Friday, February 15, 2013

Enter the SCAG -- Federal Legal Whore for Firearm Confiscation. “Federal agents are immune from state prosecution even when their conduct violated internal agency regulations or exceeded their express authority.”

"SC Attorney General: Come Get the Guns!"
In an opinion requested by Kershaw County Sheriff Jim Matthews, SC Attorney General Allan Wilson suggest that if federal gun confiscation was ordered that neither state law nor state law officials may interfere or otherwise impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform their lawful duties. Sighting (sic) many examples of case-law (incremental social engineering by the use of precedent to move public policy) Wilson makes the case for federal supremacy, when and if the federal government should choose to enforce, whatever law that is passed. The seven page opinion was prompted when concerned residents asked the sheriff if he would take their guns if federal law required it. “A lot of sheriffs want to be able to fall back on what the AG says on what we lawfully have to do or don’t have to do,” Matthews said in a State paper interview. The report also states Matthews said it’s pretty clear that sheriffs do not enforce federal laws, and he doesn’t believe that he can stop federal agents from coming into his county to enforce them.
With this opinion by the SCAG, state law enforcement will not stand in the way of gun confiscation.

17 comments:

SWIFT said...

This finding by the SCAG is deeper and more
disturbing than most realize. It is a final straw removing all legal and civil remedies for resolving a dangerous situation. The Commies in government and their neo-nazis praetorian guard, cannot afford to back down. Neither can liberty minded people back down, unless they are resigned to be sheep in a Despotic state. They have closed the door to all avenues but one: war! It is unfortunate that none of the traitors in Washington can see what they have done. I have always felt that Washington was out-of-touch, but this is breathtaking.

Anonymous said...

Well then, that settles it. When the Feds approach the Sherriffs and other LEO's HOMES, to confiscate their own PRIVATE guns...they'll just have to hand them over then. uh huh. right.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Robert Fowler said...

" neither state law nor state law officials may interfere or otherwise impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform their lawful duties."

No, but the citizens can shoot the bastards.

WarriorClass said...

Whether state LE is with us or against, it matters not. I'm sure some are and some aren't.

Anonymous said...

A mental midget riding Daddy's coattails. . .

Anonymous said...

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! State's rights trump Federal initiatives.

Anonymous said...

When they TRY to take our arms, in addition to the regrettable loss of life by LEA, FBI, ATF etc, it is the POLITIANS that WE will be hunting, and IF any survive, then they will be tried as traitors, and duly executed within minutes of conviction.

SIC SEMPTER TYRANUS

Anonymous said...

"SC Attorney General Allan Wilson suggest that if federal gun confiscation was ordered that neither state law nor state law officials may interfere or otherwise impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform their lawful duties."

Sooooo . . . right now it's only a "suggestion", without force of "law" behind it? That's good, because it gives you some wiggle room to, hopefully, change your mind when you start getting some serious blowback from your stupidly unlawful statement.

And a phrase that's always caught my attention in "lawful", as in "lawful duties". "Laws" are made of words, and can be made to say anything at all. Even to contradict the Constitution. Which would make that particular law unConstitutional. So which take president? The new law, which is far removed from the Constitution in intent and power? Or the Constitution? I know which one I'd say is right (and as a free guess to you, it ain't the new boy on the block).

Soooo. . . . . I'm going to gaze into my cloudy crystal ball, and attempt to forsee the near future. IF (and that's a mighty big IF) the Federales do ever pass ANY kind of gun restriction law, expect two consequences (from the Immutable Law of Unintended Consequences) ==
1-Your Staties and County Mounties will stand to the side, and neither attempt to hinder or help the Federales as they swarm in to enforce the new "laws". At such time the Federales will be shot by the private citizens attempting to defend their God-given rights.
What will your Staties and County Mounties do then? Only time will tell.
2- Some Staties and County Mounties will actively attempt to help the Federales. In which case, they, too, will be shot.

Are you willing to start an all-out civil war, in order to enforce (or at least, not hinder) unConstitutional "laws"? think long and carefully before you answer. Your life, and the lives of those who work for and under you, may depend on your answer.

B Woodman
III-per

Anonymous said...

Hope the SCAG has a "bucket list" and an updated resume, just in case the People have a different opinion.

Anonymous said...

Now why didn't someone think of this before?

Imagine all the time, money & effort to be saved by eliminating trials and the courts, just by asking the opinion of an AG?

Anonymous said...

Prepare yourselves and your domeciles for the inevitable attack by the gun grabbers.
Rebuild your porches and areas beneath your windows with cell phone controlled explosives, nails, ball bearings, stones...remember the sandbox.
When they come, move quickly in the other direction.
No one will survive a direct frontal assault from the Blueshirts.
Your compatriots will attack them from their rear...pick a few off from 400 meters and they will soon give up or go all out war against the People...they can't win that one.
This war will last for years; until every anti-constitutionalist is removed from the country or dead.
Welcome to the Second American Revolution Wolverine.
One shot...One kill.
III/0317

Anonymous said...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/15/group-of-second-amendment-supporting-gun-makers-now-refusing-to-sell-arms-to-law-enforcement-in-new-york-and-other-gun-restricting-states/

Looks like 'Cheaper Than Dirt' is trying salvage what little cred it has left.

Semper Fi, 0321 said...

0317,
perhaps you or someone else can do a simple tutorial on that subject. Or links to such training, not everyone has been to the sandbox. I grew up training in the jungle, from Capt. Oliver North, we didn't have cell phones!

Anonymous said...

[b][i]"This finding by the SCAG is . . . a final straw removing all legal and civil remedies for resolving a dangerous situation. "[/i][/b]

Only where the county sheriff (i.e. the highest authority in any county) has no backbone. What are the Feds going to do? Send in the Armed Forces? Call out army troops? Launch air strikes? They don't have enough Federal Marshals and other FLEAS (isn't that a [b]FREAKING GREAT[/b] acronym!!) to break the ones thrown in the county lockup out of jail?

Look, the Feds started it by threatening to confiscate (either by statute or by executive order) then the legislatures and sheriffs in several states raised by threatening (it's only threats until/unless somebody starts confiscating and resisting) to arrest/jail FLEAS who do the confiscating. SCAG may be trying to fold but ultimately it will be up to the Sheriffs in SC to decide what to do.

Anonymous said...

So all those "sanctuary city" laws that were passed that prohibit federal agents from enforcing immigration laws are un...case lawtioanl? Good to know.

Anonymous said...

Not surprising coming from the state that gave us Lispey Grahamnesty and kept Strom Thurmond in the senate until he was shitting his pants and drooling on himself.

Anonymous said...

Remember Waco, the Alamo and Lexington, Concord!