Thursday, February 14, 2013

Sheriffs Prepare to Abandon Citizens to Federal Gun Grab

image source
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In the wake of the highly questionable surge in school shootings and the long-awaited gun grabbing effort being promoted by the President, lawmakers, and the mainstream media, hundreds of American sheriffs have now gone on the record to state publicly that they will not enforce any new gun laws such as the ones being proposed in the halls of the U.S. Congress.

While the fact that such grassroots political pressure exists in an amount that would warrant such statement by sheriffs all across the country, the fact also remains that many of these public officials are merely cashing in on an exploitable situation to score political approval from their constituents – political approval for a stance they never intend to honor. This much is apparent to anyone who is even a casual observer of political discourse or the development of the overarching agenda inside the United States and elsewhere in the world.

My case in point is Kershaw County Sheriff Jim Matthews.

Sheriff Matthews has been the subject of my articles several times in the past; once after he declared an activist to be a “domestic extremist” after the individual had merely “liked” an article on Facebook and then again after Matthews developed a program of round-the-clock checkpoints in Kershaw County, South Carolina.

Matthews’ conversion of Kershaw County into a virtual police state, as well as his continued attack on all things free, should thus have raised the suspicions as to the sincerity of many of the sheriffs who had attached their names to the “Will Not Enforce” list regarding the latest attempts at eliminating the Second Amendment.


Yet, considering the positions and statements made by so many other sheriffs, Matthews own position was much more tepid when it came to actually defending Constitutional rights, a task which is clearly not the strong suit of his department and administration.

Indeed, Matthews’ position was that he was not “going to take your guns,” is an eerily similar claim which was also made by Barack Obama.



Matthews stated, "I’m not going to get rid of mine. I don’t have a problem with assault weapon owners who follow the law. My problem is with thugs who should be in jail who get their hands on guns.”

Of course, at issue is the fact that if new gun laws are passed banning assault weapons, assault weapons owners will no longer be following the law. This is why Matthews and other sheriffs were asked the question as to whether or not they would enforce such laws to begin with.

Matthews went on to ask South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson for his opinion on the coming Federal gun grab. Essentially, Matthews requested AG Wilson to explain to him his responsibility as Sheriff when faced with an unconstitutional law.

Still, Matthews stated that he does not believe sheriffs can stop federal agents from enforcing these laws in his jurisdiction.

“A lot of sheriffs want to be able to fall back on what the AG says on what we lawfully have to do or don’t have to do,” Matthews said.

That opinion has finally arrived. Unfortunately, it confirms the weakness of state governments as well as the complete disregard for Constitutional, civil, and human rights at the federal, state, and local levels.

According to Attorney General Wilson, if federal law enforcement officers attempt to enforce unconstitutional gun laws or even confiscate existing weapons, then neither state law nor state law enforcement officials can stand in the way. Going further, Wilson suggests that, if state or local law enforcement officials do attempt to impede federal assaults on the rights of South Carolinians, these state law enforcement officials would themselves be subject to criminal prosecution.

Yet Wilson’s opinion goes even further than stating that state and local law enforcement are unable to actually protect the rights of their citizens from federal assaults, it claims that federal agents are granted a type of immunity from state prosecution even if they are clearly violating Constitutional rights.

The opinion states that “federal agents are immune from state prosecution even when their conduct violated internal agency regulations or exceeded their express authority.”

This is quite a concerning statement to say the least. As the Kershaw County Patriots (KCP) wrote in the article, “SC Attorney General: Come Get The Guns!
This means that an agent could come to your home, break into your home, ransack the place, seize anything, all without a warrant and he would be immune from state prosecution or even interference with his ransacking.
KCP continues by writing,
Instead of protecting citizens sheriffs, with the AG’s blessing, will stand down and let it happen. Matthews has been quoted saying 'I’m not going to take your guns' but he did not tell the people he will instead stand by and watch as federal agents seize weapons. In fact if a citizen was to refuse to give up his weapons to federal agents the sheriff would be forced to protect that federal agent from any action impeding the enforcement of federal law.
Yet, where Wilson’s opinion truly falls apart is his statement “…that the Department (Kershaw County Sheriff’s dept.) should neither interfere with nor otherwise attempt to impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform their lawful duties to enforce federal laws, and who act necessary and proper within federal authority.”

