The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: 2HOW on September 20, 2011, 09:43:47 AM
-
A law proposed in Tennessee would make federal law enforcement have to seek the approval of the local Sheriff's office in order to make arrests or conduct raids in the state. This is part of a larger movement by the states to force the federal government to respect the 10th amendment.
A new bill making its way through the Tennessee General Assembly states that a federal employee who is not designated as a Tennessee peace officer may not make an arrest or conduct a search and seizure in the Volunteer State without the express consent of the sheriff of the county in which the arrest, search, and seizure is to occur except under certain enumerated circumstances.
No vague request will satisfy the mandates of the measure were it to be enacted by the General Assembly of the Tennessee and signed into law by the governor. In fact, the bill explicitly requires that the permission request contain the following information:
(A) The name of the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure;
(B) A clear statement of probable cause for the arrest, search, or seizure or a federal arrest, search, or seizure warrant that contains a clear statement of probable cause;
seized;
(C) A description of the specific things to be searched for or
(D) A statement of the date and time that the arrest, search, or seizure is to occur; and
(E) The address or location where the intended arrest, search, or seizure will be attempted.
The serious and very powerful posture struck by the measure is undeniable. In Section 1, Paragraph (f), the proposed law sets forth the punishments to be imposed upon a federal officer failing to conform to the dictates thereof:
An arrest, search, or seizure or attempted arrest, search, or seizure in violation of subsection (a) is unlawful, and the persons involved shall be prosecuted by the county attorney for kidnapping if an arrest or attempted arrest occurred, for trespass if a search or attempted search occurred, for theft if a seizure or attempted seizure occurred, and for any applicable homicide offense if loss of life occurred. The persons involved shall also be charged with any other applicable criminal offense.
Furthermore, if any county attorney fails to timely and properly prosecute the federal agent accused of violating the law’s mandates regarding arrest, search, and seizure, that attorney is subject to recall by the voters and “to prosecution by the attorney general for official misconduct.
Under the wording of our Constitution the County Sheriff has always been the final authority in authorizing arrests and searches and seizures. As the politicians in the federal government have incrementally usurped the rights given to the sovereign states and set aside the dictates of Posse Comitatus, the agents of the federal government have taken control of the responsibilities that rightfully belong to the Sheriff of each county.
This usurpation is most visible in the airports throughout our country. Nowhere in the constitution is exception given to exempt airports from the safeguards against illegal search and seizure and sexual assault practiced daily by federal agents of the TSA. In the recent past our airport security was conducted by private security organizations under the watchful eyes of sheriff deputies in keeping with the lawful requirements of our constitution. The efficiency of that system was much better than the documented lack of efficiency associated with the TSA.
The widespread takeover of law enforcement duties by federal agents has transformed our country into a police state that promises to continue to grow. It's time we return to the county sheriffs as the primary law enforcement officials. This will bring the voting citizens of each county closer to their elected officials and increase accountability at the local level.
Source: The New American
-
It won't work.
There have been to many cases over the years where the Sheriff was the one being investigated, or was taking bribes from the person being investigated.
-
Not to mention it will be thrown out in court before the ink dries.
-
Not to mention it will be thrown out in court before the ink dries.
You know, it's really annoying to the rest of us when you make these kind of statements with out any type of facts or examples to back them up.
I realize you are young, but by 30 you should have figured out 2 things.
1 You don't actually know it all.
2 The rest of us aren't mind readers.
-
Not to mention it will be thrown out in court before the ink dries.
Our legislature has passed some strong 2A and states rights bills. I really think it has a chance.
-
Tom did you actually think before you posted?
The US cons says the fed has the power to enforce federal law. When a state law conflicts with federal law, the federal law rules.
This is a pretty clear case of a state trying to regulate how the federal gov enforces federal law= it will be challenged and thrown out.
-
Tom did you actually think before you posted?
The US cons says the fed has the power to enforce federal law. When a state law conflicts with federal law, the federal law rules.
This is a pretty clear case of a state trying to regulate how the federal gov enforces federal law= it will be challenged and thrown out.
Yes, I did think before I posted.
I thought I shouldn't have to use ESP to figure out WTF your reasoning is.
I don't disagree that it won't hold up, in fact, I doubt it will even pass.
But I don't think it will ever get to the point of arguing Constitutionality.
-
The important thing in all of this is that someone somewhere is standing up and saying "We are watching, and we don't like what you are doing!" Regardless of where it goes, the message is being sent. We can't expect responsiveness if we don't state our stance, and this Bill says we are fed up with your tactics.
-
There is a movement to educate Sheriffs of there oaths to protect the Constitution of the United States, along with the State Constitution and local laws.
Sheriff Mack, who I've mentioned before, is spearheading this movement. His page can be found here
http://sheriffmack.com/
He has received a letter of reaffirmation from a Sheriff in Colorado, but it appears to speaks of Colorado Sheriffs in general. It is a two page response. Here are the links.
Page 1: http://sheriffmack.com/docs/Colorado%20oath%20of%20office%20reaffirmation%20letter-P1-sm.jpg
Page 2: http://sheriffmack.com/docs/Colorado%20oath%20of%20office%20reaffirmation%20letter-P2-sm.jpg
-
Tom did you actually think before you posted?
The US cons says the fed has the power to enforce federal law. When a state law conflicts with federal law, the federal law rules.
This is a pretty clear case of a state trying to regulate how the federal gov enforces federal law= it will be challenged and thrown out.
This is true assuming that the 10th Amendment does not exist. Since it does - albeit in an eviscerated state - any "Federal" law passed that falls outside of the US Constitution - say a Dept. of Education "SWAT" raid - is deemed void as it is illegal. The Amendments trump "Federal" law.
Therefore, the County Sheriff, as the Chief LEO in any county has the authority to arrest any wrong-doerrs, including those wearing "Federal" badges with "Federal" warrants. The Feds don't see it that way, of course, and that is what this and other laws are all about.
I hope the arrest of a Fed raiding party by a County Sheriff is recorded and put on YouTube - it will be wonderful!!!!
-
Well for those that need a refreshing bit of news....The Feds Backed Down at the Tree Party, aka the Chainsaw Rebellion.
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/09/details-of-how-feds-blinked-in-otero.html
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/09/photos-from-chainsaw-rebellion-in.html
Local Sheriff Told the Feds they would be arrested if they interfered, and the Feds backed off......
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2011/09/18/a_tree_party_rebellion
Read it, know it, spread it, and love it.
-
You might want to view Sheriff Mack's video on the Power of the County Sheriff.
If you like what you see, you might want to read some of his books. http://sheriffmack.com/index.php/books-by-richard-mack
-
You know, it's really annoying to the rest of us when you make these kind of statements with out any type of facts or examples to back them up.
I realize you are young, but by 30 you should have figured out 2 things.
1 You don't actually know it all.
2 The rest of us aren't mind readers.
Tom, you must be too old to remember that at 30 most men DO know everything and DO think those of us, who are somewhat older, don't have enough mind left to read anything. Remember if you're past 60 you should be like children, seen and not heard.
Pecos, who is stiring the pot.