Sheriffs Around the Country Say They Won't Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Control Laws

Largely elected, facing pressures appointed police chiefs might not

Reason 24/7 noted a sheriff in Kentucky and two in Oregon who said this week they wouldn't enforce any unconstitutional gun control measures coming from the feds. NBC News found the trend, reporting:

Police chiefs from around the country, who are appointed not elected, were on hand in Washington to support the president's announcement. But a number of sheriffs, many of whom must run for office, were vocal in their opposition…

Dudley Brown, founder of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, which considers the National Rifle Association too weak on gun rights, said he has gotten calls from other sheriffs around the country who say they won't cooperate with the feds.

"We'll see how many of them have the courage to do it," he said.

Could America use more sheriffs refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws?  2011 saw more Americans arrested for marijuana possession than all violent crimes combined.

Comments

[LTC(ret) John]

"2011 saw more Americans arrested for marijuana possession than all violent crimes combined."

Thanks for that - I thought sloopy did all the nut kicking around here? 🙁

[[e-mail]]

Add Pine County, Minnesota to that list-

http://www.duluthnewstribune.c.....id/255814/

[John]

Could America use more sheriffs refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws? 2011 saw more Americans arrested for marijuana possession than all violent crimes combined.

That is truly sickening. And it is something that I bet most people have no idea is the case. And it is worse than even that. The affect of an arrest goes beyond just that one arrest. It gives people criminal records, makes it impossible to get student loans to go to school. In the day and age of the Obamaconomy and its attendant enormously high unemployment rates, it basically makes many of these people unemployable. This is not a war on drugs. This is the war on the American people. It is taking millions of people very year and dooming them to unemployment and poverty.

[Pro Libertate]

If individuals would simply stand up and reject unconstitutional acts--whether as citizens or as government officials--things would be a whole lot better.

[Paul.]

It would be nice if the most important sector of the nation would reject unconstitutional acts: those people charged with protecting it.

[Brett L]

Let's be honest, John. Its a war on poor people. I'll bet there's a way for lawyers with rich clients to have the arrest stricken on finding of a not-guilty verdict, or even adjudication deferred nolo pleas. It just so happens that the majority of people who can't afford that kind of lawyer happen to be non-white.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

what %age of first offense mj arrests result in continue without a finding type dispositions?

of course you have no idea but you assume it's rare. it's not.

[Zeb]

I don't care. One life ruined (or even slightly inconvenienced) by a pot arrest is too many.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i agree. i am 100% against the WOD and the WAR on MJ. but making it sound worse than it is does a disservice to truth

[John]

If you really think getting busted for pot is no big deal, why don't you go out and get yourself arrested Dunphy? That is if any of your corrupt fuck buddies would bust you. It is not like you would lose your job or anything. I am sure it would be no big deal. Yup, everyone who is busted for pot is some dumb hood rat with nothing to lose.

You really are a fucking animal.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

smooches troll

[generic Brand]

Does that mean you never arrest or cite anyone for drug possession, dunphy? I'm truly curious if you choose which laws to enforce and which ones not to.

I don't see a problem with doing that, as long as they are victimless crimes (including speeding) and the non-enforcement is unilateral, meaning no exceptions made.

[Enough About Palin]

DIAF, Shit-stained pig.

[Rasilio]

Who cares the number of people who only smoke it once or twice in their lives and get arrested would be so small as to be insignificant. So presumably each one of those dismissed cases would go on with the subsequent threat of being arrested for a SECOND offense of merely possessing a plant the government doesn't like.

we won't talk about the people who never smoked it and were busted because they introduced someone to their buddy who they knew dealt thereby "facilitating a drug deal"

[tarran]

It's called 'Continuation with no finding of fact'. If the guy keeps his nose clean, some time later the judge dismisses the charges... even if the person pled "No Contest"

[Death Rock and Skull]

Isn't it standard to have to hire a lawyer and ask a judge permission to wipe a record after a period of time?