Simply reading this statement out of context would not ordinarily provide any reason for concern. Indeed, no department should interfere or attempt to impede federal law enforcement simply attempting to perform their lawful duties. However, this is precisely the issue.

Are unconstitutional gun laws “lawful duties?” Are gun confiscation programs “lawful duties?”
KCP asks the same questions. The organization writes,
Again, would some sort, any sort, of gun confiscation at a state or federal level be 'lawful'? Think about it like this, if the federal government passed a law requiring every American to sign over their property would federal agents coming to remove you from your home be a part of their 'lawful duties' and would that be 'necessary and proper'?
Even when discussing the repercussions of interfering with federal law enforcement agents who are carrying out unconstitutional laws, Wilson, citing the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, states,
…under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, neither state law nor state law officials may interfere with or otherwise impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform their lawful duties. We further advise that conduct intending to impede the discharge of the lawful duties of federal law enforcement officials may expose such persons to criminal liability.
Indeed, while Wilson and sheriffs like Jim Matthews have interpreted, heard, and repeated exactly what they wanted to hear, the operative phrase in this statement is “lawful duties.” What is so concerning here, is that elected officials who are supposed to be well versed in the law and who are tasked with evaluating and enforcing that law for the benefit and protection of the citizens of South Carolina can interpret the passage and enforcement of laws eviscerating the Second Amendment, even to the point of gun confiscation, as a “lawful duty” of federal agents. Thus, one must ask themselves if these agents of the State are truly as interested in upholding the law as they may pretend to be.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, no one who was even vaguely familiar with Sheriff Jim Matthews was truly fooled into believing that he ever intended to stand up for the rights of Kershaw County residents.

Indeed, Sheriff Matthews and the overwhelming majority (most likely all) American sheriffs are enforcing unconstitutional gun laws on a daily basis. While the cries of the need to “enforce the gun laws we already have” may seem reasonable, the fact is that these gun laws are themselves unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, while many of these sheriffs may very well have the best interest of their citizens at heart, and may very well mean what they say in regards to their refusal to enforce any new federal gun laws, the reality is that they have no problem enforcing similarly unconstitutional gun laws today or even caging an entirely peaceful person for years simply because that person is in possession of a harmless plant.

As KCP state in their article,
The sheriff, duly elected by the people, has as his one and only job to protect the individual rights of every person within the county. That is his only duty. Everything he is supposed to do is an effort to help residents protect their rights. Sheriffs should be training residents and promoting that every citizen be armed and ready to defend themselves and their neighbors from violators of those rights. These duties do not however stop when the federal government comes knocking, in fact that is when the sheriff is needed most. If your sheriff says he cannot or will not stop federal agents from coming for your guns he is not performing his duty and should be removed, by force if necessary, and if he won’t, go get out the tar and feathers and make a chicken out of him. County residents will be left with little choice indeed if their sheriff will not stand to protect them. South Carolinians should be very concerned as this opinion, statements by many sheriffs, and the strings that now tie sheriffs hands, leave them without any protection from a tyrannical government save what they can provide for themselves.

The writing is on the wall, tyranny is coming like a storm on the horizon. The battle lines are being drawn. Your sheriff, if he is like these, is not your friend -- in fact, is now a partner with the despotic federal government.

We must always support law enforcement when they choose to make the right decision. We must express our support for any sheriff that truly intends to stand up to the federal or state governments in the event that they attempt to use their own agents for the purpose of violating our rights.

However, let us not fool ourselves into believing we are witnessing a law enforcement revolution of freedom. Make no mistake about it, we are alone in this fight.

Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over 190 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com. 


BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.

33 comments:

marlenemotley said...

The CWP is part two of this scam, it is gun registration. Someone has to keep a record to prove authenticity, in this case most likely SLED, and with the fusion centers they are more likely than not sharing the info. Why there is such a big push for CWP's now. And the sheep just capitulate.

Anonymous said...

One Word: ANTICHRIST

Anonymous said...

We all seen what just happened with Dorner.

You resist and they burn your house down

judge, jury, executioner

One neat little package.

Paraclete said...

At least those who've obtained the Concealed Carry Permit, C.C.P., have a fighting chance.
It would be a dis-advantage, when the two legged black uniformed moose show up, if one had to retrieve their Liberty Teeth. It doesn't really matter about being on a list, for we're ALL on a list, or two, or more. So look at the C.C.P. as a free move.
BTW this article was posted at: www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com
Check out the comments there.

