I was just following orders.....

whynot · Jan 23, 2013

Did not work the last time for the Nazi's.

Colorado sheriff blasts colleagues over refusal to enforce gun laws - U.S. News

To many lawyers helped get us into this mess. I'm pretty sure most Sheriff's are competent enough to read the drivel and double talk in most "laws" and make a judgment on its constitutionality. I pray to God enough people see the light and have the balls to say NO at all levels of government.

I just wish a few of these dumb ass journalists had paid attention in American history and Civics class. I'm tired of hearing about the second amendment and hunting rifles.

Whynot

CATO · Jan 23, 2013

So I guess if der Kommissar tells pansy sheriff that Mr. Jones and his wife are enemies of the state and need to be executed, he'd have no problems with that?

This is the kind of guy who needs to be sheriff of some place like L.A. county or Kings county, NY.

Let's keep an eye on what happens to this slug after the next election.

BTPost · Jan 23, 2013

If this Yahoo Sheriff thinks this will NOT come back and bit him in the A$$, his Voters need to make it PLAIN to him, next Election Cycle...

Airtime · Jan 23, 2013

Amusing this guy is criticizing the other sheriffs for stating they would not enforce proposed laws if enacted yet he supports a President that issued a directive to his law enforcement officers AND. prosecutors to specifically not enforce existing immigration and deportation laws under a number of cases. And so it goes...

AT

UGRev · Jan 23, 2013

I LOVE this part..

the credentials to determine the constitutionality of any issue,”
Click to expand...

Hmm.. if you can read English.. you have cred. WTF do we "laywers" to understand some of the most basic statements in English that ever existed.

Dogfood · Jan 24, 2013

UGRev said: ↑

I LOVE this part..

Hmm.. if you can read English.. you have cred. WTF do we "laywers" to understand some of the most basic statements in English that ever existed.
Click to expand...

Yes! man how do they not get it, if you can read english you don't need a lawyer to tell you what it means. This guy is just a robot.

gasman28110 · Jan 24, 2013

Who is this BITCH to tell me that I cannot give my weapons to my heirs upon my death, that if I need some cash I cannot sell my weapon to the buyer of my choice; this bitch can kiss my ass.

UGRev · Jan 24, 2013

gasman28110 said: ↑

Who is this BITCH to tell me that I cannot give my weapons to my heirs upon my death, that if I need some cash I cannot sell my weapon to the buyer of my choice; this bitch can kiss my ass.
Click to expand...

Who the hell is ANYONE to tell me what i can and cannot do with my possessions..

Tikka · Jan 25, 2013

Airtime said: ↑

Amusing this guy is criticizing the other sheriffs for stating they would not enforce proposed laws if enacted yet he supports a President that issued a directive to his law enforcement officers AND. prosecutors to specifically not enforce existing immigration and deportation laws under a number of cases. And so it goes...

AT
Click to expand...

Leaving "it" limited to gun control, as gun control is forbidden the whole situation is hokey bs. The Sheriffs who refuse are following the law; this maverick big mouth is braking the law.

There was a law passed, it is the Dick Act of 1902.

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable >> Four Winds 10 - Truth Winds
Click to expand...

Ain't that a kick in the pants?

Liberals always claim they are more educated and more intelligent than others. So the educated intelligent ones are too stupid to know the laws of the nation.

DarkLight · Jan 25, 2013

You should have heard them yesterday during the press conference on CSPAN-3. (up)Chuck Schummer was talking about all of the "reasonable" restrictions that needed to be placed on our freedoms...it was making me sick and I had to turn it off or hit something.

They are going to eventually overturn/abolish the founding document. It's going to happen. It may ultimately happen by force and it may take a lot longer than they are hoping but eventually there will be more takers than makers and more people who just "want to get along" and don't want to fight it. We, the oath-keepers, (even those of us who never formally took the oath) need to make sure that there are unadulterated copies of the documents for future generations to use when the time comes to put things back to rights.

Brokor · Jan 25, 2013

I like this:

The Dick Act of 1902

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917
Click to expand...

I have long known about the Dick Act, but have never read it, just photocopied it once and added it to my files long ago. I have always cross referenced it from the USC.
The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311(a).

This is a great read: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session, February 1982
Senate Document 2807
PREFACE by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch

Chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, from the State of Utah
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26.)

