Sheriffs' assurances of protection may not mean much

[AMonger]

Excerpt from http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/sheriffs-prepare-to-abandon-citizens-to.html :
Matthews has been quoted saying 'I’m not going to take your guns' but he did not tell the people he will instead stand by and watch as federal agents seize weapons. In fact if a citizen was to refuse to give up his weapons to federal agents the sheriff would be forced to protect that federal agent from any action impeding the enforcement of federal law.

Yet, where Wilson’s opinion truly falls apart is his statement “…that the Department (Kershaw County Sheriff’s dept.) should neither interfere with nor otherwise attempt to impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform their lawful duties to enforce federal laws, and who act necessary and proper within federal authority.”

Simply reading this statement out of context would not ordinarily provide any reason for concern. Indeed, no department should interfere or attempt to impede federal law enforcement simply attempting to perform their lawful duties. However, this is precisely the issue.

Are unconstitutional gun laws “lawful duties?” Are gun confiscation programs “lawful duties?” KCP asks the same questions.

 

[tenntrucker]

sent from my Galaxy Tab2

 

[layoutshooter]

Every local law enforcement agency will make up their own minds. One can assume that big city police departments will be in lock step with the oppressors, though not all rank and file cops will be. Sheriffs' are less likely to join with or protect the oppressors. They are more tied to the people. Again it will an individual choice.

 

[layoutshooter]

[h=1]Illinois: Illinois Sheriffs' Association Opposes State's Proposed "Assault Weapons" Ban[/h]

The Illinois Sheriffs' Association has come out in opposition to the state's proposed "assault weapons" ban according to a recent WJBC.com article. McLean County Sheriff Mike Emery says the ISA instead wants the state to focus more on mental health issues, not on attacking the Second Amendment and banning semi-automatic firearms.


"The ban is not going after what we believe, in the Sheriffs' Association, is the primary issue," said Sheriff Emery. "The issue is we need mental health services upgrades. We need to do a better job."


Emery continued, "The Second Amendment seems to be under attack daily now. I think the sheriffs are saying that we should go to the root of the problem, which is mental health illnesses."

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Excerpt from Activist Post: Sheriffs Prepare to Abandon Citizens to Federal Gun Grab :
Matthews has been quoted saying 'I’m not going to take your guns' but he did not tell the people he will instead stand by and watch as federal agents seize weapons. In fact if a citizen was to refuse to give up his weapons to federal agents the sheriff would be forced to protect that federal agent from any action impeding the enforcement of federal law.

Yet, where Wilson’s opinion truly falls apart is his statement “…that the Department (Kershaw County Sheriff’s dept.) should neither interfere with nor otherwise attempt to impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform their lawful duties to enforce federal laws, and who act necessary and proper within federal authority.”

Simply reading this statement out of context would not ordinarily provide any reason for concern. Indeed, no department should interfere or attempt to impede federal law enforcement simply attempting to perform their lawful duties. However, this is precisely the issue.

Are unconstitutional gun laws “lawful duties?” Are gun confiscation programs “lawful duties?” KCP asks the same questions.

Sounds like he won't interfere with the feds, as long as they're doing "lawful" things. If they're just making unlawful laws, and trying to enforce them, then he might have something to say about it. That's how it came across when I first read it; but I agree it has more than one meaning.

 

[AMonger]

Sounds like he won't interfere with the feds, as long as they're doing "lawful" things. If they're just making unlawful laws, and trying to enforce them, then he might have something to say about it. That's how it came across when I first read it; but I agree it has more than one meaning.

Once the feds pass what they call a law, maybe in his mind it becomes lawful...

 

[Maverick]

They already know which local elected officials will be in lockstep IMV.

 

[layoutshooter]

They already know which local elected officials will be in lockstep IMV.

Those not in lockstep with the oppressors will be removed from office, one way or another.