TX/MO Sheriffs: We will not enforce laws that violate 2A - UPDATED

[Tiger Wench]

Missouri Sheriffs join in.

JOHNSON COUNTY, Mo (KMOX) – As President Barack Obama continues to push gun control proposals in Washington D.C., Sheriff Charles M. Heiss, R-Johnson County is asking fellow law enforcers to sign and send this letter to the president.

The letter expresses concern with the Obama administration and the president’s gun control laws he laid out before Congress last week.

“It appears to me and many Americans that there is a genuine desire on the part of your administration to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law abiding American citizens in the interest of curbing gun violence in our nation,” Heiss wrote. “Any attempt to restrict these Second Amendment rights through executive order is unconstitutional and tantamount to an all-out assault on the United States Constitution.”In the letter Heiss tells the president that he has a duty to protect his constituents from incidents of crime, and has the responsibility to protect and preserve their rights and liberties.

Newly elected Sheriff Michael Dixon, R-Osage County is one of about a dozen sheriffs in Missouri to have signed and sent Heiss’ letter.

“On the same day the President is taking his oath to uphold the Constitution, he continues to attack our 2nd Amendment rights,” Dixon said. “As Osage County Sheriff, I also took an Oath to the Constitution; but unlike Obama, I intend to uphold mine.”

Dixon also announced his support of Missouri house bill (HB 170). The bill, introduced last week, would make criminals of any law enforcement official, local, state or federal, who tried to enforce any of President Obama’s gun control initiatives, whether executive orders or passed by Congress.

“President Obama should quit his attempts to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and instead focus on stopping the criminals that will get them no matter what. It is imperative we strengthen the penalty for criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime or to cause bodily harm.”

Dixon said his office will not enforce any gun control proposals that Obama passes if they violate the Constitution and points to gun control efforts and crime statistics as proof gun bans do not work.

“The President comes from Chicago, the city with the strictest gun laws and worst gun violence in the country. It has been proven time and time again that taking guns from law abiding citizens only emboldens thugs, thieves, and rapists, not stop them from committing crimes,” Dixon said.

[bottomfeeder]

we've debated this issue ad nauseum on this board and I do not wish to re-Hash it (if you will pardon the pun).

As you wish 

[Vandy Vol]

bottomfeeder, my point in bringing up the marijuana legalization precedent in Colorado and Washington was that it was legalized/de-criminalized in those states not for medical use but for recreational use as I understand it.

Separately, I'm not unsympathetic to the legalization/de-criminalization of this product for either medical or recreational use (or both) based on responsible examples, methods, and models that have been demonstrated in Europe (esp. Portugal); we've debated this issue ad nauseum on this board and I do not wish to re-Hash it (if you will pardon the pun).

You just caused several X'ers' heads to explode by citing Europe as an example for anything.

[Tarheel]

You just caused several X'ers' heads to explode by citing Europe as an example for anything.

It is what it is.

[bottomfeeder]

[wesfau2]

I find it hilarious that these guys are taking such a tough stance to protect the gosh-darned Constitution of the USofA...but ignoring the part of that same document where they don't get to decide what is/is not constitutional.

[bottomfeeder]

I find it hilarious that these guys are taking such a tough stance to protect the gosh-darned Constitution of the USofA...but ignoring the part of that same document where they don't get to decide what is/is not constitutional.

Where in the constitution does it state that the SCOTUS is constitutional?

[wesfau2]

Where in the constitution does it state that the SCOTUS is constitutional?

That can't be a serious question, so I'm going back to pretending that you don't post anything.

[Vandy Vol]

Where in the constitution does it state that the SCOTUS is constitutional?

Have you ever read Article III of the Constitution?  All courts of lesser jurisdiction are created by Congress, but the Supreme Court (and the judicial branch in general) is specifically created by Article III of the Constitution.

I'm not sure how a court can be considered unconstitutional if it was created by the Constitution...

[Token]

Sheriff's are elected officials. 

[bottomfeeder]

What is SUPREME COURT?

A court of high powers and extensive jurisdiction, existing in most of the states. In some it is the official style of the chief appellate court or court of last resort. In others (as New Jersey and New York) the supreme court is a court of general original jurisdiction, possessing also (in New York) some appellate jurisdiction, but not the court of last resort.

Read more: What is SUPREME COURT? definition of SUPREME COURT (Black's Law Dictionary)

http://thelawdictionary.org/supreme-court/

I guess I need to rephrase that. Interpreting constitutional law, common law or law of the land comes under the jurisdiction of...?

