"Sovereign Citizens Domestic Threat"

[thebishopp]

Putting Cops at Risk- A Hidden Agenda? | Law Enforcement Today


People might want to check out the propaganda being circulated. Apparently people who believe that they should only be subject to common and constitutional law are "threats".

Of interest is how they word many of their statements.

This is the kind of propaganda that creates a divide between LEOs and NON-LEOs.

 

[littletommy]

I think law enforcement is trying to push for absolute power to do anything they wish, whenever they wish. Of course, not all officers buy into this garbage, but neither do they do anything to combat it within their own ranks. I'm afraid this type of stuff will cause way more problems than these "public servants" are able to comprehend. The message these people are trying to convey is frightening. Playing the domestic terrorist card is beyond disgusting. I don't see a happy outcome for anyone, it's gonna get ****in ugly!

 

[IndyDave1776]

Agreed without reservation. I will also add that it creates a very bad situation for the good LEOs, who, in my personal experience, are a small minority. I would also say that those inclined toward congregating here are likely at the top of the class by virtue of shared values. I have also noticed that the senior leadership tends to be statist in nature, as evidenced by the IACP's perennial anti-gun stance. Ditto for the elected officials overseeing them. It is also clear that the author of the linked article does not account for any scenario other than that the police are ALWAYS serving as defenders of truth, justice, and the American way.

The bottom line is that anyone who would write an article like this clearly believes that we should be subjects, not free citizens.

 

[ghuns]

The bottom line is that anyone who would write an article like this clearly believes that we should be subjects, not free citizens.

Tru dat. He is King Douchebag! I have said in various threads here that I am not sure how I personally feel about SB-1. No argument from any of it's ardent supporters on this site has made feel any better about it. This jackwagons appeal to defeat the bill has made me feel much better about supporting it.

 

[phylodog]

Agreed without reservation. I will also add that it creates a very bad situation for the good LEOs, who, in my personal experience, are a small minority.

WM Shooters Claimed to be "Sovereign Citizens" | My Fox Memphis | Fox 13 News

The two stand up "sovereign citizens" in the story I linked above were the first I remember hearing about sovereign citizens. I would say that their behavior created a very bad situation between LEO's and good sovereign citizens, who in my opinion are a small minority.

Works both ways. Lots of people want to paint LE with a broad brush. Funny how it isn't appreciated when the table is turned.

I'm happy to read any stories about sovereign citizens doing something good for their community if someone would care to sway my current opinion.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

People might want to check out the propaganda being circulated. Apparently people who believe that they should only be subject to common and constitutional law are "threats".

It isn't propaganda if it is true. Huge gulf between people upset at an overexpansive authoritarian welfare state and the wackaloons who think the rule of law does not apply to them because of capital letters.

Look, there are wackaloons out there you really believe the British Nationalist Party crap that has crossed over to this side of the pond. It is shear lunacy and SOME of those people are violent and SOME of those people have committed violent acts.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Sovereign citizens are unconstitutional (rep for whoever can tell why).

 

[grunt soldier]

Sovereign citizens are unconstitutional (rep for whoever can tell why).

Truth

 

[J_Wales]

sovereign or slave?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Nope and nope.

The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government. There is no sovereign in a republic. Therefore, sovereign citizens are unconstitutional.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It isn't propaganda if it is true. Huge gulf between people upset at an overexpansive authoritarian welfare state and the wackaloons who think the rule of law does not apply to them because of capital letters.

Look, there are wackaloons out there you really believe the British Nationalist Party crap that has crossed over to this side of the pond. It is shear lunacy and SOME of those people are violent and SOME of those people have committed violent acts.

Sovereign Citizens are clearly "wackaloons." You see enough signatures in brackets with "signed under duress," fake license plate tags/driver's licenses, refusal to accept legal police authority (they only acknowledge Sheriff's deputies), and half-hour conversations about how you are infringing on their liberties, and you'll understand why.

They may not all be dangerous, but it needs to be clearly stated that these guys don't fall in line with most that understand their liberties.

 

[Gabriel]

It isn't propaganda if it is true. Huge gulf between people upset at an overexpansive authoritarian welfare state and the wackaloons who think the rule of law does not apply to them because of capital letters.

Look, there are wackaloons out there you really believe the British Nationalist Party crap that has crossed over to this side of the pond. It is shear lunacy and SOME of those people are violent and SOME of those people have committed violent acts.

This. There some that we deal with locally and they are way out there, even by INGO standards. If you happen to deal with any of them during shift, you're guaranteed to be named in some idiotic lawsuit by the next day.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Nope and nope.

The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government. There is no sovereign in a republic. Therefore, sovereign citizens are unconstitutional.

Rep for SemperFiUSMC for answering his own question!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Rep for SemperFiUSMC for answering his own question!

Is that even fair?

 

[IndyDave1776]

The two stand up "sovereign citizens" in the story I linked above were the first I remember hearing about sovereign citizens. I would say that their behavior created a very bad situation between LEO's and good sovereign citizens, who in my opinion are a small minority.

Works both ways. Lots of people want to paint LE with a broad brush. Funny how it isn't appreciated when the table is turned.
.

Phylodog, I can understand that you would take umbrage. I am sorry that my experience with police has yielded a few dedicated, hard-working individuals who approach their work with the most upright of motives and a larger number who disgrace the uniforms they wear. You may also want to review the biblical references to the ill will held against tax collectors, then review the nature of Roman tax contracts, and see the parallel with contemporary law enforcement. I generally make a point of qualifying general statements in fairness to those to whom they do not apply. I consider honest and diligent police to be a treasure. Unfortunately, these traits have proven to be far from standard. General opinions and observations are just that--expressions of the prevailing standard or normal conditions which unfortunately haven't proven to be the most flattering.

As for these 'sovereign citizens', I cannot claim to be particularly knowledgeable, however, the author of the originally referenced article used a very broad interpretation such as to indicate that, as with the DHS document released a couple of years ago, he considers most anyone who believes in constitutional government to be a terrorist. That is absolutely unacceptable. Back to the 'sovereigns' themselves, they seem to fail to understand that even though most of the things the federal government does are well outside the scope of the constitution, under the tenth amendment, much of the authority they reject is delegated to the states and it is under the auspices of the state that they confront those elements of authority, demonstrating that they are all wet on those points. I am not entirely sure, but my guess is that overall they err as far one way as do the badge-equipped petty tyrants with delusions of godhood in the other direction.

Incidentally, the DHS document pulled in anyone who believes in following the Constitution, who supports the second amendment, opposed abortion, opposes illegal immigration, and (gasp) believes in the second coming of Christ. Please note that this includes at least three counts of believing in following the law somehow making a person an outlaw!

In the end, I would say that there is a strong push back here against the 'us vs. them' mentality for which at least a strong plurality of police are notorious. You simply cannot expect the support of someone who is treated as a 'them'.