[tarran]

When my ex pled no contest to larceny, the judge told her that if she kept her nose clean for twelve months, the judge would dismiss the charges.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

par for the course for misdemeanor arrests in general.

[John]

Since it is your ex, I will ask. How did she end up pleading no contest to larceny?

[tarran]

Since it is your ex, I will ask. How did she end up pleading no contest to larceny?

She was a thief. She used to babysit the children of wealthy families in the tony western suburbs of Boston, and help herself to things she wanted.

I ended up being the one who turned her into the police. None of the jewelry was ever recovered. She made it vanish as soon as I confronted her with my suspicions about her light fingered ways.

[Death Rock and Skull]

My friend was inaccurately told the same thing, only to find out that he had to "petition the court" to remove the charges and could only do so two years after supervision ended.

[Episiarch]

What did she steal, your dignity?

[Jesus H. Christ]

You can't rape the willing.

[Zeb]

That's if you are actually convicted. If the case is just continued and later dismissed, it isn't on your record to begin with.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

except the vast majority of first offense mj arrests do NOT give people records as they routintely get probation and then continued w.o a finding type sentences. iow, they don't have to admit to a conviction.

do you have any evidence that people who have mj arrests (note that arrest includes criminal citation and does not require custodial arrest) are doomed to unemployment and poverty/

any stats?

i thought not. heck, i had 2 friends busted for pot in college. both got the typical continued w.o a finding sentence and both are doing quite well financially.

again, evidence?

[John]

Sure, if you can afford a lawyer and somehow get through probation, which is harder than people make it out to be, you might be able get it stricken from your record. That is real comforting.

And yes, a criminal record makes getting a job, already difficult in this economy, very difficult.

[Libertymike]

I have a friend who was arrested for trespass and disturbing the peace in connection with the renewal of his license to carry at the Stoughton, Mass, police station in 2000.

The lieutenant who was handling the license renewals asked why my friend inserted assertions of his rights on the renewal application. The cop ordered my friend to delete the assertions, which included things like, "If you interfere with the exercise of my constitutional rights, I will hold you liable under 42 USC 1983".

My friend, a former army captain who was a firearms instructor, refused and the cop told him to leave the police station. On his way out, my friend went to the dispatch window in order to make a complaint.

One of the cops assisting the lieutenant came to the dispatch window and promptly arrested my friend and charged him with trespassing and disturbing the peace.

Eventually, at considerable expense and delay, the charges were dismissed. He went to court on 16 separate dates before the case was finally dismissed by the third judge to hear the matter.

My friend's lawyer filed a motion to expunge all of the records pertaining to the arrest. The motion was denied.

Real. World. Evidence.

[Rick O'Shay]

I've found that if you get arrested the best thing to do is move cities immediately after getting out of jail and postpone your court date as long as possible, preferably over a year. Then if you get any sort of probation or "pre-trial diversion" they're more apt to let you mail in every month so they can keep your money rather than handing it over to another county or city. So no drug tests.

[Brett L]

You find it, if its so strong for your case. Scan an upload your marriage certificate to Morgan Fairchild at the same time.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i am not making the claim. the claim was made before me. provide evidence.

i've been a cop i n 3 states. in all 3, continued without a finding is par for the course (vast majority) for misdemeanor first time offenses, to include mj - HI, MA, and WA

[robc]

vast majority != 100%

And it only takes 1.

[General Butt Naked]

So it's the same way in
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming ?

Relevant statutes and sentencing data from the states you haven't been a cop in would really bolster your claim.

[Zeb]

Even having to show up in court is a totally unacceptable burden to place on someone for the non-crime of drug possession.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

the war on MJ is an unconscionable crime agaisnt humantiy. you get no argument from me.

but mischaracterizing it is just as bad as the just say no drug warriors mischaracterizing the dangers of drugs. truth matters.

the reality is a first time offender gets arreested for MJ possession, they are going to get probation and a continue w.o a finding. iow, don't get caught again for a year and get it wiped from your record

[Death Rock and Skull]

If someone gets paperwork for anything, there's no guarantee some asshole agency won't find the record. So fuck that shit.

