Obama Demands Sheriffs Enforce Gun Bans

Comments Off on Obama Demands Sheriffs Enforce Gun Bans

It appears we’re in deep trouble folks. Obama has NO authority over your local Sheriff. None!

sheriff joe arpaio 300x222 Obama Demands Sheriffs Enforce Gun Bans

“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” Though Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision in the landmark case Marbury vs Madison has led to two centuries of power-abusing mischief on the part of our federal government, he did have the premise correct—a law which is unconstitutional is not a law at all. What he did not add, but might have I suspect, is that such a “law” need not be followed and should not be enforced, especially not by those who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend that Constitution.

For months the American people have been threatened with legislation promoting gun confiscation, “assault weapons” bans and schemes which would lead quite inevitably to the national registration of firearms and their owners. New York and Colorado have already enacted such legislation, all in typical leftist, knee-jerk response to the Newtown killings.

Each new piece of gun control legislation proposed by the left, whether at the state or national level, has one thing in common—an utter disregard for the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. But while our would-be masters have been scheming to disarm the American people, sheriffs across the nation have proudly made it clear that “…they will not enforce federal or state gun laws they consider unconstitutional.” (2)

In fact, 28 of 29 Utah sheriffs wrote directly to Barack Obama announcing their position on federal gun control legislation:

”We, like you swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.” (3)

To which they added:

“Make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights-in particular Amendment II-has given them.” (3)

Of course, our Muslim Monarch has different ideas. “I think as a general proposition we think that people ought to follow the law,” (that is, whatever WE proclaim the law to be) commented White House Press Secretary Jay Carney when told that nearly 500 sheriffs nationwide have sworn to uphold the Constitution and NOT the gun control agenda of Barack Obama. Yet according to the Regime, local officials should simply do what the federal government tells them to do and not worry about how legal or constitutional it might be.

Obama has already informed states which have refused to implement ObamaCare that the federal government would be taking over all health insurance operations and decisions within their borders. Does anyone imagine the most corrupt and thuggish administration in the nation’s history would do any less upon the passage of federal gun control legislation? (4)

The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot force states to “enforce or enact federal law.” (5) Naturally the Obama Regime will ignore these inconvenient rulings as it demands local officials do what they are told while threatening any who resist.

Strange, isn’t it, that this administration sued Arizona for its desire to enforce federal immigration law, yet now demands that states enforce the provisions of the affordable Care Act and will no doubt do the same should decidedly unconstitutional, federal gun control legislation become the law of the land!

Western Journalism


UN Gun Grab on Pace for March Signing of UN Small Arms Treaty


Folks the UN is behind all the gun control, national registry and gun confiscation stuff here in America. Obama is just taking orders from them. Folks a Treaty CAN NOT override the 2nd amendment. Do not forget: The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties.  It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution...Treaties: WHEN are they part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?  by Publius Huldah, a retired Constitutional Lawyer in Middle Tn. , a friend of mine I might add, whose article you can find all over the web.

UN Gun Grab on Pace for March In just two months the globalists of the UN will gather in New York City to put the final touches on plans to impose strict regulations worldwide on the right of the individual to buy, sell, trade, or own guns and ammunition.

On March 18, 2013 in New York City the next round of negotiations is scheduled to begin, with one aim in mind: eradicate private gun ownership.

On Christmas Eve, 2012, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution to renew negotiations on the global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

The measure was approved by a vote of 133-0, with 17 countries abstaining.

As reported by Reuters, the foreign ministers of Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, Kenya, and the United Kingdom — the countries that drafted the resolution — released a joint statement praising the passage of the resolution to move ahead on the global gun ban.

“This was a clear sign that the vast majority of U.N. member states support a strong, balanced and effective treaty, which would set the highest possible common global standards for the international transfer of conventional arms,” the foreign ministers said in their statement.

As The New American has reported, when the treaty was being deliberated in July, the United States was the only obstacle preventing the global arms control regulations from being imposed on the world.

Miraculously, however, all the points of the agreement Secretary of State Hillary Clinton found so distasteful in the summer were made so much more palatable after President Obama’s reelection, and every single attack on the right to bear arms remains in the version of the treaty approved on November 7.

Within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama placed a late night call to the U.S. United Nations delegation ordering them to vote in favor of a passage of L.11.

A story in The Hill reports, however, that “The U.S. mission to the U.N. denied that the timing of the election had anything to do with the treaty’s talks being delayed.”

Regardless of the questionable timing of the Obama administration’s green light to the globalists’ gun grab, the U.S. government was now placing its full weight behind convening a “Final United Nations Conference” for the proposal of a treaty imposing worldwide gun control regulations.

In July, 51 senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton encouraging them “not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.”

The failure to pass an acceptable version of the treaty in July is in the president’s rearview mirror, however, as Reuters reports that “adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty” could be imminent.

Reuters quotes Brian Wood of Amnesty International:

After today’s resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we’re only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights.

The definition of an “abuse” of “human rights” will be left up to a coterie of internationalist bureaucrats who will be neither accountable to nor elected by citizens of the United States.

With good reason, then, gun rights advocates oppose approval of this treaty.

After all, it does seem more than a little incongruous that a nation that places such a high value on gun ownership that it enshrined it in its Bill of Rights participates in an organization that opposes gun ownership so staunchly that it has an Office for Disarmament Affairs. An office, by the way, that the U.S. Deputy Director, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Steven Costner, proudly announced would be moving from Geneva to New York City.

Lest anyone believe the U.S. delegation official’s promise to Reuters that “we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,” consider the fact that a report issued after the conclusion of the last Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference in July listed the goal of the agreement to be UN control of the “manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.”

That is a very comprehensive attack on “all aspects” of gun trade and ownership. Notably, the phrase “in all aspects” occurs 38 times in the draft of the ATT. The United Nations will control the purchase of guns and ammo, the possession of guns and ammo, and any guns and ammo not willingly surrendered to the UN will be tracked, seized, and destroyed.

A question that must be considered is what the UN will consider “adequate laws.” Will the globalists at the UN consider the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms without infringement to be a sufficient control on gun ownership?

A more urgent and pertinent question is whether in the United States any laws will be passed at all.

As was witnessed on Wednesday, President Obama is prepared to accelerate the disarmament himself, if he can’t convince Congress to go along.

A story in Politico demonstrates President Obama’s infamous “We Can’t Wait” mantra in action.

Continue reading