Montana's Sheriffs First Act.

[Ulmus]

From FOX news.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/23/montana-plan-empower-local-sheriffs/#content


Senate Bill 114 would require federal agents to obtain written permission from the sheriff before conducting a search, seizure or arrest in a county.  Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, wrote the bill for Senator Greg Hinkle (Republican, Thompson Falls) who introduced it and is sponcering it.

This will be interesting to watch especially after the State of the Union speech.

[TAB]

From FOX news.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/23/montana-plan-empower-local-sheriffs/#content


Senate Bill 114 would require federal agents to obtain written permission from the sheriff before conducting a search, seizure or arrest in a county.  Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, wrote the bill for Senator Greg Hinkle (Republican, Thompson Falls) who introduced it and is sponcering it.

This will be interesting to watch especially after the State of the Union speech.

that bill is going to be challendged in court, I don't see a law like that being upheld.


besides what can a sherriff do  to stop the federal goverment? 

[tombogan03884]

I've heard something about Sheriff's being the ultimate Constitutional Law enforcement, I do not know the details, but there was a book about it.

[m25operator]

Arrest them and prosecute them, what they are doing is illegal, without permission from local government. Will they have the balls, only time will tell. Feds get real weird when they are arrested and cannot bully you into submission to cooperation. We are taking over this investigation, Excuse me, no your not and if you ( feds ) get in our way we will arrest you and put you in jail.

Tom you are right, Sheriffs are elected not hired, and have county jurisdiction and don't have to answer to anybody unless they are doing something illegal, then the deputies can arrest the Sheriff.

If anybody has the time and I do mean time, thousands of pages, read article 18 of the interstate commerce clause, the feds do no have the right to mess in city, county or town business, only on their own property or property ceded to them.

[TAB]

aritcal 18 is a mess, not only will you have to read that, you will also have to read the thousands of court ruleings on diffrent parts of artical 18.

 Here is what will most likly go down if a law like this is passed.

Some one breaks a federal law( fire arms or taxs would be my guess), the sheriff tells the feds to stick ti where the sun does not shine.  The feds arrest the sheriff( or try too)  Massive court case(s),  The court is left with the option to up hold this law and strike down a long standing firearms law( we already know the SCOUS stand on this, not going to happen, if you doubt that look at heller.).  SO they are either going to strike down the law, or making some rulling where the feds can by bass the law, under a realtively vauge statute.


I'm not a lawyer and I didn't sleep at a motel 6 last night, but given the current Courts  and the courts that are likly to be in place in the next decade, thats what is most likly to happen.

[Sponsor]

[crusader rabbit]

Okay kids, let's try this again...

Two is one more than one.  It is a numerical value as in:  I have two .357s with me today.

To is a preposition, as in: I am going to the store.

Too is an adverb that means also, as in: I am going to the store, too.

It's is a contraction for the words it is.   It is not the possessive form of it.  Use it as in: It's fun to shoot.

Its is the possessive form of it as in:  The bullet hit its target.

Your is the possive form of you as in:  Is your gun empty?

You're is a contraction for the words you are as in:  You're going to clean your gun, aren't you?

I don't expect us all to be journalists, but these are pretty basic elements of communication, guys.

[BAC]

Okay kids, let's try this again...

Two is one more than one.  It is a numerical value as in:  I have two .357s with me today.

To is a preposition, as in: I am going to the store.

Too is an adverb that means also, as in: I am going to the store, too.

It's is a contraction for the words it is.   It is not the possessive form of it.  Use it as in: It's fun to shoot.

Its is the possessive form of it as in:  The bullet hit its target.

Your is the possive form of you as in:  Is your gun empty?

You're is a contraction for the words you are as in:  You're going to clean your gun, aren't you?

I don't expect us all to be journalists, but these are pretty basic elements of communication, guys.

Might I also add that 's does not a plural make.  That is all.

[tombogan03884]

Okay kids, let's try this again...

Two is one more than one.  It is a numerical value as in:  I have two .357s with me today.

To is a preposition, as in: I am going to the store.

Too is an adverb that means also, as in: I am going to the store, too.

It's is a contraction for the words it is.   It is not the possessive form of it.  Use it as in: It's fun to shoot.

Its is the possessive form of it as in:  The bullet hit its target.

Your is the possive form of you as in:  Is your gun empty?

You're is a contraction for the words you are as in:  You're going to clean your gun, aren't you?

I don't expect us all to be journalists, but these are pretty basic elements of communication, guys.

Might I also add that 's does not a plural make.  That is all.

Don't be a nitpicker, I'm happy if they get all the letters in the words. 

[Solus]

I've heard something about Sheriff's being the ultimate Constitutional Law enforcement, I do not know the details, but there was a book about it.

Here I get another chance to plug Sheriff Mack and his "No Sheriff Left Behind" program.

Check out  his web page here.  http://www.sheriffmack.com/

I have read his book, "The County Sheriff: America's Last Hope" and recommend it.  

As we have seen, good sheriffs can really make a difference....and bad ones can do the same.  Work to be sure the good ones are elected.

[fightingquaker13]

Not sure I really buy this. The feds have primary jurisdiction over federal crimes. They have none over state crimes, so they can't write you a ticket, but they don't have to play "mother may I" with a local sherrif if they are arresting someone for cheating on their federal taxes.
I think the solution here is the unpopular but necesary task of defederalizing a lot of ordinary crimes. Driven largely by the drug war, but just as much by TV, the number of federal crimes on the books has drastically increased since the sixties. This is because Congress Critters want to be tough on crime for their campaigns. So rather than just focusing on things like organized crimes, bank robbery, mail fraud, crossing state lines and the like we see what had traditionally been local crimes federalized. It has gotten beyond absurd. Carjacking for instance is a federal offence. WTF? Yes its a very bad thing, but where in heck is there a federal concern? Oh, right, it makes a good 30 second ad. Who wants to be painted as "soft on carjackers"? It would save a lot of money and restore proper Constitutional balance to take a lot of these overlapping laws off the books. I will not be holding my breath waiting for that to happen though.
FQ13