Sheriff Mack (CSPOA) under attack by the politically correct communists
Friends and Associates:
When
we as a people begin to reject the Constitution, and/or allow the
federal government to reject the Constitution....we inevitably create
tyranny. Because of a very diverse culture in America, many
cultures born in tyrannical
Therefore....the
rest of us are forced to comply with illegal laws imposed by the
Federal Government, because it is politically correct and supported by
over half the dumbed-down population. Wait and see what happens when
America has to follow the European (Sharia Law) for Muslims model.
Sheriff
Mack (Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association) is up
against the scrutiny by the politically correct politicians and
legislators for his patriotic duty to organize sheriffs across this
nation to uphold their oath to the Constitution. He educates sheriffs of
their duty to enforce constitutional laws that are legal and without
federal intrusion, as outlined in the 10th Amendment. (See Article Below
Commentary)
Title 18,
Section 241 & 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) imposes
a fine and prison term for any federal agent that violates that
provision.
Often
enough....federal agents enter a county and arrest a citizen, without
ever asking permission from the residing sheriff of that county. The
sheriff, being the highest law enforcement officer in the county, has
the authority to deny or approve federal agent requests, etc.
One
major example is the latest trend of marijuana dispensaries in several
states, approved by the state, but rejected by the federal government.
Another example is a Montana state law that provides protection for gun
manufacturers from federal authority. In Kansas, it's a felony for any
federal agent that attempts to impose federal laws on anyone possessing a
"gun made in Kansas."
In
Arizona, BLM Rangers often enough, pull-over drivers on state and local
highways for infractions, but have no authority. The driver can be
without a license, cancelled insurance, with a "limited extradition" in
another state, and the BLM Ranger gives the driver a "Warning" for
speeding. The ranger has to have local or state law enforcement to
respond, which (I have discovered) is not readily available and/or
defiant of BLM actions out of their jurisdiction.
This
disconnect between federal agents and local state law enforcement is an
on-going problem for the feds...,.because state and local
authorities are waking-up to the abuse by federal agents. During the
late 1800's, they were called "Carpet Baggers." Federal authorities
would enter a township and demand property for federal institutions.
Today, it is the federal land grab in the western states, of which the
Bundy's are now being held without bond for bringing attention to this
growing problem in Oregon.
The
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a true to form Communist
organization that watches and reports hate crimes, while instigating
hate for profit by skewing the rights of individuals and organizations,
provides Homeland Security with THEIR data that demonizes anyone or
group that supports the Constitution. The FBI recently refused to accept
SPLC guidance in any and all law enforcement matters.
Sheriff
Mack is on the SPLC hit-list for his great work with organizing
sheriffs to resist federal intervention when federal law usurps local
and state constitutional law.
SPLC
pundits argue that federal laws outweigh state and local laws, because
the SPLC philosophy is based-on the Communist model. They hate the 1st,
2nd and 10th amendments and believe-in absolute control by a central
government....when it appeases them.
"The
powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government
are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments
are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally
on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce;…The
powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects,
which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties
and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and
prosperity of the state." ---James Madison
From The Desk of Capt. Dave Bertrand (Ret.)
Int'l Freight Captain, DC-3, BE-1900, DC-8, & B-727 Ratings / U.S.
Army Veteran Vietnam era (Korea) Military Police Communications
Sergeant, Artillery FADAC Computer Specialist, Law Enforcement
trained, Int'l Aircraft Repo Agent, U.S. Customs Undercover, Dept. of
Correction Adult & Juvenile Detention Youth Care, Bail Bondsman /
Fugitive Recovery Agent, DHS/HWW (Commercial Driver) Counter-Terrorism
Instructor, Media Relations Director MCDC, Political Activist, Border
Security Expert, Ranch Security & Off-the-Grid from AZ to MT. Basic
Rural Survivalist & Prepper that believes in God and Country.
Documentaries: "Southern Exposure," "Undocumented the Movie" & "Global Mighty Freight Dog"
Opinions
and discussion of today's hard hitting topics. If you wish to be
removed....reply within, or enlighten someone else by forwarding. I have
no sponsors and I sell nothing, no editor, but plenty on my mind. I
encourage everyone to network your thoughts and comments and don't worry
about grammar, especially mine. Those that bark the loudest, usually
have nothing more to say....
National sheriffs’ group, opposed to federal laws on guns and taxes, calls for defiance
By Tom Jackman
Local police chiefs and sheriffs typically swear to enforce the laws of their state. But a group called the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is intent on strictly enforcing their view of the U.S. Constitution and, according to a long new piece by the Center for Public Integrity,
“its ambition is to encourage law enforcement officers to defy laws
they decide themselves are illegal.” In essence, they are troubled by
the overreach of the federal government in matters concerning guns,
taxes and land management, and founder Richard Mack has described the
federals as “the greatest threat we face today,” and his association as
“the army to set our nation free.”
In an
interview with Julia Harte and former Post reporter R. Jeffrey Smith,
Mack said he had enlisted “several hundred” of the more than 3,000
sheriffs around the country as members of the CSPOA, and that hundreds
more are sympathetic. At the association’s 2014 convention, dozens of
sheriffs signed a declaration
that they would not tolerate any federal agent who attempted to
register firearms, arrest someone or seize property in their counties
without their consent.
