Author:
administration post
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 07:18:53 04/21/10 Wed
So what are Sheriff Mackís motives? I do not know. He implies
more than the facts bear out, but he has fans all over the USA
who adore him. . .
http://www.freedomfirstsociety.org/articles/articles/40/1/Sheriffs-Mack-Prinz-Mattis--A-warning-about-this-whole-issue/Page1.html
Sheriffs Mack, Prinz, Mattis ó A warning about this whole issue.
The force by which this bogus issue is propelled is amazing. It
has exploded all over the web. I hope it is nothing more than a
whole lot of good people dreaming of an easier solution to
intrusive government. It would take forever to tackle all the
wild assertions on this issue, so I will summarize as much as
possible.
1. The Sheriff Mack case (listed as Prinz v U.S., No. 95-1503)
Advertisements for Sheriff Richard Mackís speech state that he
ìfought the Brady Bill gun control law all the way to the Supreme
Court and won.î
Okay, what did he win? He won the right to refuse to make
background checks on gun owners, period. Thatís all the case was
about. It was not a Second Amendment issue, neither was it a
challenge to the Brady Handgun Bill.
The Court ruled that the federal government could not force the
states to do its work unless the federal government paid for the
cost of the background checks, or unless the federal government
did the background checks itself.
The result of this case further damaged the Second Amendment by
certifying federal gun control and ìbuyingî the statesí
cooperation in the investigation process. Moreover, it
strengthened the Brady Bill by legitimizing its authority to
require background checks.
The Sheriff Mack case was an administrative issue, not a gun
control issue, and not a grant of power to county sheriffs. The
Court never so much as hinted that a county sheriff had power to
arrest or restrain federal enforcement officers.
Many quotes from this and other Supreme Court cases confirm
powers retained by the states; however, none of these lofty
statements restrain any federal power other than who pays for the
inspections ñ the federal gun controls are still in place.
2. The Sheriff Mattis case (listed as Castaneda v. United States,
No. 96-CV-099)
The misrepresentation of this Wyoming case is incredible. In the
first place the case did not challenge, deny, or grant any
authority regarding any sheriff whatsoever. On the net you will
see a flood of assertions regarding the rulings of this case, but
in fact the Federal District Court made no rulings at all ó none,
zilch, zero. The case was settled outside the Court in 1997 and
therefore no rulings were made, or could be made, because the
case was dismissed.
The claims made by Sheriff Mattis have gotten so far out of hand
that the Chief Judge, District of Wyoming, found it necessary to
issue a public statement. The statement speaks for itself. To
access this go to the Wyoming District Court site
www.wyd.uscourts.gov and click on PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS. This opens
a page that shows UNPUBLISHED DOCUMENTS under which it says:
Letter from Chief Judge William Downes. Click on the words ìPDF
Format.î
There is plenty of irony in this: The Castaneda case went to
court on charges that due process had been violated. And now
Sheriff Mattis wants to arrest federal agents without due
process. Is something wrong with this picture?
Montana Law: Sheriff must authorize federal employee arrest,
search or seizure.
This alleged law clutters the net as if it actually existed.
Lucky for the people in Montana that HB 284 was tabled five years
ago, never received a vote in the Judiciary Committee, and is
dead and should be dead. Anyone with any respect for the Bill of
Rights knows that federal officers are also entitled to due
process, and that no power exists for a county sheriff to
interfere with federal enforcement. The federal officers may or
may not have constitutional authority, but that is not for the
sheriff to decide, especially if he decides to restrain the
officers by force. Whether you like it or not, the Sixteenth
Amendment is constitutional and grants direct federal action in
the states. The Montana Legislature wisely tossed HB 284 in the
round file, but its illegal provisions are still circulated (five
years later) as if such a law actually existed.
Now this leads to the question of motives:
Do I think Sheriffs Mack, Prinz and Mattis have set out to
beguile anyone? No I do not. I have not met Prinz or Mattis, but
I have met Richard Mack, attended his speech, and read his book,
The County Sheriff: Americaís Last Hope.
In his book Mack confuses democracy with a republic. He insists
that he is directly accountable to the people, which is the
definition of a democracy. But in a constitutional republic an
officer is not directly accountable to the people, he is
accountable to the law. The United States is a government of
laws, not of men. This huge gap in Mackís understanding has led
Mack into the very trap that exalts our politicians in
Washington. They think they have a mandate to do anything they
want because they were elected by a majority. Sorry, Sheriff Mack
ó that is not how our country works. You are elected to protect
and to serve within the statutes of your county ó you do not have
federal authority.
Mackís book is full of patriotic maxims and implied support for
his claim that he has power over federal bureaucrats. He cites,
for example the Castaneda case in which the plaintiffs ìdemanded,
as part of their court settlement, that Big Horn County Sheriff,
Dave Mattis devise a plan that would prevent [federal]
lawlessness from ever occurring again in his county.î Judge
Downes, however, reports: ìThis Court has never issued an order
which would serve to limit the lawful activities and duties of
federal law enforcement officersÖ.î Mattis may have devised a
plan, but it certainly was not a part of the court settlement,
for the court did not settle the case.
So what are Sheriff Mackís motives? I do not know. He implies
more than the facts bear out, but he has fans all over the USA
who adore him and I am sure he wants to be their symbol of hope,
even Americaís last hope, as his book proclaims. To me, the
sheriff is building a false hope that cannot save the country,
that is not the way to stand up for onesís rights, and that shows
a frightening ignorance of the enemy he thinks he his fighting,
but whom he is inadvertently helping.
Okay, whatís going on here?
The trillion dollar question is this: Why is so much energy going
into a bogus issue? Obviously many patriotic men and women are
looking for that silver bullet, that instant solution to our
huge, out-of-control federal government. How I wish it were all
that simple: Just arrest the bureaucrats.
Has it never occurred to anxious patriots that if a county
sheriff had such vast powers the founding fathers might just have
mentioned it somewhere, perhaps in the Constitution? But of
greater importance, if such power is granted the sheriff, could
not such dictatorial powers some day be levied against you?
Now, I do not believe for a minute that federal agents are exempt
from the Fourth or Fifth Amendments, and I am as anxious as
anyone to stand up for my rights; but you are not going to win
that fight at the point of enforcement. It must be won at the
source, in Congress where the bureaucracies are created, and the
regulations are made and funded. I know thatís a lot of hard
work, and not nearly as much fun as cheering for a sheriff who
rides in on a white charger to slay the federal dragon. Freedom
is not that simple.
If you have been taken up by this widely promoted idea, there may
be a far more compelling reason why you had better back off, and
soon. It may well be that all this excitement is to goad you and
your sheriff into a confrontation with federal agents. Behind
that friendly face in Washington, there lurks a very unfriendly
face that would just love to make you the cannon fodder of
violence. That is how power is taken. You need an emergency, some
sort of civil disobedience, that calls for federal troops and
severe enforcement measures. Hitler did it that way. He created
the anarchy that his own storm troopers ìhad toî put down. This
whole bogus issue may well be calculated to make criminals out of
decent, freedom-loving citizens and then put them away
permanently. Please give this possibility some very serious
thought.
If you are smitten by this false hope, I am sorry. Go back and
research it for yourself. I have done the best I can do. I am
your friend. I am telling the truth. Please do not allow the
truth make me your enemy.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