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Leaving the critical history of the importance of interpretivism to the Founders, I would now like to consider whether interpretivism is necessary to effectuate the constitutional plan. The essential starting point is that the Constitution established a separation of powers to protect our freedom. Because freedom is fundamental, so too is the separation of powers. But separation of powers becomes a meaningless slogan if judges may confer constitutional status on whichever rights they happen to deem important, regardless of a textual basis. In effect, under noninterpretive review, the judiciary functions as a super-legislature beyond the check of the other two branches. Noninterpretivist review also disregards the Constitution's careful allocation of most decisions to the democratic process, allowing the legislature to make decisions deemed best for society. Ultimately, noninterpretivist review reduces our written Constitution to insignificance and threatens to impose a tyranny of the judiciary.
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/stlotl/stlotl.htm

Where in the constitution does it state that the SCOTUS is constitutional?

That can't be a serious question, so I'm going back to pretending that you don't post anything.

[bottomfeeder]

I'm questioning the constitutionality of the SCOTUS with respect to interpreting our individual rights. Let me put it another way. If a jury of our own peers chooses to acquit because they disagree with the constitutionality of the law, then doesn't that negate the SCOTUS' authority with respect to interpretation?

IT'S THE LOCAL SHERIFF WHO GUARANTEES OUR RIGHTS

[Vandy Vol]

I'm questioning the constitutionality of the SCOTUS with respect to interpreting our individual rights.

The Constitution lays out individual rights.  The Constitution is the highest law of the land.  The Supreme Court is the highest court of the land.  Why wouldn't the Supreme Court be in charge of interpreting the Constitution and determining individual rights?

Let me put it another way. If a jury of our own peers chooses to acquit because they disagree with the constitutionality of the law, then doesn't that negate the SCOTUS' authority with respect to interpretation?

The Constitution created the Supreme Court for a reason.  Why would we strip away the judicial branch's function and give it to twelve people who will differ from case to case?

IT'S THE LOCAL SHERIFF WHO GUARANTEES OUR RIGHTS

The Constitution and our laws "guarantee" our rights.  The executive branch (which includes police officers) enforces them.

[bottomfeeder]

Why wouldn't the Supreme Court be in charge of interpreting the Constitution and determining individual rights?

When a jury of twelve can overrule SCOTUS on a case by case basis, if they disagree with the SCOTUS' ruling, then basically the SCOTUS has no influence. Only in bringing the cases before a jury are they effective. Outcomes of cases can be decided by 12 who may disagree with the SCOTUS and rule in favor of the defendant. Most jurors don't know that.

Our rights are God given and not man given. Inalienable.

[Vandy Vol]

When a jury of twelve can overrule SCOTUS on a case by case basis, if they disagree with the SCOTUS' ruling, then basically the SCOTUS has no influence. Only in bringing the cases before a jury are they effective. Outcomes of cases can be decided by 12 who may disagree with the SCOTUS and rule in favor of the defendant. Most jurors don't know that.

Juries can not overrule the Supreme Court.  I have no clue where you're getting this concept from.

Juries have the ability to vote not guilty if enforcing the law would go against their conscience, such as when they think the law is unconstitutional.  Jury refusal to apply a law (jury nullification) does not create legal precedent, and thus does not overrule the Supreme Court, or any other court for that matter.

Jury nullification is moreso used to express political dissent over a law.  The jury's refusal to find a person guilty can still be appealed, and thus the judicial branch still has control over interpreting laws, applying laws, and creating legal precedent.

[bottomfeeder]

Juries can not overrule the Supreme Court.  I have no clue where you're getting this concept from.

Juries have the ability to vote not guilty if enforcing the law would go against their conscience, such as when they think the law is unconstitutional.  Jury refusal to apply a law (jury nullification) does not create legal precedent, and thus does not overrule the Supreme Court, or any other court for that matter.

Jury nullification is moreso used to express political dissent over a law.  The jury's refusal to find a person guilty can still be appealed, and thus the judicial branch still has control over interpreting laws, applying laws, and creating legal precedent.

Oh okay, thank you.

[wesfau2]

I know I'm going to regret this...but...

bottomfeeder: you believer in all that freeman/sovereign individual bullshit, don't you?

[bottomfeeder]

I know I'm going to regret this...but...

bottomfeeder: you believer in all that freeman/sovereign individual bullshit, don't you?

No. I have read some of the information, but it is bullshit. Basically, I just want things to operate the way the founders intended. That's all. With all of the government socialism, I just don't understand how those is DC can claim "liberty and justice for all." THEY have strayed so far from what I believe to be the original intent, that there's not way to find our way back.

[Token]

Basically, I just want things to operate the way the founders intended. That's all.

Amen!!  The only thing worse than driving by an empty cotton field is having to wait on gossiping women at the voting booth. 

[Tiger Wench]

Amen!!  The only thing worse than driving by an empty cotton field is having to wait on gossiping women at the voting booth.

OMG... you are so hawt right now.  Which, considering you are a turd, disturbs me somewhat.