Mack struck a blow for
states’ rights in the 1990s as a sheriff from Graham County, Arizona,
when he and a sheriff from Montana challenged the Brady Bill’s interim
requirement that local law enforcement agencies perform background
checks on gun buyers. The Supreme Court ruled
in Mack’s favor, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion
affirming the states’ sovereignty under the 10th Amendment and that the
federal government could not enlist the local police in 50 states to do
its bidding. The decision did not have lasting impact because a national
database was put in place to enable gun dealers to run the checks
themselves, removing local law enforcement from the process.
But
Mack became popular in conservative circles and he launched the CSPOA
in 2011. At a recent training for local police, the CPI reported, Mack
declared that “gun control is against the law” and that his goal was to
sign up about one-fourth of the nation’s sheriffs to join the
association. “And then everybody in this country has at least two or
three places in each state where they can go for refuge,” Mack said,
“find a true constitutional sheriff who’ll tell the federal government,
‘You’re not going to abuse citizens anymore.'”
What
bothers some people about statements like that is the appearance that a
local law enforcement official is substituting his or her legal
judgment for that of a state or federal legislature. So I called Mack to
ask him about his views and he willingly expounded on them, though he
was not happy with the CPI article and even though The Post is not
highly regarded in some conservative circles.
Mack’s
philosophy is largely reinforced by his successful challenge to the
Brady Bill, in which “we went through a lawful process to show the
government is out of control, to force sheriffs to comply.” He said U.S.
District Judge John Roll, who was killed in the attack on U.S. Rep.
Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona in 2011, neatly summed up every sheriff’s
dilemma: “He said I was forced to choose between obeying the law or
keeping my oath of office. He described my problem in one sentence.”
Certain
that any gun regulation violates the Second Amendment, Mack said “the
government was forcing me to participate in a gun control scheme that I
knew was unconstitutional. When all law enforcement is forced into that
position by state or federal legislators, which one do we side with? And
I believe there is a proper way to conduct oneself in knowing the
difference between enforcing stupid laws and enforcing the principles of
the Constitution.”
He compared the situation
to that of officers in Alabama who enforced segregation laws against
Rosa Parks, or military officers of Nazi Germany who committed genocide.
“The cop who arrested Rosa Parks said,” according to Mack, “‘The law is
the law.’ The officers at Nuremberg said the same thing, ‘We were just
following orders.’ Well the court determined that following orders when
you’re committing a crime, or genocide, doesn’t cut it. We say the same
thing. Do not say, ‘I’m just following orders.’ Do what’s right. We
stand for people being abused. I don’t care if it’s gun rights, land
rights, Amish rights, the federal government should not get a free pass
and we should stand against their abuses.”
Mack
was adamant that “I have never advocated violence. I spent 20 years in
law enforcement without ever beating up anybody.” But “when you have no
place else to go, when all the courts are against you, all the
legislators are against you, where else do you go? I believe to the
local county sheriff…and if that means standing against the federal
government, then so damn be it.”
Some
like-minded sheriffs have turned up at the two recent standoffs between
the federal government and local ranchers, at the Bundy ranch in Nevada
and then on behalf of the Hammond family ranch at the Malheur Wildlife
Refuge in Oregon, both times after the federal government tried to
exercise control over public land adjacent to the two ranches. “Most
Americans think that federal authority is ever most powerful and can
usurp any governing entity below it,” Mack writes on the CSPOA website.
“Though somewhat logical, that is simply a fallacy when one would
consult the constitution. It is not the job of the federal government
to interpose between you and the local law, it is your local government
that will interpose.” Dozens of sheriffs, mostly from western states, sent letters to the White House in
2013 saying they would not enforce federal gun laws, including Douglas
County, Ore., Sheriff John Hamlin. Hamlin’s view were later scrutinized
after a mass killing in his county last October at Umpqua Community
College.
In February, Mack’s group launched a campaign called “Vet Your Sheriff,” with a “Sheriff Survey”
to be given to local sheriffs to see where they stand on the freedom
spectrum. “Should the Federal Government,” asks Question 4, “come into
your county and serve warrants and make arrests without informing you
first of their intentions?” Question 9 asks, “According to the
principles of our Constitutional Republic, who is responsible for
keeping the Federal Government in check?”
I
asked a local sheriff if he wanted to take the survey, but he declined. I
asked the National Sheriffs Association, with 20,000 members, for their
thoughts on the CSPOA, and they also declined. The deputy executive
director, John Thompson, told the CPI that his association doesn’t take a
position on how individual sheriffs carry out their duties. There are
3,080 sheriffs in 47 states, according to the association, though not
all oversee full law enforcement agencies, with some primarily handling
county jail oversight.
“It’s terrifying to me,”
said Justin Nix, a criminology professor at the University of
Louisville who specializes in police legitimacy and procedural fairness.
“It’s not up to the police to decide what the law is going to be.
They’re sworn to uphold the law. It’s not up to them to pick and
choose.” Nix pointed out that officers use discretion all the time in
deciding whether to charge someone with a crime. “But to be on the
record, that you don’t want officers enforcing laws, that is pretty
bold.”
Mack spoke in
southwest Virginia earlier this month at a citizens meeting where he
shared the bill with Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia
Citizens Defense League. Van Cleave joked, “What a horrible thing it is,
asking the sheriff to honor the Constitution.” He said that both state
and federal laws have been passed which violate the Constitution, and
“if we ignore them, then the government can do whatever they want. It’s
chaos out there, without somebody putting boundaries in and honoring
that those boundaries mean something.”
No comments:
Post a Comment