Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – If your sheriff will interpose on your behalf on behalf of the Second Amendment, why won’t your sheriff interpose on behalf of the rest of the amendments? If you sheriffs out there — there’s probably some of you listening right now. You listen to me, if you’re doing this because it’s good politics, I understand. If you’re doing it out of devotion to principle, my question to you is: What about the other seven amendments that make up the first part of what is known today as the Bill of Rights? Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: From Florida to California comes the story here, “Number Of Nation’s Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws Snowballs.”
From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation’s sheriffs are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment. [Mike: This actually is an infringement on Amendment 2 when the feds do it, it absolutely is, which is why I said Ms. Feinstein ought to be embarrassed out of office. Of course, that won’t happen but that’s what should happen.]
In New Mexico, 30 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs have reminded state lawmakers that they are under oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment. [Mike: Let me ask you people a question. Who would win a shooting war, BATF agents, DEA agents, or your local yocal Andy Griffith and Barney Fife? Just curious.] CNSNews.com previously reported that 28 of the 29 sheriffs in Utah sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will not enforce any new gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional. [Mike: Good, they shouldn’t.]
A host of Oregon sheriffs have said that they will not comply. Sheriff Craig Zanni wrote, “I have and will continue to uphold my Oath of Office including supporting the Second Amendment.” In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Grant County Sheriff, Glenn Palmer writes: “I will not tolerate nor will I permit any federal incursion within the exterior boundaries of Grant County, Oregon, where any type of gun control legislation aimed at disarming law-abiding citizens is the goal or objective.”
In California, Sheriff Adam Christianson of Stanislaus County wrote to the vice president: “I refuse to take firearms from law abiding citizens and will not turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by enforcing useless gun control legislation.” In Missouri, Lawrence County Sheriff Brad Delay tells the president: “I will…rise to the defense and aid of all Americans should the federal government attempt to enact any legislation, or executive order that impedes, erodes, or otherwise diminishes their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”
Mike: Again, the Constitution says that the Feds will not infringe on that right. It doesn’t say that your state may not infringe. I hope these sheriffs have all read their state constitutions and are firmly grounded in state law, because that is the wellspring of their authority. I repeat, the state constitution is the wellspring of their authority. If their state Constitution has an RTKBA provision in it, they’re on solid ground.
Smith County, Texas Sheriff, Larry Smith has said, “I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen in Smith County. It just won’t happen.” In Florida, Martin County Sheriff, Bill Snyder said that he will not enforce federal gun laws: “Local law enforcement authorities are not empowered to enforce Federal law,” Snyder said.
Mike: Then there’s a list of more sheriffs. I don’t know of any sheriffs in Louisiana but there better be some. Let me cut to another part of this. What are these sheriffs basically doing? Class, what are the sheriffs doing? They are basically stating that they are equal copartners in the compact known as the Constitution. Finally, we are finally back at ratification. For the first time in my adult life — maybe for just a little while under the REAL ID act, but that was not nearly as heinous as this. For the first time in my adult life, we are now back at ratified intent. We are now back at sharing power with the general government. Ladies and gentlemen, that is a landmark occasion. Those of you convinced that the end is near and there can be no federal system or federalism is at an end, no.
Just imagine Obama, the blessing in disguise. Thanks to Obama, sheriffs and citizens across the land are demanding — who started the idea of sheriff interposition? Who started it? This goes back to the mid-1990s when Sheriff Wayne Mack started suing the Clinton administration against the original Brady Bill saying: I’m not going to enforce it. This goes all the way back. Sheriff Mack is, again, to be applauded in this. His constitutional understanding sat dormant. It was he and just a few other sheriffs that ventured into that unchartered territory, which should have been well charted. Now, 20 years later, here we stand. Again, for the first time in my adult life, we have an actual action and an actual understanding, actual statements of intent from law protectors or lawgivers in the several states claiming equal authority to enforce what it is the U.S. Constitution says.
That is a mighty development. I don’t know if you people realize that. Those of you just glad-handing one another, [mocking] “Yeah, our sheriff’s gonna get out there. You come in here and try and do it, Obama. You wait and see what my sheriff does to you, boy.” For the eight of you that live in Northern states that feel the same way, [mocking] “Yeah, you try to come up here in Pennsylvania. You just wait and see what we do up here in coal miner country.” The fact and the action are the same regardless of what state they’re taking place in. Again, finally, you actually have a grasping of what needs to be done to stop all the madness.
Think of it like this: if your sheriff will interpose on your behalf on behalf of the Second Amendment, why won’t your sheriff interpose on behalf of the rest of the amendments? If you sheriffs out there — there’s probably some of you listening right now. You listen to me, if you’re doing this because it’s good politics, I understand. If you’re doing it out of devotion to principle, my question to you is: What about the other seven amendments that make up the first part of what is known today as the Bill of Rights? There are eight amendments, then the last two clarify and set into stone the principle that this is not an exhaustive list of rights the people have retained, and have not granted any authority to their new government to control, regulate, rain terror, tyranny and madness down upon their heads. That’s what Amendments Nine and Ten say: If we left anything out, don’t worry about it. We’re reserving everything.
If you sheriffs are going to enforce this against the Obama administration claiming you have equal authority to interpret and be the judge of the extent of the power that the federal government may exercise over you, what about the other seven amendments? Why doesn’t a sheriff stand up and say, when a federal judge issues a ruling saying — this will come up in May and June of this year — that your sons and daughters may not have a prayer at their public school commencement ceremony, why doesn’t your sheriff stand up and say: Like Hades we can’t. You come in here and try to enforce it.
Why doesn’t your sheriff enforce the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment when they know that there are federal agents swarmed across the countryside poking, prodding, snooping, spying, sneaking into their citizens’ business? They’re violating Amendment Four, and in many instances Amendment Five. What about the Feds that come in and try to come in and claim they have some kind of carte blanche authority over property? That’s a taking. That’s prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. Where’s your sheriff then? All I’m saying is I’m as happy as I can possibly be about this development here, but alas, I fear it is just for selfish, political interests. If it’s not, then mister and misses sheriffs, there are seven other amendments that need and require and demand your obeisance, demand that your oath compel you to protect your citizens from the federal government. What do you have to say about that?
End Mike Church Show Transcript