Behind The Black Postings By Robert Zimmerman

A dozen sheriffs, all in Missouri, have told the Obama administration that they will not enforce any regulations that violate the second amendment.

I like this quote from the letter of one sheriff:

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. 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.

7 Comments
  1. Steve mac says:

    There are Sheriffs in Utah that have made the same declaration.

  2. Pzatchok says:

    Just keeping our powder dry here in Ohio.

  3. I find it fascinating that dozens of high-ranking (and elected) law enforcement officials are publicly coming out against the latest round of liberal gun-grabbing.

    A columnist in the local paper seems to be under the impression that Sheriffs can’t pick and choose which laws they’ll enforce, but this administration has set the precedent with DOMA, Fast and Furious, immigration, and Obamacare, to name a few. And as anyone who’s been in the military can testify, soldiers (and law enforcement) aren’t obligated to follow illegal orders.

  4. Jim says:

    So, here is a list of executive orders the President has put forth on gun control:
    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Obama-guns-executive-orders/2013/01/16/id/471689

    Someone will have to explain to me how any of these on their own violate the 2nd Amendment. They are not new pieces of legislation, nor are they altering existing legislation. These orders use already passed legislation as the basis for executive department action. Now, don’t get me wrong…I understand how there can be an abuse of executive orders. And we in this country have a process that allows us to make sure that abuse does not occur. But it is worth noting that President George H.W. Bush issued his own executive order on gun control in 1989 where he banned the importation of some semiautomatic weapons, as did President Bill Clinton.

    As with anything else, anybody can do anything they want. These police chiefs can as well. It does not mean that they will ultimately be allowed to do it. Let me put it forward this way: the Constitution says this on voting:
    “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
    A number of state laws were passed that some say restricted the right to vote. Does anyone working for individual electoral commissions have the ability to say they will not enforce those laws because in their opinion they violate the Constitution, and were designed to restrict minority voting? Of course they could do that…and there would be consequences- removal from their job, penalties, etc. People working for electoral commissions are paid state/municipal employees, just as police chiefs are. They probably should not be allowed to interpret the Constitution on their own. They can do so if they want, it does not mean they will ultimately be allowed to do it.

    If these executive orders are not challenged, all the way to the Supreme Court if need be, then they will stand as enforcement of existing legislation. And if that is so, municipalities will eventually direct their police chiefs to follow the letter of the law rather than interpret it on their own. And the reason is simple: if there is a shooting, and it turns out that a police chief on his/her own elected not to enforce the law, there then would be consequences, including, and not limited to, lawsuits.

    But like I say, anyone can do anything they want.

    • The President’s list of executive orders was quite lame I agree, and hardly an illegal threat to my rights as a citizen. Nonetheless, you have to be blind and deaf not to recognize that he and the Democratic Party are making a big push to restrict access to guns. The response of these sheriffs (and others) is merely legitimate push back, and refreshing as they are putting the federal government on notice that ignoring the Constitution here (as Obama has done in other cases) carries serious political risks.

      The balance of power designed into the Constitution between branches of government, both federal, state, and local, were intended to act as a lever to prevent abuse of power. The actions of these sheriffs is only a demonstration of that.

  5. Jim says:

    There is no doubt that they are trying to restrict access to guns, but as Justice Scalia said, restriction is allowable under the Constitution. My guess is individual restrictions may get challenged legally, and that is the way it should work. I am more than willing to let them stand or fall on their own merits. I just have a bit of a problem with individuals saying they have a right to interpret the Constitution on their own, particularly when they are in law enforcement. That can have broader implications which would not be pleasant for any of us. But personally, I think this is just a lot of sound and fury signifying…well, maybe something, but in the end not too much. These chiefs will enforce the law, and I am sure they do not believe that they are the final arbiter of what the Constitution intends.

  6. Pzatchok says:

    George Bush stopped the importation of weapons for a single specific reason. Patent infringment.

    China was importing weapons that were direct copies of weapons still manufactured in the US and still under copyright and patent law.

    The company making them was the largest and only maker of China’s small arms for its military. Polytech/Norinco.

    He did not restrict access to any weapons already here. Even those weapons China already imported.

Website Maintained by Artist and Virginia Web Developer Leo Charre