Palmetto Volunteers - S.C.C.M.

Anonymous said...

The AG and sheriff just placed the feds above the rule of law and Constitution. It is the individual's right and duty to protect himself and family from tyranny. Don't count on the govt at any level. Keep your powder dry and close.

Hide Behind said...

The Sherrifs stood by at Ruby Ridge and ket his jod.
The Sherrif stood by at Waco Texas.
And where were the citizens and the tough talking malitiamen, at. Home watching them die on their tvOH they are great at beatong and rounding up unarmed mexican immigrants and cheering for more wars.
Red necked sherrifs know how to please and what to say to their vonstituents in the open; While behind closed doors and prying eyes and ears the call you civilians.
They love the newest hi tech weaponry and confiscation laws of drug wars. They order machinery of war to protect their own asses when it comes down to it.They love yhe kicking down pf doors especially those of the poor but come and knock respectfully at homes with lots of pull and money.
They will beg and plead for the need of armored cars and luxury suv's such as armred hum vees.
They always say they are outgunned and need an armory suffecient to take on the military off over 120 countrys.
Given the rights of judge jury and executioner they do it freely all because they are swat and the only people they have to please is their bosses not the publics scrutiny.
They love all the new incongrurncys of the laws put in place for security because they may wear blue or black but it is in the grey they like to play because they can always find excuses for their civil abuses.
INthis land of the not so free we civilians are just like them with the only difference being we civilians are not so deadly.

Anonymous said...

I repeat, regardless of what is written, the law is the perception of the highest authority at a legal event!

More legal events regarding the original event may ensue until the original perception is finally upheld or invalidated. The originally stated principle of perception applies at each subsequent event.

Anonymous said...

they are NOT 'assault weapons', and your labeling them as such only ratifies the mind set of the public negative terminology promulgated by MSM. Also, this is not a 'long awaited' gun grab. I would say it is 'long dreaded' gun grab. Please be careful on your word choices Brandon. Good points in the article. How in the world does that clown keep getting reelected?

Anonymous said...

The Feds will find easy pickings in a Rockefeller enclave known as the BIG Island of Hawai'i. Already most of the highest ranking police there are in the hard drugs business. No bull.

The possibility exists that this corrupt government subsidized trade was the forerunner of future fascism with the top criminal drug providers being top dog. Social dominance and ignorance are big on the Big Island to go with the rampant hard drug use, welfare paid teen pregnancy, and the numerous schools flunking evaluations as a mater of policy. If the kids cannot maintain their family's legacy of land ownership, the Rothschild carpetbaggers will be more than happy to expropriate it.

Anonymous said...

the A.G. of south Cartolina is an utter moron if he made a statement like that, all it takes is the legisalture to enact a law that any fed who enters the state will be jailed as a felon for any confiscation scheme, wake up sheriff and forget about your A.G. he has already comitted treason if the dope made a statement such as this. and you sheriff, if you dont come to the aid of you citizens, your ass will be out of a job and the citizens will hire someone who will protect the people. He sheriff did you ever hear of ddeputizing deputies to protct the people from the feds. deputize 5,000 deputies if you have to.

Co-opted Confederate said...

SO we have a no nuts sheriff in South Carolina that canot determine Constitutionality (probably can't spell it either) and is afraid the socialists in his county won't vote for him again unless he wets his pants at Obamafrauds bidding. Boycott Kershaw County South carolina and every retailer in it. Neither your ass nor your money should ever go where your gun is not welcome also

Anonymous said...

Agree with Paraclete and Anonymous - - and others above - the Constitution MUST stand and be defended - if not, all US citizens will become nothing more than "Human Resource", little better than cans of corned beef.
Get Sheriffs to put in writing their intentions regarding this issue and if not, sack them and get someone else.

Anonymous said...

More gun stupidity; no one is proposing grabbing guns, except those that are illegally possessed.

This old lie about the confiscation of guns is propaganda myth number one of the gun lobby.

The 1994 Ban on Assault weapons did not confiscate any guns, and the current proposals are exactly the same.

So for Christ's sake stop lying!
Dale (who personally wishes the government would ban all weapons including its own)

Anonymous said...

they are NOT 'assault weapons', and your labeling them as such only ratifies the mind set of the public negative terminology promulgated by MSM. Also, this is not a 'long awaited' gun grab. I would say it is 'long dreaded' gun grab.

