Can Local Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Gun Control Laws?

The short answer to the question in the title of this missive is yes. Let us look at how I arrived at this.
     We start with a quote from the Federalist Papers specifically No. 78: “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
     Further in the 1886 Supreme Court decision Norton v. Shelby County: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties, affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
     Far from undermining the rule of law, the local police and county officials taking these stands are actually supporting constitutional law and fulfilling their oaths to defend the founding document.
     Want more corroboration? OK. Back we go to the Federalist Papers. Remember the Federalist papers were written by the people who drafted the Constitution and were published to aid in letting the people know what that Constitution would mean to them. Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers (#78): There is a misconception in our time that the court somehow is the arbiter of what is constitutional; that’s not true! Every official that raises their right hand and says they’re going to adhere to the constitution, seek to protect it to the best of their ability, ‘so help me God’ – that’s something that they’re all obligated to do.”
     If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.(The emphasis is mine) (end of quote)
     Even if the Constitution of the United States is ignored by our legislators, these sheriffs have the constitutional and oath driven obligations to take a stand and follow the Constitution and the ruling of the Supreme Court. If it is an unconstitutional law, it has no affect on the citizenry and should not be enforced; not by local sheriffs or police – not by the FBI nor the NSA. It certainly should not be adhered to by any citizen.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comments

  • If the Sheriff's or any Law Officer wants to Tip-Toe around the Constitutional Laws, they better Tip-Toe as softly as they can.

  • One bad apple spoils the bunch.  When an individual commits a crime, theres a root problem to the behavior that led to that person straying from the desired conduct established by God. The general population or community impacted by that person's behavior then demands action by the established authority to punish or prevent that same thing from happening again, which allows that authority to discern what is supplied as a punishment or preventative for the undesired behavior. This empowers and corrupts men playing these roles, as a drug would in finding gratification,from being regarded as essentially "smarter" than others. This clouds and confuses the judgment of these people, allowing them to be vulnerable to manipulation by those who's judgements are equally or greatly misguided. Its like the "blind leading the blind". Now as for your willingness to follow the rules and do right M16ark58, it says alot about your charachter and morals, as such try to think of how the laws might be if YOU were in charge of them, i like to think we all would make the right decisions and stick to our guns but some are just not that strong. Its because of the compilation of symptoms that are stacked on top of the root problem, that it is forgotten and discounted. The only way I see us getting our freedoms back is by earning them through conviction, by standing up for what we believe, by helping others who share our views gain influence, by spreading the truth, and to not be afraid. Perception is how the truth is beheld.

  • So then, these Federalist Papers expound what I have been saying all along. All "gun control" laws are anti-Constitutional and therefore are null and void?  Speaks volumes for the entities that have enforced these laws all along. Robert Kieth, here is an example.  I live in Pennsylvania.  They require according to their laws, that if I want to carry concealed I need to apply for a license.  Criminal background check, and 2 personal references. Photo?  A trip way across the county, (transportation is a problem right now, car trouble.)  Even though I'm fit to be exercising our 2nd Amendment rights, they would consider it a 3rd degree Felony if I carry concealed outside the boundries of my home. Therefore their licensing requirement is a way for the Government to ration a Constitutional Right to its Citizens, a Right that belonged to us all along. Go figure, how do they get this?

  • You are completely right, as the constitution is grossly violated by neglegent and malicious officials, we the people have the duty and God given right to refuse compliance with what we know to be wrong for the U.S.. The documents that were written so many years ago resonate in the hearts of so many still today, regardless of what establishment chooses to propagandize into the minds of it's people. I say have faith, for when man attempts to act as God the ends are ineffectual due to his inability to perfectly design the means and is doomed by his own sword (or pen).

This reply was deleted.