…being brought to you by people who hate the idea that there are some in those that actually put the Constitution first. The first set of folks are those that are trying to put more gun control legislation into place. The latter set of folks are those that are saying that they will not enforce laws they feel are unConstitutional. The most vocal of these are County Sherrifs who have made it quite clear that they will defend the Rights of their Citizens (Groksters Rick, Tim, Steve, Tom, Don, and Mike have chipped in on this here, here, here, here, here, here and here). The Political Class is getting frustrated that more gun controls have not been put into law fast enough. They are apoplectic that where they have been, as in Colorado and New York, they are getting massive pushback (“c’mon, what’s with the Sheeple!”) – King Obama just can’t issue a proclamation, the Legislative process can’t roll fast enough, formerly friendly poll results are starting to crash, and then there’s that pesky thing called the Constitution and those pesky people that keep reciting it in Congress (i.e., Cruz, Lee, and Paul), and back to these durned Sheriffs that won’t do as we tell them. They refuse to follow the law. The White House has said, via Press Flack Jay Carney (and got a response):
“I think as a general proposition we think that people ought to follow the law,” Carney told CNSNews.com. “As an absolute matter of fact in my view, and I think many other constitutional experts, there’s not a single measure in this package of proposals the president has put forward that in anyway violates the Constitution. In fact, they reflect the president’s commitment to our Second Amendment rights.”
(Yeah, this from the guy whose boss’s Administration conducted Fast & Furious (the illegal gun running operation into Mexico) and Obama illegally making appointments that should have gone through Senate approval – simply the EPITOME of legal behavior, eh?). So, what’s the other shoe to drop?
…CSPOA founder Richard Mack was not surprised by Carney’s response. “Politicians who violate the Constitution never say I’m violating the Constitution, come and arrest me,” Mack told CNSNews.com Tuesday. Mack is the former sheriff of Graham County, Ariz., where along with six other sheriffs in 1994 he challenged the constitutionality of the provision of the federal Brady bill that sheriffs do the background checks. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to strike down the provision of the law placing the burden on local law enforcement.
So now, both National and State legislators are submitting laws that would kick Sheriffs like Mack out of office for not enforcing ALL state and federal laws. Heh – what POSSIBLY could go wrong? So, a few of these Sheriffs are in Texas; one of those gun grabbing legislators is also from Texas. Here’s a great (er, BAD) example, meet Texas State Representative Yvonne Davis (D-Dallas) who has a bill, HB2167 that says that if you are an elected law enforcement agent (like Sheriffs) and say you will not faithfully execute the laws, you will be removed and cannot serve for up to 10 years. Similar legislation is being done up at the national level
You know, I bolded where the legislator (who, presumably, swore an oath to the Constitution as well) is from: Dallas. You know, I decided to look up Dallas – and yes, it is on the list of Sanctuary Cities along with Austin, Baytown, Brownsville, Channelview, Denton, El Cenizo, Ft.Worth, Houston, Katy, Laredo, Mcallen, and Port Arthur. These are cities that announced that they would NOT (get that, NOT) enforce Federal Law when it comes to dealing with illegals. Gee, aren’t they trying to throw Sheriff Joe Arpio of AZ for simply doing that – enforcing the law with regard to illegals?
So what would the mood be if the Legislators see that the Sheriffs actually DO start enforcing ALL of the laws – and decided to return the political favor of those legislators behind this effort and start enforcing laws (after doing the proper oppo research) that would go after these pols’ favorite issues or groups? Would they simply go “oh, tit for tat” or would you hear such a hue and cry that might cause an earthquake? You see where this could go.
Hypocrisy – why is Sheriffs refusing to not enforce the law worse than States refusing to ensure that cities within their limits follow immigration laws for years? Oh sure, threaten to cut off the funds to those same cities for that behavior – lots of sturm and drang. Never a threat to cashier the Mayors or City Councilors – so why pick on the Sherrifs? Oh, I get it – you LIKE illegals and you HATE guns. Your favored pols on your favored issue get the pass, those on the other side – let’s not just honor the wishes of the voters that put them into office, let’s not just say “ok, they are just doing what we do but on another issue, BUT WE WILL DESTROY THEIR LIVELIHOOD!”.
It is never enough for a committed Progressive simply to disagree with your stance – if you do, you are EVIL, you must be STOPPED, and not just stopped at that time. Being EVIL, we have to remove you and if possible, keep you from ever getting in our way again. And if you happen to end up on the street, well, the more the merrier.
Doubt me? I’ve watched it. I’ve seen it happen. They push to the max and brook no opposition. After all, Progressivism IS a religion and they are as prickly and retaliatory as Muslims when you insult their religion.
