Proposed new laws would fire sheriffs for defying gun control measures...

[PocketProtector]

So, they violate their oaths on Constitutionality, but want to fire the sheriffs for upholding theirs....wow

http://washingtonexaminer.com/law-wo...rticle/2525518

Supporters of the 380 sheriffs in 15 states who so far have vowed to defy new state and federal gun control laws claim that legislation is starting to pop up around the nation to fire any state elected or appointed law enforcement official who doesn't obey federal orders.

The first effort emerged in Texas. Legislation proposed by Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws.

What's more, it would remove any elected or appointed law enforcement officer for simply stating or signing any document stating that they will not obey federal orders.

A gun lobbyist told Secrets, "Beware because once something like this is introduced in one state, it will be followed very quickly in several other states."

[brianinpa]

Yeah I was thinking that this could get interesting.

[Jhaydeno]

They should be careful what they wish for, it's a double edged sword. Off hand I can think of one top federal official who has not enforced gun walking laws, gun prosecution laws, or ethnic intimidation laws, and the results have been disastrous. If we could only use this law to get rid of Eric Holder!!

[ShooterInPA1]

Lines are being drawn......

Everyone will need to choose which side they stand on.

[jerkin]

Didn't one of our members file a complaint against a sheriff with the Attorney General a year or two ago and was told they had no authority over them because it is an elected position?

[scruff]

Funny, Arizona tried to enforce Federal immigration law and was taken to the woodshed. Under these proposed laws, I guess they would have to arrest David Gregory for the D.C. on-air magazine stunt?

Selective enforcement is OK with them, except for selective enforcement in support of the Constitution.

[dunno]

Interesting that it stops here . . .

What's more, it would remove any elected or appointed law enforcement officer

Why not phrase it to include any elected or appointed public official or politician for not doing their job.

[GunLawyer001]

I'm pretty sure that they can't just summarily fire an "elected" official, they have to be formally impeached.

This does cut several ways. If you take a job, you should be willing to perform the job duties. So firing an appointed employee is legitimate.

On the other hand, the state and federal constitutions trump the legislators of the moment. And if the defined job duties violate the applicable constitutions, then performing those duties isn't excused by the Nuremberg Defense, that "I was just following orders". Any official who turns his troops into Brown Shirts is just begging for the people to treat them like Brown Shirts.

The remedy would be for an alert and educated electorate to remove the legislators who created the dilemma. And as soon as we get that kind of electorate, this problem will go away.

[jerkin]

The remedy would be for an alert and educated electorate to remove the legislators who created the dilemma. And as soon as we get that kind of electorate, this problem will go away.

We would have a better chance of replacing our legislators after the current ones were killed in a stampede of unicorns running through D.C.

[Mitch10mm]

Lines are being drawn......

Everyone will need to choose which side they stand on.

Could very well be where the ultimatum comes to a head