[Death Rock and Skull]

If I'm ever in a position to make decisions about hiring people, I will hire qualified people and ignore records other than sick shit.

[John]

So would I. But sadly I think we are in the minority.

[Stormy Dragon]

Hmmm, I'm of mixed minds about this. In this case it's good, because they're refusing to enforce laws that I don't like. But the problem is, what happens when they start refusing laws I do like because they're politically unpopular too?

Like during the civil right era when sheriffs refused to enforce laws against lynch mobs or in cities when they refuse to enforce laws against union violence?

[EDG reppin' LBC]

Yeah. I'd rather they enforce the law justly, and equally in all circumstances. The alternative of selective enforcement creates way too many moral and ethical dilmmas.

[DaveSs]

Sounds like a situation when having a firearm would be kinda handy.

[Stormy Dragon]

Again, I agree with the goal. My issue is that if we state as a general principle that Sheriffs only have to enforce laws they feel like enforcing, that can be used to trample liberty as easy it can be used to protect it. How do we distinguish the two cases, orther than the whims of the mob?

[Clano'6]

Most are drawing the line at the difference between an executive order and a law passed by congress. Since these executive orders are under fire already as being unconstitutional, the cops are refusing to enforce the laws until they go through congress and are passed in the usual way. As far as I know, none of them are saying they will refuse to enforce the laws once they pass congress and there has been a presumably satisfactory decision on whether its unconstitutional or not.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i've made this point many times before. appointed police chiefs are almost always butt boys for city councils or mayors, since they are appointed. this is also why their policy positions are so often divergent from "real cops". they are true cop-o-crats.

sheriffs are elected, and in this respect - better. i'd rather have a head LEO be beholden to the people.

[A Serious Man]

I hate the term law enforcement officer, which emphatically illustrates unwavering loyalty to the state rather than the people they are supposed to protect.

Instead of LEO we need peace officers, guys who walk around and keep the peace and actually keep citizens safe.

[Libertymike]

William Grigg has written about this quite frequently.

[Pro Libertate]

You mean the fake Pro Libertate? Bastard.

[Libertymike]

Ah, you read him as well.

He would utterly eviscerate every single democrat in debate.

[Pro Libertate]

I'm familiar with his work.

[Libertymike]

Well, aren't you gonna give 'em an atta boy? Some praise?

[Pro Libertate]

No. Because he uses my name without permission.

[Homple]

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
~Sir Robert Peel

[Dunphy (the real one)]

i;'ve used the term peace officer before. it gets ridiculed here, but i do believe it better characterizes what we do

[EDG reppin' LBC]

... guys who walk around and keep the peace and actually keep citizens safe.

Plus, we should make them wear bowler hats/pith helmets like the cops in England. Something about a cop chasing a "perp" while dressed like Charlie Chaplin appeals to me.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

imo, and in my average shift, the role of peace officer plays out far more than law enforcement offficer. the amount of time spent in enforcement, PALES compared to the amount of time keeping the peace, resolving disputes, and acting as mediator, social worker, mental health aide (we order a lot of invol's here in the pac NW), etc.

[entropy]

I do think they should wear baby blue, not black.

[EDG reppin' LBC]

That's why I always like the Cincinnati PD uniform. Black trousers, white shirt, black tie, white cap. It looks professional, projects authority, yet you don't feel like you're being occupied by a foreign army.

[Pro Libertate]

A Fallout TV series? Excellent.

[Hugh Akston]

Well that would just end up being awful.

But at least Detroit would be useful to somebody.

[Pro Libertate]

Probably, but maybe not.

[Hugh Akston]

Look, if anyone had ever successfully translated a video game into a non-interactive medium with any success whatsoever, I would allow for a glimmer of hope.

But in the world we live in, that series will be a bigger disaster than Episiarch's mattress pad.

[Pro Libertate]

Wasn't there a game-movie that was okay? I could've sworn there was an exception to the general rule.

[Hugh Akston]

No, you're thinking of the few comic book movies that weren't terrible.

