacy clause” that says that every state shall abide by the laws passed by our Congress.
So, despite the fact that I personally oppose some of the gun control measures currently under consideration, my oath requires me to uphold the laws that are passed by our federal and state representatives.
When we disagree with those laws, the checks and balances built into our government point us toward the proper remedy: changing the laws or challenging them in the judicial branch. As to whether or not the president has the power to issue executive orders limiting our Constitutional rights, that is another matter to be decided by the Supreme Court, not by 44 different sheriffs in Idaho.”
Somebody should tell him to read the 2nd clause of
Article VI. There he will find the word “Pursuance”.
The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution.
The Supremacy Claus doesn't say States bow to the Congress, it says that States cannot subvert the Constitution which reigns above all else.
BS. If one can read and understand plain English one can decide.
Why would we think that a bunch of over educated lawyers who can not even understand plain English be the only ones.
Why would we be willing to give up are rights just because 9 of them say it is so.
Tyranny by the courts is easy if the masses obey them.