In an opinion requested by Kershaw County Sheriff Jim Matthews, SC Attorney General Allan Wilson suggest that if federal gun confiscation was ordered that neither state law nor state law officials may interfere or otherwise impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform their lawful duties.
Sighting many examples of case-law (incremental social engineering by the use of precedent to move public policy) Wilson makes the case for federal supremacy, when and if the federal government should choose to enforce, whatever law that is passed.
The seven page opinion was prompted when concerned residents asked the sheriff if he would take their guns if federal law required it. “A lot of sheriffs want to be able to fall back on what the AG says on what we lawfully have to do or don’t have to do,” Matthews said in a State paper interview. The report also states Matthews said it’s pretty clear that sheriffs do not enforce federal laws, and he doesn’t believe that he can stop federal agents from coming into his county to enforce them.
With this opinion by the SCAG, state law enforcement will not stand in the way of gun confiscation.
In the Attorney General’s opinion “federal agents are immune from state prosecution even when their conduct violated internal agency regulations or exceeded their express authority”. This means that an agent could come to your home, break into your home, ransack the place, seize anything, all without a warrant and he would be immune from state prosecution or even inference with his ransacking. The opinion also states “…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.” Would enforcing an unconstitutional ”law” be considered to be an act of “lawful duties”? Are federal gun control “laws” “necessary and proper”for the federal government to be dictating? Finally in his conclusion SCAG Allan Wilson writes “…under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, neither state law nor state law officials may interfere with or otherwise impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform their lawful duties. We further advise that conduct intending to impede the discharge of the lawful duties of federal law enforcement officials may expose such persons to criminal liability.” and then he sights yet another in a long list of cases to back up his opinion but there it was again that pesky little phrase, “lawful duties“. Again, would some sort, any sort, of gun confiscation at a state or federal level be “lawful”? Think about it like this, if the federal government passed a law requiring every American to sign over their property would federal agents coming to remove you from your home be a part of their “lawful duties” and would that be “necessary and proper“?
The SCAG opinion when boiled down and filtered comes down to this, anyone who tries to stop a federal agent will wind up in court and likely lose according to results from past cases or “case-law”.
What does this mean for sheriff’s? They have to make a choice, protect the people and risk going to court or stand down and risk the rath of the people.
Instead of protecting citizens sheriff’s, with the AG’s blessing, will stand down and let it happen. 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. What is not said or written about is the fact that sheriff’s rely on federal money, bribes if you will, to build their own forces.
Local Law Enforcement has become part of a national police force by grant.
Since 911 2001 the federal government under the guise of national security and the war on terror has been providing massive funding to state and local law enforcement agencies across the nation. Billions upon billions have been “given” for thousands of different reasons from tanks and armored personnel carriers down to radios and cameras all given by grant. Every grant comes with strings, hoops if you will that you must accept in order to receive this “free money”. Many departments are now part of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global) under the Department Of Justice. Global is a national data base that the Kershaw County Sheriff joined as part of a grant requirement for five in-car cameras costing $16,000. Many other grants have similar requirements which if all tallied up leads to federal control by contract.
Do not bite the hand that feeds you.
With the money to be had in federal grants sheriff’s have been recieving as much of the “free money” as they can get their grubby little hands on. Many, if not a vast majority of them, without reading or even caring what the fine print requires of them. Richland County sheriff Leon Lott says he will not stand in the way of federal agents as does sheriff Metts of Lexington county both of which have received millions in government grants with all the strings attached.
Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott has received many federal grants including his infamous APC. Lott, along with thousands of other sheriff’s across the country, have actively sought any federal grant possible without regard to any of the requirements of these grants. Most sheriff’s are more likely than not never even read the fine print. Sheriff Matthews admitted as much when questioned about one such grant during a Kershaw County Council Meeting. Asked if he had read the grant Matthews said “no I have not read it and I don’t know anyone who did.” He was then asked if this was good for the county to which he replied “yes, it is good for the county.”
Sources close to Lexington County sheriff Metts say that the sheriff backed off from becoming and oathkeeper because of threats of losing the departments federal grant funding. Although this report has yet to be verified Metts did in fact back away from his support for that organization shortly after endorsing the group which leads us to believe there is some basis to suspect the report is true.
With millions of dollars at stake it becomes harder and harder for sheriffs to resist. Grants don’t raise local taxes. They do not show up on a department’s budget which leaves room for other spending and it makes the sheriff look good as he brings in the pork to make the public safer while he may be helping to enslave us all.
The militarization of your local police
The main culprit of militarization was a 1994 law authorizing the Pentagon to donate surplus military equipment to local police departments. In the 19 years since, literally millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a foreign battlefield have been handed over for use on U.S. streets, against U.S. citizens. Another law passed in 1997 further streamlined the process. As National Journal reported in 2000, in the first three years after the 1994 law alone, the Pentagon distributed 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers, and 112 armored personnel carriers to civilian police agencies across America. Domestic police agencies also got bayonets, tanks, helicopters and even airplanes.
“Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed,” Joseph McNamara, who served as a police chief in both San Jose, California, and Kansas City, Missouri wrote in a 2006 article for the Wall Street Journal. “An emphasis on ‘officer safety’ and paramilitary training pervades today’s policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn’t shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed.” Noting the considerable firepower police now carry, McNamara added, “Concern about such firepower in densely populated areas hitting innocent citizens has given way to an attitude that the police are fighting a war against drugs and crime and must be heavily armed.”
Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper finds all of this troubling. “We needed local police to play a legitimate, continuing role in furthering homeland security back in 2001,” says Stamper, now a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. “After all, the 9/11 terrorist attacks took place on specific police beats in specific police precincts. Instead, we got a 10-year campaign of increasing militarization, constitution-abusing tactics, needless violence and heartache as the police used federal funds, equipment, and training to ramp up the drug war. It’s just tragic.”
Allan Wilson and these sheriffs have it all wrong.
The sheriff, duly elected by the people,has as his one and only job to protect the individual rights of every person within the county. That is his only duty. Everything he is supposed to do is an effort to help residents protect their rights. Sheriff’s should be training residents and promoting that every citizen be armed and ready to defend themselves and their neighbors from violators of those rights. These duties do not however stop when the federal government comes knocking, in fact that is when the sheriff is needed most. If your sheriff says he cannot or will not stop federal agents from coming for your guns he is not performing his duty and should be removed, by force if necessary, and if he won’t go get out the tar a feathers and make a chicken out of him. County residents will be left with little choice indeed if their sheriff will not stand to protect them. South Carolinians should be very concerned as this opinion, statements by many sheriffs, and the strings that now tie sheriff’s hands, leave them without any protection from a tyrannical government save what they can provide for themselves.
The writing is on the wall, tyranny is coming like a storm on the horizon. The battle lines are being drawn. Your sheriff, if he is like these, is not your friend in fact is now a partner with the despotic federal government.
As the debate over gun control continues to rage it is with the sheriff that our final defense is supposed to be, the sheriff standing to say “no” and the armed citizens standing beside him but as we can now see from the Allan Wilson opinion we the people will be standing alone and the sheriff will be behind us ready to step in to protect the federal agents.
I suspect Sheriff Matthews already knew what he would do, after all he has been a federal agent his entire career. He already thinks that way ( if the fed says jump he asks “how high sir!”) and I suspect he just wanted to remind those who question the supremacy of the federal government that they will be standing alone. The irony is those who stand against tyranny will be backed by the people and those who stand down and let it happen, like Matthews, Lott, and Metts, will be left standing alone.
The NRA bargains away your rights
Most Americans believe the National Rifle Association is pro 2nd amendment but the evidence is contrary and in fact shows that they are the compromiser of choice.
The truth is, NRA supports many gun laws, including federal and state laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by certain categories of people, such as convicted violent criminals, those prohibiting sales of firearms to juveniles, and those requiring instant criminal records checks on retail firearm purchasers.
March 29, 2002
“The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871.”
—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth NRA’s American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
The war on guns began long ago and has been aided by the champion of the 2nd amendment, none other than the NRA. In 1934 the NRA was right there to ban automatic weapons and help make a distinction between “military: and “civilian” weapons.
“The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. … NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts.” —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 2
Assault weapons are not the target.
While the MSM is talking about magazines and assault rifles the real gun control measures relate to mental health and the prevention of crazies getting guns. Enter new mental health regulations. This is the golden goose for all big government globalist both republicans and democrats.
Jump on board the conspiracy train for an all out ride into the twilight zone.
Suppose republicans and democrats come together in compromise and they pass sweeping new safety measures to keep guns out of the hands of potential mentally deranged souls. And let’s just say that the new law requires that anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm must now have a mental health exam. Now just suppose, for a minute, that this guy takes a Zanax every now and then and the doctor, using government regulations, determines he is unfit to own a firearm. Now because he is unfit to purchase a firearm he is also unfit to own any firearms after all he is a potential threat right? And let’s suppose that after being diagnosed a federal judge orders that the man surrender all of his weapons. The man, distraught at this cruel treatment, holes up in his house and says he will not give up his guns. The federal agents move in and surround the house. Who does this man call? Will your sheriff stand? More than likely your sheriff will enter the situation on the side of the federal agents at least that is what Allen Wilson is saying along with the three stooges of South Carolina law enforcement, Jim Matthews, Leon Lott, and of course James Metts.
Think about PTSD and veterans mental health. Any veteran is subject to be singled out, depending on government dictate, as mentally unstable and asked to surrender his firearms. The list of possible mental health disorders are endless and will not be written into a bill, that will be left to the executive branch and its thousands of beurocrats with the help of many a think tank. We call this rule by regulation.
The NRA will again compromise, republicans and democrats will compromise, and the infringement of our right to bear arms will again take a severe blow.
The American people have been stripped of defense against tyranny.
Like a toothless dog, all bark and no bite, every layer of protection has been stripped away and the politicians know the American people are now left virtually defenseless. They no longer fear the people.
Slowly one piece at a time with the support of the NRA our second amendment right to defend against tyrannical government has been stripped away leaving little in the way of dictatorial rule by an elite oligarchy.
This will not be a door to door confiscation instead it will be one here and another there slowly over time everyone who wants a gun will be labeled with a mental health disorder.
They are coming for your guns.
What will you do?