[Pro Libertate]

I just looked at a list online. I think you're right--I got nothing.

I will say that a few games stories could've been fine films. For instance, Bioware with KOTOR or the first two Mass Effect games.

[mr simple]

This is where you defend the movie Doom again, isn't it?

[Stormy Dragon]

I enjoyed the first Mortal Kombat movie.

[Hyperion]

Well, according to the emperor, that's a moot point. Big Sis Butchy is going to enforce it.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

the war on MJ is a crime against the good people of this country who choose to smoke pot. fortunatly, my state has legalized the MJ.

that aside, the reality is not as bad for MJ arrestees as some people say. mischaracterizing the WO MJ, which is bad enough IN REALITY (as it is) is wrong.

it's bad enough as it is

[Hyperion]

that aside, the reality is not as bad for MJ arrestees as some people say

Dunphy, what happens to someone, regarding their 2nd amendment rights, when they get arrested for on a misdermeanor charge, involving drugs, any drugs, including pot?

[Dunphy (the real one)]

nothing.

the primary way to get your 2nd amendment rights fucked with is to either get a DV conviction or MERELY to get a protection order against you, which requires minimal due process and you don't get a right to a lawyer or a jury.

if a judge rules against you, by the preponderance of the evidence (a civil standard), you lose your 2nd amendment rights.

i've long argued that for the average law abiding bloke, the war on DV is worse for personal liberty encroachment than the WOD.

[Hyperion]

According to what I have heard, any drug related offense, gets you the same.

The fact that a persons 2nd amendment rights can be stipped, forever, is pure bullshit, except for maybe in the case of something like murder, which gets you behind bars for a long time anyway. There should be some limitation, 5-10 yrs maybe.

[Zeb]

The DV thing really is bad. A friend of mine recently got a protective order against him, because his wife turned out to be a psycho bitch. He got it removed pretty quickly, because it was bogus, but he is still trying to figure out how to retrieve his pistol from the Hartford PD (since he doesn't have a carry permit in CT).

[Tim]

Brett's right, show me anything really popular with poor folks, and the elites want to make it illegal:

Soft drinks, tobacco, pot, ATV's, guns, wife beatin', T shirt wearin' and daughter molesting.

[Hugh Akston]

I was gonna comment on this thread, but someone dunphy'd all over it.

[Proprietist]

I wonder why more libertarians don't run for judge, sheriff, etc. and use their authority to minimize the law's impact on victimless criminals, while maximizing enforcement against illegal federal actors. I'm not calling for ignoring the laws on the books, but why not give drug, gambling, gun and prostitution arrestees 1 cent fines and 15 second probations, at the completion of which their action would be stricken from their criminal record?

[Pro Libertate]

"I'm not that tough on crime" doesn't sell well, I guess.

Yes, I know, but people seem to have trouble with any nuanced arguments about liberty.

[Proprietist]

On the contrary, you argue, "I am tough on violent crime by making it unprofitable for police to waste resources on enforcing nonviolent, victimless crimes."

[Libertymike]

Tough to sell that to the low information voters.

[Pro Libertate]

Oh, I'm all for trying. I've long advocated the LP focusing on state and local elections.

[T o n y]

Mandatory minimums, brought to you by the letter R.

[Libertymike]

Why did so many democrats urge and then vote for mandatory minimums?

[Hugh Akston]

Don't you read the nooz? Democrats can't accomplish any part of their agenda because the mean ol' rethuglicans won't let them.

[Proprietist]

Amazing how you continually play the one-sided partisan card in the face of mountains of evidence. All you partisan hacks are the same.

[General Butt Naked]

Like the congressional black caucus, tony?

[Paul.]

That's from 400 years of conditioning.

[OldMexican]

Re: Proprietist,

I wonder why more libertarians don't run for judge, sheriff, etc.

I am a libertarian and because of that fact, I would not ever run for judge, sheriff or any other sort of tax-fed petty tyrant.

