Anti-Self Defense: The County Sheriffs as Rogue Agents of the Gun Owners


Anti-Self Defense: The County Sheriffs as Rogue Agents of the Gun Owners

Editor, The American Revolt:

The New York Times lays out the Progressive talking points and arguments for the campaign to get rid of your County Sheriff. Your Sheriff is your local law enforcement officer standing between you and the final implementation of the Federal Police State. The County Sheriff is the only Government Law Enforcement Agent directly under the control of and accountable to the local community, you. Support your local Constitutional sheriff. If you don’t have one, get one. Without a Sheriff leading your posse/militia you will be classified as terrorists, outside of the rule of law. Make your connections and liaisons now and have a plan to defend your community. It is no coincidence that this article is published on this anniversary. It is all for the children and you know how much you hate children if you are a sheriff not imposing enforcement of Un Constitutional Anti-Self Defense Laws.–Gunny Barton, Ret.

Excerpts with Commentary:

(Editor TAR: The progressive set up, We really need to take all the magazines and guns. The current laws don’t go far enough.)

NYT …..he holds up two 30-round magazines. One, he says, he had before July 1, when the law banning the possession, sale or transfer of the large-capacity magazines went into effect. The other, he “maybe” obtained afterward. He shuffles the magazines, which look identical, and then challenges the audience to tell the difference.

“How is a deputy or an officer supposed to know which is which?” he asks.

(Editor TAR: The progressive definition of the real problem, Gun Owners backed by Sheriffs.)

NYT    The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado is playing out in other states, raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown will have a muted effect in parts of the American heartland, where gun ownership is common and grass-roots opposition to tighter restrictions is high.

(Editor TAR: The progressive lie and spin, Anti-Self Defense Laws protect children if we enforce them.)

NYT   Countering the elected sheriffs are some police chiefs, especially in urban areas, and state officials who say that the laws are not only enforceable but that they are already having an effect. Most gun stores have stopped selling the high-capacity magazines for personal use, although one sheriff acknowledged that some stores continued to sell them illegally. Some people who are selling or otherwise transferring guns privately are seeking background checks.

Eric Brown, a spokesman for Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado, said, “Particularly on background checks, the numbers show the law is working.” The Colorado Bureau of Investigation has run 3,445 checks on private sales since the law went into effect, he said, and has denied gun sales to 70 people.

(Editor TAR: The progressive position, Sheriffs have too much power.)

NYT   “We’re not in the position of telling sheriffs and chiefs what to do or not to do,” said Lance Clem, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Safety. “We have people calling us all the time, thinking they’ve got an issue with their sheriff, and we tell them we don’t have the authority to intervene.”

Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws around the country are in the minority, though no statistics exist. In Colorado, though, sheriffs like Joe Pelle of Boulder County, who support the laws and have more liberal constituencies that back them, are outnumbered.

(Editor TAR: The progressive position, Sheriffs are rogue agents without Constitutional controls on their power.)

NYT   “The Supreme Court does not run my office,” Mr. Mack said in an interview. “Just because they allow something doesn’t mean that a good constitutional sheriff is going to do it.” He said that 250 sheriffs from around the country attended the association’s recent convention.

(Editor TAR: The progressive position, the States can’t handle this problem)

NYT    Matthew J. Parlow, a law professor at Marquette University, said that some states, including New York, had laws that allowed the governor in some circumstances to investigate and remove public officials who engaged in egregious misconduct — laws that in theory might allow the removal of sheriffs who failed to enforce state statutes.

But, he said, many governors could be reluctant to use such powers. And in most cases, any penalty for a sheriff who chose not to enforce state law would have to come from voters.

(Editor TAR: The progressive position, See! We have to get rid of these sheriffs who are controlled by the people and unaccountable to Governors, Congress, the Courts, and the King…I mean the President with his Decrees.)

NYT    “In my oath it says I’ll uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado,” he said, as he posed for campaign photos in his office — he is running for the State Senate in 2014. “It doesn’t say I have to uphold every law passed by the Legislature.”

Sources:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-laws-on-gun-control.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131216

Semper Fi,
The American Revolt
Publisher and Editor
Daniel David Barton, Sr.

Gunnery Sergeant of Marines, Retired

Movement to contact 1968

Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of the way.

A Plea To America’s Government and Citizens


Mr. President, Congress and the Courts. You need to revisit and consider and make sure you understand several concepts.

1. “With consent of the governed” means that we must give our consent to your shenanigans for them to have the full force of Law under the Constitution and the guiding self-government principles of the Unanimous Declaration. We are not bound by decrees, legislation and opinions, unless we consent of our own free will and agency. We can exercise that consent by voice or simple compliance.

2. Congress is our elected voice to give consent. Congress is our inside play nice voice. When that voice becomes corrupted with political faction agendas and seeks to force them upon the entire citizenry, well, then it is no longer the voice of the majority and the minority. It then becomes the voice of factions and agendas that have seized power through manipulations of legislative rules and the selection/election process.

3. Our voice has become corrupted by factions and the minority is no longer heard. The voices of the minority are drowned out by those factions in power. We are duty bound by our governing principles to withdraw our consent to be governed by such tyranny over the minority.

4. Granted, this situation has been going on since before the ink was dry on the Declaration, much less the Constitution. However, it is time for real change. A change in the way we view our responsibilities as citizens and as servants of the people. The role of public servants is to secure the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and respect for those rights. It is not the role of government to secure individuals and make them happy. It is the role of the citizen to respect the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all other citizens. It all comes down to respect for all and not just the majority in power at a particular time. It comes down to respect for all the citizens which will garner respect for the public servant.

5. The change can start with you or with us. It will be much smoother and less disruptive if it starts with you. We do not wish to have to use our outside angry voice, but we will. We will defend. We will not comply with oppressive insanity any longer, no matter which faction has seized power.

GySgt. D D Barton, Ret.

Governing Principles

A Christmas Declaration


I hereby declare Christmas Season in the land. Maintain good cheer, courteous greetings and joyous spirits about the square. Let the boundaries and ways be decked with decorations and all children be well-behaved in anticipation, at least until the morning after. The Christmas tree is lit.–Gunny Barton, Ret.Christmas-Tree-Lights-1