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

In my studies as an attorney and as a United States Senator, I have constantly been amazed by the indifference or even hostility shown the Second Amendment by courts, legislatures, and commentators. James Madison would be startled to hear that his recognition of a right to keep and bear arms, which passed the House by a voice vote without objection and hardly a debate, has since been construed in but a single, and most ambiguous Supreme Court decision, whereas his proposals for freedom of religion, which he made reluctantly out of fear that they would be rejected or narrowed beyond use, and those for freedom of assembly, which passed only after a lengthy and bitter debate, are the subject of scores of detailed and favorable decisions. Thomas Jefferson, who kept a veritable armory of pistols, rifles and shotguns at Monticello, and advised his nephew to forsake other sports in favor of hunting, would be astounded to hear supposed civil libertarians claim firearm ownership should be restricted. Samuel Adams, a handgun owner who pressed for an amendment stating that the "Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," would be shocked to hear that his native state today imposes a year's sentence, without probation or parole, for carrying a firearm without a police permit.
This is not to imply that courts have totally ignored the impact of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" -- apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.

When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
In the House, this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Elbridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption to excuse everyone from military service.
The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.:" In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense".

The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in giving this broad reading to the amendment. When St. George Tucker, later Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in 1803 published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American law, he followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the subject "of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law" with a citation to the Second Amendment, "And this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." William Rawle's "View of the Constitution" published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under the Second Amendment: "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." The Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress show that both Tucker and Rawle were friends of, and corresponded with, Thomas Jefferson. Their views are those of contemporaries of Jefferson, Madison and others, and are entitled to special weight. A few years later, Joseph Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" considered the right to keep and bear arms as "the palladium of the liberties of the republic", which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizenry at large to overthrow it should it come to pass.[45]

Subsequent legislation in the second Congress likewise supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an individual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. There can by little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a "well regulated militia" of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.

If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying -- that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 -- establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.
Immediately upon assuming chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I sponsored the report which follows as an effort to study, rather than ignore, the history of the controversy over the right to keep and bear arms. Utilizing the research capabilities of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the resources of the Library of Congress, and the assistance of constitutional scholars such as Mary Kaaren Jolly, Steven Halbrook, and David T. Hardy, the subcommittee has managed to uncover information on the right to keep and bear arms which documents quite clearly its status as a major individual right of American citizens. We did not guess at the purpose of the British 1689 Declaration of Rights; we located the Journals of the House of Commons and private notes of the Declaration's sponsors, now dead for two centuries. We did not make suppositions as to colonial interpretations of that Declaration's right to keep arms; we examined colonial newspapers which discussed it. We did not speculate as to the intent of the framers of the second amendment; we examined James Madison's drafts for it, his handwritten outlines of speeches upon the Bill of Rights, and discussions of the second amendment by early scholars who were personal friends of Madison, Jefferson, and Washington while these still lived. What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear--and long lost--proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The summary of our research and findings form the first portion of this report.

In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete picture, we also invited groups which were likely to oppose this recognition of freedoms to submit their views. The statements of two associations who replied are reproduced here following the report of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee also invited statements by Messrs. Halbrook and Hardy, and by the National Rifle Association, whose statements likewise follow our report.

When I became chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I hoped that I would be able to assist in the protection of the constitutional rights of American citizens, rights which have too often been eroded in the belief that government could be relied upon for quick solutions to difficult problems.

Both as an American citizen and as a United States Senator I repudiate this view. I likewise repudiate the approach of those who believe to solve American problems you simply become something other than American. To my mind, the uniqueness of our free institutions, the fact that an American citizen can boast freedoms unknown in any other land, is all the more reason to resist any erosion of our individual rights. When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men.

Orrin G. Hatch
Chairman
Subcommittee on the Constitution
January 20, 1982
Click to expand...

UGRev · Jan 25, 2013

The Dick Act is aptly named..

UGRev · Jan 25, 2013

this was interesting:
GUN CONTROL, THE DICK ACT OF 1902, BILLS OF ATTAINDER AND EX POST FACTO LAWS By Publius Huldah With Forword By Pastor Ron Budwine. | Save America Foundation

Log in or Sign up

I was just following orders.....

whynot Monkey+++

CATO Monkey+++

BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

Airtime Monkey+++

UGRev Get on with it!

Dogfood Monkey+++

gasman28110 Monkey+

UGRev Get on with it!

Tikka Monkey+++

DarkLight Live Long and Prosper - On Hiatus

Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

UGRev Get on with it!

UGRev Get on with it!

Log in or Sign up

I was just following orders.....

whynot Monkey+++

CATO Monkey+++

BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

Airtime Monkey+++

UGRev Get on with it!

Dogfood Monkey+++

gasman28110 Monkey+

UGRev Get on with it!

Tikka Monkey+++

DarkLight Live Long and Prosper - On Hiatus

Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

UGRev Get on with it!

UGRev Get on with it!

Useful Searches