[Proprietist]

From our conversations, I doubt you are a miniarchist, but I think judges and police would be perfectly legitimate in a libertarian society. I don't think it's a good idea to entrust individual rights enforcement to the mafia and the lynch mob. And I don't see how private companies and individual would have any ability to enforce their own private laws against non-contractual parties.

And even if you think they are illegitimate because you are an anarchist, I'm not sure how it is remotely libertarian or principled to let statists and authoritarians monopolize the existing government framework and the enforcement of existing laws.

[Proprietist]

Anarchists fall on their own ideological sword here: if there is no government or law, and private parties can selectively enforce private laws against non-contractual private parties, then individual rights are subjective, thus amorphous and meaningless, and will only be defended on the basis that the enforced-against party can defend or hire someone to defend themselves from the enforcement.

If individual rights are amorphous and meaningless and will be selectively enforced, how can one possibly attack government actions and theft on the basis of violating individual rights? After all, one could fight the government agents stealing your money and property and you would lose, because the enforcement power of the government will likely exceed any effort you can muster or pay to defend yourself. How exactly is that different from an anarchy with a super-enforcement private company that abuses and extorts non-customers and weaker competitors in an anarchy?

[OldMexican]

Re: Proprietist,

if there is no government or law, and private parties can selectively enforce private laws against non-contractual private parties, then individual rights are subjective,

First of all, it is not government who determines what is a right. Thinking otherwise is fallacious, as it would mean that Man only exists because of the State, not because of Man's interest in self-preservation (from which invention, trade and rights derive.)

Second, private parties that do not consistently respect the rights of others find themselves quickly without partners with which to trade.

The preoccupation with marauders and malcontents doesn't have to be addressed by proposing an ever stronger group of marauders and malcontents who would call themselves "government." As history has shown, the State has failed many times in protecting its own citizens from these groups it purported to fight - the Soviet Union lost 20 million people during WWII, most during the first year of the war. The case can be argued that the existence of the Soviet State really made NO difference for the 20 million except that its non-existence would have saved that population from years of pain and suffering due to it, so just because they were invaded does not mean they would have been made any worse off, at least, if there had been NO Soviet State.

[Proprietist]

First of all, it is not government who determines what is a right.

Unfortunately, natural rights exist beyond law, but only matter to the degree that they are enforced and not violated, whether by state or private party. In my opinion, the difference between a state and a superpowerful private violator/extortionist company is completely meaningless. You can organize and fight aggressions/theft by either to self-enforce one's natural rights, but you will probably lose because you lack the resources to fight back.

private parties that do not consistently respect the rights of others find themselves quickly without partners with which to trade.

Private parties that can attack competitors and non-customers with impunity and redistribute their property to their customers on the basis of "might makes right" will find plenty of customers. The company with the most might and brutality will also get the most customers out of sheer fear.

[OldMexican]

Re: Proprietist,

[...]I think judges and police would be perfectly legitimate in a libertarian society.

I do, too, provided they're hired and paid by the interested parties instead of voted in by "voters."

I don't think it's a good idea to entrust individual rights enforcement to the mafia and the lynch mob.

Neither do I, which is why I am against the State and democracy - you know, the legalized mafia and lynch mob.

And I don't see how private companies and individual would have any ability to enforce their own private laws against non-contractual parties.

Easy:

If you steal, I shoot.
If you trespass, I shoot.
If you cheat me, I will make darn sure that I and anybody else does not do business with you, ever. You will starve.

Technically, you can get by through cheating, but the returns for the risk rapidly diminish as more people become wiser, or the risk of having your ass kicked rapidly increases for the diminishing returns. Either way, people learn NOT to cheat pretty quickly - which is why most people are preoccupied with their reputation.

Instead, if one entrusts reason and common sense to bureaucrats, cheaters actually flourish, which is why you have the Fed and mindless fools that bankroll governments. If you protect people from foolishness, you populate the world with fools(*) - Herbert Spencer.

(*)Which explains Tony.

