Clearly we do not need an actual health reform bill to see that our “leaders” in Washington have no qualms about passing legislation that is both unconstitutional and unpopular with the citizens of the U.S. Anyone can see that they are going to pass something on this issue whether we like it or not.
It seems only a matter of time before the anti-gun forces convince enough “leaders” to pass laws that will eventually lead to the confiscation of your guns, just like they are well on their way to taking your private property rights and freedom of speech.
When this happens, they will have to either convince the county sheriffs in this country to help them disarm the citizens, or at the very least get his (or her) permission to operate in his jurisdiction to confiscate your guns. This will be done in much the same way that the Fedsnormally get their way: they will mandate a condition (you without your firearms), then they will force either the States or the local governments (counties in this case) to enforce the law for them.
The stick is always the same: If you don’t do what we tell you, we won’t keep sending you “Federal funds.”
The hypothetical solution is obvious, then. We should stop sending the “funds” (income taxes) off to become “Federalized.” Then the Feds have to come back and either convince the sheriff to enforce their income tax laws, or get his permission to operate in his jurisdiction to forcefully take your money.
The beauty of this is the fact that the sheriff probably took an oath to protect and serve the citizens of his County (not the Feds), and probably an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. If he then does keep these oaths it presentshim with a dilemma. Does he knuckle under to the Feds? They don’t pay his salary. They can’t legally operate in his county without his acquiescence, so if our sheriff doesn’t accept the constitutionality of Federal law (be it income taxes - arguably unconstitutional, or gun confiscation laws - clearly unconstitutional), he can keep the Feds completely off our backs simply by upholding his oath. Not only that, in helping to re-establish some semblance of States Rights, he would then certainly be one of the most patriotic folks around.
So, maybe for the next election cycle, the question to ask our candidates is whether they are going to devote themselves to protecting the status quo, or living up to their oaths of office.
How about it sheriff, who are you going to serve and protect?
BOB BARTON
Kingston
Opinion, Pages 5 on 11/19/2009
Comments
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Please read our comment policy.
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Registration is required to make comments. Click here to LOGIN.
You can register for FREE to post comments and receive alerts.