Great idea, argue semantics while banksters bleed us dry and shred the Constitution.

Are you going to expound on the etymology of the word shackle to your jailer, as he locks one around your neck?

Anonymous said...

A gun is not freedom; it is a crutch for weak minds.
Dale

Anonymous said...

bs, Dale, say that to the next creep who may break in sometime to your humble assed abode wanting to steal from you and rape your wife.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what sheriffs and police who agree to disarm or try to disarm the public will get for it.Do you thnk the oath keepers,if there is such a thing,will help the people or obey to keep their jobs?What will be the perks of such a job after the people have been disarmed?If disagreeing with the government makes you a criminal,how will you be treated if you allow it?Do you think you will matter to the morally relative dogs who go along with the treason?Is the world really a place worth living in if the stupiity wins?Do you have children?Why?Is food, sex and shopping what life is all about?Is obediance the new religion?Lol,I told you,your weakness is your faith in your friends,so prove me wrong.Personally,I think the so-called powers that be have made the world useless to any future human progress.The planet is governed by an animal that thinks its a god,lol the end will be bright.

Hide Behind said...

To the liars who say no guns were confiscated
If one can no longer purchase a gun that is indeed confiscation.
It "CONFISCATES" ALL FUTURE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE TO OWN THEM!
Damntired of playing this gutless game of ones who stand and lie using words to play games with other peoples freedoms.
They hide behind words to get around behind free people,remind me of bitch dog curs that like to slink down until you pass then run up behind to bite you.
A MAn cannot purchase or show what was once legal but now illegal that is confiscation.
A man that never broke one of you weasels laws you want to demean and break himdown to below your lower than whale sh..level? That is confiscation of his dignity besides his weapon.
This is not an argument on wether you can screw whatever sex you want for in denying that choice you destroy ones identity and confiscate their freedom of choice.
If you as in Cali owned a 50 cal you are now owner of a weapon that has made an honest man sink low as he now owns. 501 just to play your lowly games.
A company, Olympic arms, in Olympia Washington has stopped selling their AR style weaponry to any official agency or member of in NY state.
ALL due to the little lies of thsr who at hart wnt confiscation.
I will remainsomewhat polite and tell you to your face, get out of the face of honest men and women and go crawl back under the covers of hat ever childrens book your reading from.

Anonymous said...

I would like to post that the sheriff of Harris County here in Texas is not on board with protecting the citizens rights - We have written him letters with no response and his name is no where to be found on the Sheriffs list that are going to protect the gun rights of the people.
Sheriff Adrian Garcia is not on board with protecting our gun rights or upholding the oath police officers take to uphold the constitution.

tao59nyc said...

The answer for Sheriffs who truly want to protect the constitutional rights of the people in their jurisdiction is simple:

Deputize every gun owner in the jurisdiction. Everyone is now an "official" and not a "civilian"...hence the feds cannot do a "legitimate" gun grab. Maybe we should organize a "Ten million deputies" movement...?

wishbone. said...

shhhhhh,! hush, did you hear that, listen carefully, shhhhhhh, yes, its the sound of JACKBOOTS marching down your streets, look, its being lead by "adolf o'bama". america, you are in deep shit.!

Gary orGibby said...

Do NOT count on your local officers (sheriff included) to protect you, your family and your rights. We're on our own - just as it should be.

Som Yonguy said...

I don’t appreciate how the article says “Sheriffs” (plural) and the opening statements make broad generalizations about all Sheriffs who have come forward to say they won’t allow Feds to confiscate guns, but then just goes on a rant about 1 Sheriff that doesn’t know what side he’s on or is a deliberate liar.
This is sensationalism in the mass media that I condemn and I will condemn it here, too. Let’s not talk about “Sheriffs” when all you mean is 1 Sheriff, mm’kay? Otherwise you sound like you need to go write for CNN…
But you are right to shed light on this Sheriff Matthews’ shenanigans.

Anonymous said...

While it is wrong to generalize, the point is well taken. If you want to keep your guns you'd be smart not to rely on politicians, even local ones like sheriffs. It's on us and on those of our friends, neighbors and family whom we trust. I believe all the comments from sheriffs has more to do with not wanting to be shot by their neighbors, than with any new-found regard for the Constitution.