[Proprietist]

And what will you do when Brutality Company send a whole army of thugs to seize your property and murder you because you aren't a paying customer? How would that be any different than what we have today? How will competition possibly exist when there is no legal framework protecting that competitions' rights from violation by Brutality Company?

The only legitimate purpose of a state is to prevent non-contractual private party violations of natural rights.

[OldMexican]

Re: Proprietist,

And what will you do when Brutality Company send a whole army of thugs to seize your property and murder you because you aren't a paying customer?

I will probably die fighting or surrender; or I may band together with others and fight them. I certainly have a chance.

What will you do when National Brutality Bureau sends a whole army of thugs to to seize your property and murder you because you're aren't a paying customer?

And trust me on this: The State is just one step from becoming just an army of thugs the moment it runs out of money to extort or borrow or print. And it WILL happen.

The only legitimate purpose of a state is to prevent non-contractual private party violations of natural rights.

The State is already and by definition a violator of natural rights. You want the fox to be the keeper of the henhouse.

[Proprietist]

You want the fox to be the keeper of the henhouse.

If we assume "hens" = non-violent, law abiding citizens who will never peck other hens to death:

Statism = foxes and wolves "guarding" and raiding the henhouse at will

Anarchy = there is no henhouse, so the hens are fair game to any foxes, raccoons, ferrets and other animals they can't defend themselves from in the wild

Miniarchism = trained guard dogs patrolling the perimeters of a farm from outside predators with minimal access to the hens themselves.

[Stormy Dragon]

If you steal, I shoot.

You come home and discover your door's been kicked open and your TV is gone. Who do you shoot? And can you just unilaterally pick someone to murder because your intuition tells your they're the one? If not, what's the procedure for determining when the evidence for holding a particular person responsible is sufficient?

[OldMexican]

Re: Proprietist,

Whenever a person argues the case for government or the State, almost invariably resorts to an exceptionally dire scenario of chaos and fear to show that the alternative will always be worse than the current situation. However, those fear tactics do not work with me because I know that I live my life almost every day without the presence of government. I watch TV without having a TV bureaucrat dictating my preferences; I eat my food without a food bureaucrat watching; I make myriads of decisions everyday without relying on the government's approval. I can say that, in the best of cases, government is nothing else but a small nuisance, like having one of those nosy neighbors. For some people, instead, the State can be deadly. But that does not mean that, if the State disappeared tomorrow, life around us would stop. It wouldn't. People would still go to work, be productive, trade, eat, sleep and kiss their kids goodnight.

I know, there WILL be a lot of people whose lives are wrapped around government decisions, but that is what my two friends - Smith, and Wesson - are for. I can't save those folks, but I can certainly defend my life and property against them, or at least take a few with me...

[Proprietist]

I watch TV without having a TV bureaucrat dictating my preferences; I eat my food without a food bureaucrat watching; I make myriads of decisions everyday without relying on the government's approval.

That has absolutely nothing to do with a miniarchist case for government. No true miniarchist wants government to interfere with victimless or contractual activities you engage in.

Our point is that you shouldn't be able to murder, hold hostage and rape your neighbors and steal, damage or extort their property with impunity just because your gang/army is stronger and can afford bigger guns and more gangsters/soldiers than your neighbor's gang/army. It really doesn't matter at all whether you are doing this via private companies, a mafia, a dictatorship or a democracy.

[Proprietist]

And I'm not talking about any "exceptionally dire scenario" to make my point. I'm talking the reality of crime or everyday conflicts of rights without any contractual or legal basis for consistent enforcement. Your Smith and Wesson might defend you and your family from one thug at your door, but it won't defend you from a private army or mafia any more than it will from an army or SWAT team. Before you say that you will have your own police force or army for hire to defend you, what exactly is stopping you from doing that today? If you say "the law" or "the government", you are proving my point that you'd have the same problem in an anarchy with dominant and anti-competitive private "enforcers" with big guns.

[whiskeydave]

Ugh. This is not news; it's pure political posturing. Sheriffs are *never* going to be asked to enforce federal law. Under any circumstances. See *Printz v. United States*.