I see very little evidence this is a growing movement. Hopefully I am wrong and its simply because I am missing the evidence. I would advise any local law man to publically profess it and demonstrate it on every occasion because their actions will tell us what side they have chosen to fight with.
"any man dont want to get shot better head on out the back"
It is worth a try. If the Sheriffs have the support of their county residents, they may embrace their Constitutional role. One thing is certain, if we do nothing, nothing will change.
"The County Sheriff, as the direct representative of the people, having sworn an oath to support the Constitution and vested by the people with the authority to enforce law and keep the peace, exercises a level of authority second to only one other group – the people themselves. The federal government exercises no authority over them whatsoever."
When the several states were denied their right of secession in the 19th Century (third quarter) the county sheriff became the people's chief refuge against armed aggression by federal agents.
While it is true that state militias can exercise the same restraining influence, their role has been mooted somewhat by the National Guard Act.
The unorganized militia and county sheriff are and ought to be natural allies. Strengthening this bond should be an RTC goal.
Depends on the sheriff. The one I work for is a politician. Our previous sheriff was a real cop with a military background. BIG difference! The patriots in the department keep a low profile and try to stay under the radar. The current sheriff is an "only one." Department morale is at an all time low. Not a good time to be an OathKeeper in our SO.
Sheriff Mack has been busy. He reports that his book, "The County Sheriff: America's Last Hope" has been delivered to every county sheriff in the country as of March 2010. http://sheriffmack.com/
Check out Printz vs. United States 95-1478 SCOTUS decision re: the Brady bill, 1997 (Mack was a petitioner on the suit). It is very interesting reading. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html
6 comments:
I see very little evidence this is a growing movement. Hopefully I am wrong and its simply because I am missing the evidence. I would advise any local law man to publically profess it and demonstrate it on every occasion because their actions will tell us what side they have chosen to fight with.
"any man dont want to get shot better head on out the back"
Grenadier1
It is worth a try. If the Sheriffs have the support of their county residents, they may embrace their Constitutional role. One thing is certain, if we do nothing, nothing will change.
"The County Sheriff, as the direct representative of the people, having sworn an oath to support the Constitution and vested by the people with the authority to enforce law and keep the peace, exercises a level of authority second to only one other group – the people themselves. The federal government exercises no authority over them whatsoever."
When the several states were denied their right of secession in the 19th Century (third quarter) the county sheriff became the people's chief refuge against armed aggression by federal agents.
While it is true that state militias can exercise the same restraining influence, their role has been mooted somewhat by the National Guard Act.
The unorganized militia and county sheriff are and ought to be natural allies. Strengthening this bond should be an RTC goal.
MALTHUS
I agree with Anonymous from 9:12 AM on the 23rd.
Depends on the sheriff. The one I work for is a politician. Our previous sheriff was a real cop with a military background. BIG difference! The patriots in the department keep a low profile and try to stay under the radar. The current sheriff is an "only one." Department morale is at an all time low. Not a good time to be an OathKeeper in our SO.
Sheriff Mack has been busy. He reports that his book, "The County Sheriff: America's Last Hope" has been delivered to every county sheriff in the country as of March 2010. http://sheriffmack.com/
Check out Printz vs. United States 95-1478 SCOTUS decision re: the Brady bill, 1997 (Mack was a petitioner on the suit). It is very interesting reading. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html
azcIII
Post a Comment