White House Demands American Sheriffs Enforce Gun Control


It's about to get real people. There are those in law enforcement who are standing for the law of the land and then there are the radical Socialists in Washington who seek to trample the law under their feet. Since a number of brave men in this country have come forward to state that as the supreme law enforcement officers in their counties they will not enforce new gun control laws, the Obama White House has demanded that they must.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) has the support of at least 381 sheriffs and the cooperation of at least 15 state sheriff associations stating that they will not enforce federal or state gun laws they consider unconstitutional.

At a press conference on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked by CNSNews.com, "There have been 381 sheriffs that have signed on saying they would not enforce gun laws they believed were unconstitutional. Would the administration have a problem if local law enforcement did not enforce whatever gun package were to pass?"

While Carney said he had not seen the list of sheriffs, probably like he claimed a video was responsible for Benghazi, he did say, "I think as a general proposition we think that people ought to follow the law. As an absolute matter of fact in my view, and I think many other constitutional experts, there's not a single measure in this package of proposals the president has put forward that in anyway violates the Constitution. In fact, they reflect the president's commitment to our Second Amendment rights."

Obviously releasing documents to the people regarding Fast and Furious, bringing forth the survivors of Benghazi to testify to Congress about what took place and other scandals in this administration have nothing to do with following the law for this White House.

Richard Mack, a former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, who now educates American sheriffs on the law, was one of seven sheriffs in 1994 that challenged the constitutionality of the provision in the federal Brady bill that require sheriffs to perform background checks. They won that argument in a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court.

Mack contends against Carney's claim that people ought to just follow the law. He says people shouldn't follow the law when it contradicts the Bill of Rights

"When Rosa Parks didn't give up her seat on the bus, should she have been arrested or should the police have escorted her home?" Mack said. "The law was to arrest her. It was a stupid, unconstitutional law."

In referencing new legislation being considered, Barack Obama's demands and the Supreme Court, Mack said, "Every one of the sheriffs is going to follow the Constitution, not follow the president or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has already ruled twice for the Second Amendment. The federal government has no right to tell me how many magazines I can have, how many guns I can have and how much ammunition I can have."

Not only have sheriffs stood up against the tyrannical Obama administration on this issue, but so have state officials.

This comes as Texas State Representative Yvonne Davis (D-Dallas) has proposed legislation that would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal law. The text of Ms. Davis' bill (HB no 2167) reads in part:

Sec. 66.004. FAILURE TO ENFORCE STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. (a) For purposes of Section 66.001, a person holding an elective or appointive office of this state or of a political subdivision of this state does an act that causes the forfeiture of the person's office if the person:

(1) wilfully fails to enforce a state or federal law in the course of the person's official duties;

(2) directs others subject to the person's supervision or control as a public official not to enforce a state or federal law; or

(3) states orally or in writing that the person does not intend to enforce a state or federal law in the course of the person's official duties.

(b) For purposes of this section, "law" includes any rule, regulation, executive order, court order, statute, or constitutional provision.

(c) This section does not apply to a law:

(1) that has been held to be invalid by a court with jurisdiction over the territory served by the officer; or

(2) the validity of which is currently being challenged in a court with jurisdiction over the territory served by the officer.

(d) The attorney general or appropriate county or district attorney shall file a petition under Section 66.002 against an officer to which Subsection (a) applies if presented with evidence, including evidence of a statement by the officer, establishing probable cause that the officer engaged in conduct described by Subsection (a). The court in which the petition is filed shall give precedence to proceedings relating to the petition in the same manner as provided for an election contest under Section 23.101, Government Code.

(e) If the person against whom an information is filed based on conduct described by Subsection (a) is found guilty as charged, the court shall enter judgment removing the person from office and disqualifying the person from public office for a period of 10 years.

Keep in mind that sheriffs are elected officials. They are put into office by the people and serve at their consent, not at the bidding of bureaucrats. So do these pompous representatives in Washington and at the State level. Under this legislation, a law enforcement officer or sheriff found guilty would be removed from office and not allowed back in office for a period of ten years. Seriously, this should be applied to Ms. Davis and those who think like her, not upstanding sheriffs who are dismissing unlawful laws.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






Comments

comments

  • DocJimmy

    I think she's in the Wrong State to be shoot'n off her tongue palace about Gun Control and enforcement - of lack thereof...

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Thompson/100000987582634 Michael Thompson

    "This comes as Texas State Representative Yvonne Davis (D-Dallas) has proposed legislation that would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal law."

    Texas! Remove this seditionist from office for perjury of oath. She is a cancer our republic can ill-afford.

  • http://www.facebook.com/stephen.zawadzki Stephen Zawadzki

    So, go ahead and pass Rep. Ms Davis resolution. Then apply it immediately to those who are not enforcing current laws for immigration and voter registration. No more undocumented, uncarded entrants; return them to country of origin. No more " voted for Obama 9 times" illegal voters. The laws are already there. The enforcement is a 3-ringed farce.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rocky.vnvmc Rocky Vnvmc

    Obama/Soetoro/Bounel (or Whatever his Real Name is) belongs behind Bars for subverting & attempting to subvert the Constitution!
    note; we can't Impeach him, as he's not in Office Legitimatly, due to failure to provide legitimate Credentials, as required by the Same Constitution. (Probably because he doesn't Have them)

  • Lyle Babi

    House Press Secretary Jay Carney is a Moron

  • doNOTtrustHIM

    IMPEACH this TREASON-in-Chief NOW!

    He put his hand on the Bible to PROTECT us and our RIGHTS.
    He Lied - to us and to God.

    STAND with the SHERIFFS!
    STAND with RAND!
    STAND UP for our CONSTITUTION!

  • http://www.facebook.com/az48statescateboard James McCullough

    Then Texas can start with the federals not enforcing immigration laws. If ICE is not required to enforce immigration laws why should the local sheriffs be required to enforce unconstitutional law?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=744667237 Scott Snoopy

    your commitment to stripping We The People of our Second Amendment rights...lil weasel Jay has to clarify that..The White House as a view on freedoms; its just a little different than We The People's view. Now the sheeple/subjects/low information voters might endorse the The WHite House occupant's view; and that has worked out so well in NYC, Chicago, LA, etc...

  • http://twitter.com/jdt831 jonathan d turner

    I wonder if Yvonne Davis would approve of a bill that would remove a President for no enforcing the laws of the land?

  • poorbutterfly

    Yvonne Davis = "useful idiot". The illegal Obama administration is showing the country exactly why the people need to keep and bear the very arms they want to take away.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Harry-Jismsm/100003531565382 Harry Jismsm

    I think it is the height of hypocrisy that this administration and government actually ignores and will not enforce legal laws that they do not like but then attempt to force others, like law enforcement officers, to enforce illegitimate laws.

  • djw663

    The WH can kiss our a$$'s

  • http://www.facebook.com/rick.butkowski Rick Butkowski

    Apparently, Ms. Davis’ as reflected in her bill (HB no 2167), is a tyrant, who should be removed from office by an official recall from her district. That is the most appropriate response to this example of tyranny.

  • Combat Veteran Seabee

    The Sheriff is the "LEADING LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY," in any county in America!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/LaVerne-Velasco/100001242118406 LaVerne Velasco

    Who the heck cares what GAY Jay Carney says anyway? He is a DIP-SHIT supreme. Little MAMAs boy. Osama Hussein Obama's BOY. Love to run into him on the street someday. He's a PUNK, like Obama. Larry VELASCO, AMERICAN