Adam Evenson said...

I seriously doubt that very many sheriffs, if any, will actually back the people on the gun grab issue. If there cam be a large enough plurality among sheriffs, maybe, but still probably not, as police are police. I think what will have to happen is that chaos will reign for a while, government systems will have to be so overloaded that law and order is non-exisent, and then, on its own, something new will form as people get behind whichever idea is prevalent.

The present total collapse that is coming will require a lot of suffering and soul searching before real solutions begin showing themselves and people can broadly get behind something meaningful. Right now, nobody is really in control of anything and the U.S. is about to be thrust back to the days of the wild, wild west where the law of the gun is paramount. It will take a lot of years to climb back to government control as absolute as it is right now.

Anonymous said...

Sheriffs are just cops in a different colored uniform. Underneath, they're still pigs.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Dale is talking out of his arse. California and NY both confiscated guns that were on the statewide "AW" bans, and moreover, if a gun owner dies, or is convicted of certain midemeanors OR FELONIES, the local PD or sheriff will come by and confiscate all of those registered weapons. If you are a domestic violence suspect, or if you have been involuntarily committed for 72 hrs in a psych facility, your guns will be TAKEN! And those SWAT raids involve the search and removal of firearms, whether or not they raid the wrong address. It happened in Cali...

Anonymous said...



"[...] Wilson, citing the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, states,

…under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, neither state law nor state law officials may interfere with or otherwise impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform their lawful duties. We further advise that conduct intending to impede the discharge of the lawful duties of federal law enforcement officials may expose such persons to criminal liability [...]."

The man is an imbecile. No section of the Constitution is capable of contradicting any other section of the Constitution. Therefore, owing to the abundantly clear wording of the Constitution (Art. I, Section 8, et passim) and of the Second Amendment, the introductory adverbial clause of which ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State")refers DIRECTLY to Art. I, Section 8, disarming "the militia of the several states" (which is the entire male population between 15 and 50, according to the statutes of the colonies of British America to which Article I Section 8 AND the Second Amendment refer DIRECTLY), is CLEARLY contrary to the Constitution, which alone is the supreme law of the land.

Therefore, it is simply not possible--under the Supremacy Clause or anything else--to disarm anybody. Period. Doing so would constitute both malfeasance and misfeasance on the part of anybody and everybody who attempted to disarm "the [Constitutional] militia" or who actually disarmed anybody.

And since the relationship between any government and the people who CONSENT to submit themselves to that government's lawful authority is a reciprocal one, then either misfeasance or malfeasance or nonfeasance of a Constituional duty on the part of a government completely absolves the people of loyalty to that government and of the duty to obey its laws because any such abrogation of the reciprocal relationwhip between such a government and the people under its authority automatically renders said government non-existant and renders it, instead of a legitimate government, a mere criminal conspiracy.

Again: No part of the Constitution is capable of violating of contradicting any other part. Besides, "the militia of the several states" pre-exists the Contitution and the federal government and the state governments, and the ONLY arm of government (at any level) that the Constitution describes as "necessary" is "the militia of the several states" (in the Second Amendment).

Period.

http://edwinvieira.com/edwin16.htm

http://edwinvieira.com/edwin254.htm

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_13/183-6690815-8768633?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the%20sword%20and%20sovereignty

Anonymous said...

Folks would really let something like a piece of paper (CWP) stand in their way of protecting their rights? Really? The Sheriff has the power to deputize and form a militia. Do you really think he's going to give a rat's ass about a damn CWP? Man up people!!!

Anonymous said...

Hell, you had me with your first paragraph. Why would I want to read further. . it's hard to trust anybody these days.

resist tyranny said...

Sending runaway slaves back to the plantation was the lawful duty at one time.

Bob Powell said...

Brandon, your Sheriff is a pussy. You can tell him I said it too!

Tomás Estrada-Palma said...

A prosecutor and his wife were found shot dead and there was that Colorado warden murdered too. I wonder if there may be a counter attack by some Americans against those whom they believe are traitors to the Constitution? Are people like your sheriff making themselves targets of Constitutionalists who mean business? Time will tell I suppose if these were random acts of violence or retributions met out by an emerging patriot underground. Personally I hope for a non violent way to stop the scoundrels in government. Nobody has to die if everybody wises up.

Post a Comment