They understand the proper role of Sheriff. Now...

[Duncan]

.. do they have the will to enact it and the testicular fortitude to back it with the gun . Because as most of us know the Federal government hates the 10 th Amendment .
For those that think that the States rights / purview was settled in the Civil War .

The Civil War did not prove that secession was unconstitutional ... that slavery was wrong or unconstitutional .. that Lincoln was a hero or a tyrant .. that southern boys were smart or dumb for firing on Fort Sumtner ..
The Civil War proved only one thing ... that the North had a stronger military ability than the south .
That they won and that regardless of who and what was right on either side ... that the winners always write the new rules .

In Montana, a plan to empower local sheriffs

Lone Star Watchdog: Montana Lawmaker Proposes Bill Were Feds Need Permission From Local Sheriff To Arrest Citizens Or Seize Property

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

.. do they have the will to enact it and the testicular fortitude to back it with the gun . Because as most of us know the Federal government hates the 10 th Amendment .
For those that think that the States rights / purview was settled in the Civil War .

The Civil War did not prove that secession was unconstitutional ... that slavery was wrong or unconstitutional .. that Lincoln was a hero or a tyrant .. that southern boys were smart or dumb for firing on Fort Sumtner ..
The Civil War proved only one thing ... that the North had a stronger military ability than the south .
That they won and that regardless of who and what was right on either side ... that the winners always write the new rules .

In Montana, a plan to empower local sheriffs

Lone Star Watchdog: Montana Lawmaker Proposes Bill Were Feds Need Permission From Local Sheriff To Arrest Citizens Or Seize Property

I thought you guys hated feels good laws and pandering politicians?

Another said this bill would protect him from having to defend himself by force against federal government abuses by having the sheriff do it for him.

A guy wants the sheriff to defend him by force from the feds. Does he sense an imminent attack? Isn't this a nanny state law? Aren't federal agents criminals? We don't need LEOs to protect us from criminals, right? We can do it ourselves, right? Do we REALLY need the government to protect us from ... the government? Isn't this a waste of taxpayer dollars?

I agree with the principle. However, this bill, if passed, will be held unconstitutional under the supremacy clause.

As a side question - do your toes sing to you when you take your socks off?

 

[patton487]

Sounds like the people of Montana want this, but the Sheriffs don't have a pair to be found in the whole lot of em. Looks like they are scared to death to say "no" to the Feds about anything...

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Sounds like the people of Montana want this, but the Sheriffs don't have a pair to be found in the whole lot of em. Looks like they are scared to death to say "no" to the Feds about anything...

Because it's the "feds" that control big fat purse strings.

-J-

 

[Love the 1911]

Does this actually sound like a good idea to you people? All the pissing and moaning that everyone spreads about giving someone too much power and now you want to enable a sheriff to lock-down an entire county?

 

[rambone]

Government is divided in such a way that places roles on county government to have the most authority in their county, followed by state, then federal. Sheriffs are the supreme law of the land in their county. They are elected by the people of their county and only answer them. Sheriffs swear to uphold the constitution. They don't make up laws, but they can decide to not enforce laws certain laws. Local government made up of your neighbors is less likely to tyrannize you; rather than some group of thugs who live 1000 miles from you.

I see this law as restoring the system to that which was originally intended. As the article mentions, county sheriffs could have shut down the Federal boondoggles during such as Waco, Ruby Ridge, & the Hurricane Katrina gun confiscation.

The Balance of Power - The Sheriff Project

Do we REALLY need the government to protect us from ... the government?

The more lawful, peaceful roadblocks to tyranny that can be put in place, the better.

However, this bill, if passed, will be held unconstitutional under the supremacy clause.

You say Federal supremacy, I say Tenth Amendment.

 

[rich8483]

Does this actually sound like a good idea to you people? All the pissing and moaning that everyone spreads about giving someone too much power and now you want to enable a sheriff to lock-down an entire county?

depends on whether you view it as giving power to the locals or taking power from the feds.

i dont know how much its really creating new power as much as shifting it from one place to another.

im a glass half full kind of guy most of the time. i do think the intention of this country was to have a majority of power locally with the fed power being just enough to build roads and an defense.

the locals know the local needs better, they are more directly accountable. and my favorite part - if the original intention were restored, that the states have the power and the feds have just enough, you can more easily vote with your feet.

dont like the drug laws in IN? move to CA. dont like the business laws in IL? move to Nevada. you can already do this obviously but if more power was shifted from the fed to the local. it would be that much better and accountability goes up as well.

