Missouri Sheriff Vs. the Feds!

[IndyDave1776]

I see it’s in the constitution but in reality the judicial branch has decided they don’t give a damn about the constitution. Kinda ironic huh?

Meeks v. State of Indiana

Meeks v. State of Indiana

law.justia.com

I know which is why the judicial branch needs corrected.

I fail to see how justice is possible when juries are consistently and wrongly instructed, and spooned only a small portion of the law rather than being equipped to act on the whole counsel of state constitution and law. It is a preordained kangaroo court.

 

[T.Lex]

Have you had a jury walk a defendant because the law is full of crap?

I read cases. Lots of cases. Daily.

Pretty regularly, there are cases in which it appears that juries do things that might not make sense. Sometimes, the only way that it makes sense is that they don't like how the law is applied to a certain situation.

One of the problems is that when juries "walk a defendant" it doesn't get appealed.* Well, that's not really a problem, it just means that it doesn't get published in a way that many people can see.

Anecdotally, yeah, juries in Indiana tend to get to the right answer. They tend to accept the law but dislike a certain application/enforcement of it.

* There are some situations that allow the State to appeal certain issues, but it is pretty infrequent.

 

[HoughMade]

For local law enforcement not to enforce federal law- that is their right.

For local law enforcement to arrest federal officials enforcing federal law- that's a no-go.

 

[Slapstick]

I think there's a middle ground.

I have no problem with a local official (sheriff/mayor/etc.) saying that, as an act of executive discretion, they will not enforce or assist in the enforcement of a federal law. (Or even a state law, but that's an even different issue.)

At that point, it is a political decision. If the local constituency approves, they will re-elect. If not, they won't.

To JTscribe's point, the refusal to enforce is an act of civil disobedience and can be honorable.

Threatening to arrest LEOs for enforcing laws that one doesn't agree with is VERY different. That's an act of hostility.

The County Ordinance, (local law) specifically states :

(4) Any and all feral agents trying to enforce the regulations listed in Section (1) shall be subject to arrest by the Newton County Missouri Sheriff's Department:

(a) The Newton County Missouri Sheriff's Department shall be given the full authority to make an arrest of any and all federal agents that violate state laws and enforce regulations listed in Section (1);

Newton County Second Amendment Preservation Act

Download here:

www.newtoncountymo.com

So it would appear that there is a chance, depending on what gun control gets passed, that local & State laws would be in conflict with federal law. If you were the Sheriff which would you enforce?

 

[T.Lex]

If you were the Sheriff which would you enforce?

Well, first off, I wouldn't get elected.

Second, I wouldn't enforce the federal law I disagreed with and I wouldn't enforce the state law I disagreed with.

Easy peasy.

 

[JTScribe]

For local law enforcement not to enforce federal law- that is their right.

For local law enforcement to arrest federal officials enforcing federal law- that's a no-go.

What if that federal law runs counter to other federal law? Or assumes power not granted to the federal government, but reserved to the states?

 

[HoughMade]

What if that federal law runs counter to other federal law? Or assumes power not granted to the federal government, but reserved to the states?

A court is going to have to make that decision. A federal court.

 

[ChrisK]

A court is going to have to make that decision. A federal court.

So what happens when the federal courts are becoming corrupt and not following the Constitution ?

 

[foszoe]

So what happens when the federal courts are becoming corrupt and not following the Constitution ?

Stack the Courts!

 

[rooster]

A court is going to have to make that decision. A federal court.

If the courts or feds cared the feds would bring file a court case, declare it an emergency to get it in front of a judge pronto and the judge would issue an injunction right? (I’m not a lawyer judge or other legal beagle)


I’m not seeing any of that happening so it looks like the feds are sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending this isn’t happening

 

[BigRed]

Well, here in the US of A, the SCOTUS (ultimately) gets to decide whether laws are "null and void"... not individual counties.

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
-Thomas Jefferson to William Jarvis, 1820

The "supreme court" lost any remanent of legitimacy on June 28, 2012.

States need to revoke their powers delegated to the central state, dissolve the central state, and govern as their citizens choose best.

Good on Missouri.

 

[DadSmith]

Well, here in the US of A, the SCOTUS (ultimately) gets to decide whether laws are "null and void"... not individualhis counties.

Actually the Sheriff is more powerful than the federal government in his county. Only the county coroner can arrest a Sheriff. A Sheriff can refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws that he feels are unconstitutional.

Even if the SCOTUS rules the only thing legal is muzzleloaders that SCOTUS would be wrong and in violation of the constitution.

In 1994, the Tenth Amendment was reaffirmed by the Court when Sheriff Mack and Printz sued the Clinton Administration. The opinion in Mack and Printz v. United States stated, “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service–and at no cost to itself–the police officers of the 50 States…Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”

If a federal agency wants to do something inside a county it must first get permission from the Sheriff of that county.

 

[GIJEW]

This reminds me of an open letter signed by every sheriff in UT back in 2012, where they threatened to arrest any fed agent who tried to enforce the "gun control" the obama admin was proposing.

 

[BigRed]

I posted this elsewhere, but it is applicable to the matter of Missouri as well.

A Fig for the Constitution – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

 

[BigRed]

Infowars Article

Infowars: There's a War on for your Mind!

www.infowars.com

Now that's a Sheriff of the people!

BTW, for those that did not read the article, it is worth noting that rubio (a Republican) is also introducing gun control bills.

 

[IndyDave1776]

BTW, for those that did not read the article, it is worth noting that rubio (a Republican) is also introducing gun control bills.

Little Marco always was an "economy sized" lightweight RINO.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This seems more like a political stunt than anything else. If the Sheriff is going to arrest for 2A violations passed under the Biden administration, why doesn't he just declare all 2A violation null and void, and infringes arrestable?

 

[patience0830]

If the Sheriff is going to arrest for 2A violations passed under the Biden administration, why doesn't he just declare all 2A violation null and void, and infringments, arrestable offenses?

A wonderful idea I think we should all embrace. Punishments determined by those upon whom they infringe.

 

[JettaKnight]

Actually the Sheriff is more powerful than the federal government in his county. Only the county coroner can arrest a Sheriff. A Sheriff can refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws that he feels are unconstitutional.

LOLWUT?

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/n...cle_415940b8-9b7b-11ea-b530-bfaffca88b9e.html
The videos (there's five) from this event are pretty good; the coroner must not be wearing a body cam.

If a federal agency wants to do something inside a county it must first get permission from the Sheriff of that county.

Color me incredulous.

 

[DadSmith]

LOLWUT?

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/n...cle_415940b8-9b7b-11ea-b530-bfaffca88b9e.html
The videos (there's five) from this event are pretty good; the coroner must not be wearing a body cam.






Color me incredulous.

They cannot operate in a county without the Sheriffs approval period. County Coroner is the only one that can arrest a Sheriff period. I can't help if they disregard common law.

ASK THE SHERIFF: The jobs of the county coroner include arresting the sheriff

DEAR SHERIFF: I’ve heard the coroner can arrest the sheriff. Is this true? What else does the coroner do?

www.goshennews.com

In Indiana the coroner is the only law enforcement officer who has the authority to arrest and incarcerate the county sheriff and take command of the county jail. The coroner is also the only official who may serve the sheriff with civil process.