 

[rich8483]

..
The Civil War did not prove that secession was unconstitutional ... that slavery was wrong or unconstitutional .. that Lincoln was a hero or a tyrant .. that southern boys were smart or dumb for firing on Fort Sumtner ..
The Civil War proved only one thing ... that the North had a stronger military ability than the south .
That they won and that regardless of who and what was right on either side ... that the winners always write the new rules .

momma always told me in grade school that fighting does not help or prove anything.

by that right, the war may not have been what has proved it, but i do think slavery is wrong. as far as the framers of the constitution... they issued less of a value on slaves during a census, not b/c they truly believed slaves of any color were less valuable than other human beings but b/c they did not want to allow slave owners to have unproportionally high representation. especially when the slaves couldnt vote.

the founding fathers were also pretty clear on the equality of man. maybe it was their definition of man that was messed up.

state sovereignty, the intelligence of the south, war really doesnt prove anything other than who can produce arms faster or has more people and will power.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Government is divided in such a way that places roles on county government to have the most authority in their county, followed by state, then federal. Sheriffs are the supreme law of the land in their county. They are elected by the people of their county and only answer them. Sheriffs swear to uphold the constitution. They don't make up laws, but they can decide to not enforce laws certain laws. Local government made up of your neighbors is less likely to tyrannize you; rather than some group of thugs who live 1000 miles from you.

I see this law as restoring the system to that which was originally intended. As the article mentions, county sheriffs could have shut down the Federal boondoggles during such as Waco, Ruby Ridge, & the Hurricane Katrina gun confiscation.

The Balance of Power - The Sheriff Project




The more lawful, peaceful roadblocks to tyranny that can be put in place, the better.


You say Federal supremacy, I say Tenth Amendment.

Sheriffs are the supreme law of the land in their counties? Really? In what country? The United Kingdom? Cause I checked the Constitution and it says in Article VI (not the 10th Amendment; you're thinking of something else) (paraphrasing):
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I believe that Sheriffs may fall under judicial Officers who swear to uphold the Constitution. How exactly is the Sheriff the law of the land again?

And wasn't it New Orleans LEOs, including the Orleans parrish Sheriff, that were gun grabbing after Katrina? Which federal agencies were dressed as NOLA LEOs?

 

[rambone]

And wasn't it New Orleans LEOs, including the Orleans parrish Sheriff, that were gun grabbing after Katrina? Which federal agencies were dressed as NOLA LEOs?

The Army National Guard also participated with the gun confiscation. Of course if you elect a statist sheriff, expect no effort from him to do his duty to protect you from statism. That's why it is critical to elect a constitutional sheriff.

 

[Love the 1911]

Every time someone has an issue with the way local LE is handling a situation, people ask that the Feds come in to investigate and clean up. This would give the Feds ZERO power to come in and do anything unless invited by the Sheriff. And it's a 4 year appointment (at least here in Indiana). That would be WAY too much power for anyone to have. Intimidating voters to keep you in office? Selling evidence for their own personal gain? Who can investigate this? Just in Indiana, we've had multiple Sheriffs in the past few years that have been investigated and arrested. I don't think they investigated themselves...

All that being said, I would happily give most Sheriffs that much power. I know a few personally and know that they would not do something ignorant that would compromise their integrity or the trust that their counties have for them. The problem is that it only takes one bad apple to have absolute power to seriously ruin the lives of many people.

 

[rambone]

Every time someone has an issue with the way local LE is handling a situation, people ask that the Feds come in to investigate and clean up. This would give the Feds ZERO power to come in and do anything unless invited by the Sheriff. And it's a 4 year appointment (at least here in Indiana). That would be WAY too much power for anyone to have. Intimidating voters to keep you in office? Selling evidence for their own personal gain? Who can investigate this? Just in Indiana, we've had multiple Sheriffs in the past few years that have been investigated and arrested. I don't think they investigated themselves...

All that being said, I would happily give most Sheriffs that much power. I know a few personally and know that they would not do something ignorant that would compromise their integrity or the trust that their counties have for them. The problem is that it only takes one bad apple to have absolute power to seriously ruin the lives of many people.

The feds have wrested far too much power from the states and they need to be brought back down to where they started.

As for sheriffs breaking the law; they are not immune to arrest. The Feds don't need to be the ones who do it either -- honestly they shouldn't unless it is something specifically in their jurisdiction. It wouldn't be very different from any other LEO getting arrested. Technically, even non-LEOs have the power of Citizen's Arrest in the proper circumstances. In Indiana, the County Coroner has the power to arrest a sheriff and assume the office.

 

[Love the 1911]

The feds have wrested far too much power from the states and they need to be brought back down to where they started.

As for sheriffs breaking the law; they are not immune to arrest. The Feds don't need to be the ones who do it either -- honestly they shouldn't unless it is something specifically in their jurisdiction. It wouldn't be very different from any other LEO getting arrested. Technically, even non-LEOs have the power of Citizen's Arrest in the proper circumstances. In Indiana, the County Coroner has the power to arrest a sheriff and assume the office.

This is assuming that the Coroner and Sheriff are not on really good terms. Again, I don't see this being a problem 99.9% of the time but being a member of a gun forum, I've been taught to take the tiniest percent of something happening and to run with it (that's why I need 3 handguns on me at all times, a large selectiong of long guns in my car, house, business, etc., and more ammunition than Fort Bragg).

Taking back some of the power the Feds have is a good idea but having them obtain a permission slip to enter a county is overkill.

 

[rambone]

This is assuming that the Coroner and Sheriff are not on really good terms. Again, I don't see this being a problem 99.9% of the time but being a member of a gun forum, I've been taught to take the tiniest percent of something happening and to run with it (that's why I need 3 handguns on me at all times, a large selectiong of long guns in my car, house, business, etc., and more ammunition than Fort Bragg).

Taking back some of the power the Feds have is a good idea but having them obtain a permission slip to enter a county is overkill.

A lot of our justice system relies on people upholding their oath. Corrupt judges, corrupt cops, corrupt sheriffs, you name it -- all of them can bring failure into the justice system. But they are no more capable than the Feds are. It is not the job of the Feds to clean up after some corrupt local sheriff. It isn't within their jurisdiction or enumerated powers.

The feds absolutely should have permission to operate in a county. A centralized, all-powerful national police force lends itself to tyranny. We should support divided powers and checks and balances. Who's side are you on anyway?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The Army National Guard also participated with the gun confiscation. Of course if you elect a statist sheriff, expect no effort from him to do his duty to protect you from statism. That's why it is critical to elect a constitutional sheriff.

The National Guard wasn't federalized for Katrina. Governors sent their Guard units on state orders.

 

[Love the 1911]

A lot of our justice system relies on people upholding their oath. Corrupt judges, corrupt cops, corrupt sheriffs, you name it -- all of them can bring failure into the justice system. But they are no more capable than the Feds are. It is not the job of the Feds to clean up after some corrupt local sheriff. It isn't within their jurisdiction or enumerated powers.

The feds absolutely should have permission to operate in a county. A centralized, all-powerful national police force lends itself to tyranny. We should support divided powers and checks and balances. Who's side are you on anyway?

I'm not really seeing sides on this other than what I have expressed: that making the Feds gain permission to enter a certain county is overkill (it inhibits checks and balances). If there are more sides, please inform me what they are so I can answer your question.

As for the rest of your post, yes, a centralized, all-powerful national police force lends itself to tyranny. But doesn't any police force that is all-powerful have the same problem? It seems that you need to decide what side you are on. Every time you post something, it has to do with corruption of the police yet you want to do away with the federal government having the right to come into an area and investigate without the "corrupt" agency giving them permission? Please elaborate on your position on this.

Would you like the Sheriff to have all the power within his/her county with no interference from the Feds, even when requested by the public?

Or would you like the checks and balances you pointed out?

 

[rambone]

How about someone from the state of Indiana investigate a corrupt county sheriff? Why do we jump at every excuse to include the Feds in everything? We are perfectly capable cleaning our own house without Washington bureaucrats lending us their wisdom.

 

[Love the 1911]

How about someone from the state of Indiana investigate a corrupt county sheriff? Why do we jump at every excuse to include the Feds in everything? We are perfectly capable cleaning our own house without Washington bureaucrats lending us their wisdom.

I never said we should set up permanent housing for Feds to be living with us, just that they do not need to be asking permission to launch an investigation. You still have not stated where you stand: are you of the opinion that this bill should go through in Montana (I think it was Montana) and restrict the federal gov't from operating there without permission of the Sheriff or should they have the right to go where they feel they need to be to conduct and investigation? You started this thread so it seems that you favor the first choice, regardless of your later comment about checks and balances.

 

[rambone]

I never said we should set up permanent housing for Feds to be living with us, just that they do not need to be asking permission to launch an investigation. You still have not stated where you stand: are you of the opinion that this bill should go through in Montana (I think it was Montana) and restrict the federal gov't from operating there without permission of the Sheriff or should they have the right to go where they feel they need to be to conduct and investigation? You started this thread so it seems that you favor the first choice, regardless of your later comment about checks and balances.

Yes, I think it would be a good exertion of states' 10th Amendment power, used to prevent Federal thugs from terrorizing citizens using their unconstitutional laws and unconstitutional agencies. States are supposed to be sovereign to begin with and are supposed to have the power to regulate themselves, so most of what the Feds do is unconstitutional to begin with. The checks and balances I am referring to are to keep law enforcement strictly local -- keeping the Feds away from the citizens is one additional roadblock to keep us from the obvious tyranny that is unfolding in America.

Its hard for the Feds to arrest citizens for saving seeds out of their own garden when they are stopped from operating within your county.

 

[Love the 1911]

Yes, I think it would be a good exertion of states' 10th Amendment power, used to prevent Federal thugs from terrorizing citizens using their unconstitutional laws and unconstitutional agencies. States are supposed to be sovereign to begin with and are supposed to have the power to regulate themselves, so most of what the Feds do is unconstitutional to begin with. The checks and balances I am referring to are to keep law enforcement strictly local -- keeping the Feds away from the citizens is one additional roadblock to keep us from the obvious tyranny that is unfolding in America.

Its hard for the Feds to arrest citizens for saving seeds out of their own garden when they are stopped from operating within your county.

Thank you sir. That's what I wanted to hear.

Also, I realized you were not the original poster of this thread, sorry for my earlier mistake.

While I enjoy our debates, it's turning me into a bit of a post whore so I may be avoiding you for a few days (weeks).