6 or 7 Pennsylvania sheriffs on anti-gun ban list

[kmrcstintn]

out of the 269 sheriffs and sheriff associations listed on anti-gun ban list there are 6 or 7 from Pennsylvania...OUTSTANDING!!!


http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights...m_medium=email

[JenniferG]

Carolyn "Bunny" Welch, Chester County Sheriff included on list of the Constitution supporting Sheriffs. I knew that!

[bigborehnd]

Glad to see Eric Weaknecht on the list also.

[pyld]

This is an interesting way for Sheriffs in most places to pander for re-election and nothing more.

As a practical rather than symbolic matter, there is very little a PA Sheriff can do that impacts the enforcement of federal gun laws--today or in the future.

Don't get me wrong--I'm all for these guys making their views known, but that's essentially it. It's basically a campaign slogan and little else.

[rbrooks]

This is an interesting way for Sheriffs in most places to pander for re-election and nothing more.

As a practical rather than symbolic matter, there is very little a PA Sheriff can do that impacts the enforcement of federal gun laws--today or in the future.

Don't get me wrong--I'm all for these guys making their views known, but that's essentially it. It's basically a campaign slogan and little else.

Actually there's quite a bit they can do. A little interference from your county and local guys goes a long way towards keeping the feds away.

[MT1]

It looks like the Cumberland County Sheriff is listed twice under two different spellings of his first name.

[Swarner793]

This is an interesting way for Sheriffs in most places to pander for re-election and nothing more.

As a practical rather than symbolic matter, there is very little a PA Sheriff can do that impacts the enforcement of federal gun laws--today or in the future.

Umm, do you own anything regulated by the NATIONAL Firearms Act? If you do, then you should understand the importance of a Sheriff. Ask someone who has an anti-gun Sheriff what steps they had to take to circumvent the requirement of getting the Sheriff's signature to own an NFA item. Feinstein wants ALL semi-automatic items to be regulated by the NFA. Having their pro-gun position on record certainly could influence the Federal politicians. To say they have no real impact is incorrect.

Be safe (and much more than symbolic).

Scott

[pyld]

Umm, do you own anything regulated by the NATIONAL Firearms Act? If you do, then you should understand the importance of a Sheriff. Ask someone who has an anti-gun Sheriff what steps they had to take to circumvent the requirement of getting the Sheriff's signature to own an NFA item. Feinstein wants ALL semi-automatic items to be regulated by the NFA. Having their pro-gun position on record certainly could influence the Federal politicians. To say they have no real impact is incorrect.

Be safe (and much more than symbolic).

Scott

So, your supposition is that to fight the evil Obama, Sheriffs will stop signing for NFA items. Do I have that right? Because I don't think that's going to have the effect you think it is.

And if it does, I'll have my local CLEO sign (like I've done in the past) and not even bother with the Sheriff.

Actually there's quite a bit they can do. A little interference from your county and local guys goes a long way towards keeping the feds away.

Actually, there is nothing they can do. In major areas, the feds have their own lockups. In small towns, they can kiss any federal monies goodbye for refusing to provide the services, notably jail, that they might opt to hold back.

I repeat--it's largely symbolic. But think it matters if you feel better that way. I prefer measures that actually mean something. YMMV.

[PreserveandProtect]

There are a number of options that have some basis and some are gaining traction.

http://www.criminalgovernment.com/do...oots_feds.html

Knoxville Journal, pA1 and A6
August 7-13, 1997
SHERIFF BOOTS FEDS FROM HIS COUNTY
by Phil Hamby
Sheriff Dave Mattis of Big Horn County, Wyoming, said this week that as a result of Case #96-CV099-J, U.S. District Court, District of Wyoming, he now has a written policy that forbids federal officials from entering his county and exercising authority over county residents unless he is notified first of their intentions.

After explaining their mission, Mattis said he grants them permission to proceed if he is convinced they are operating within the legal parameters and authority limitations set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

The sheriff grants permission on a case-by-case basis only. When asked what, if any, repercussions he had gotten from the Feds, he quickly and confidently replied, "None whatsoever." He explained by saying, "They know they do not have jurisdiction in my county unless I grant it to them."

Mattis clarified his position by saying the federal court had ruled then state of Wyoming is a sovereign state and the state constitution plainly states that a county sheriff is the top law enforcement official in the county.

Additionally, Sheriff Mattis contends that the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clearly defines the geographic territories where the federal government has jurisdiction. Amendment X, he said, states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Therefore, Mattis thoroughly believes the Feds have very limited powers in any state unless the local high-sheriff allows them to exercise power beyond that which the Constitution provides.

"Put another way," Mattis said, "if the sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county, he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave."

Accompanied with other legal interpretations Mattis stands on the definition of the world "sovereign," which is defined by Webster's as "paramount, supreme. Having supreme rank or power. Independent: a sovereign State."

Mattis said he grew weary of the Feds coming into his county and running rough-shod over county residents: i.e., illegally searching, seizing property, confiscating bank accounts, restricting the free use of private lands and other abuses, without a valid warrant and without first following due process of law as guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.

As long as Mattis remains sheriff he says he will continue to see to it that the citizens of his county get their day in court.

Mattis went on to say that, to his knowledge, even the IRS has not attempted to seize any citizen's real property, bank account or any other private-owned possessions since he ran the Feds out of his county.

Sheriff Mattis emphasized that he is not a radical man. He said he is only dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of the citizens of his county.

He added that ordinary citizens are not the only ones bound by and expected to obey laws. Elected officials and government employees at all levels of government are also bound by and should be expected to obey certain laws.

As long as Sheriff Mattis is the high-sheriff of Big Horn County, he seems determined to make sure private citizens and government officials alike act within the law and their designated powers.

Sheriff Mattis came across as a soft-spoken, polite man whose only interest is protecting the citizens he was elected to serve. That being the case, he might be the sheriff for as long as he wants to be.

Sheriff Mattis is hopeful that other sheriffs will assume the same stance.

c. 1997 The Knoxville Journal
--------------------------------------------------

http://www.pasheriffs.org/news/sheri...police-powers/

Sheriff's office looks for police powers
The county sheriff's office does not have the power to arrest people unless they see the crime committed. That is something sheriff Carl Gotwald Sr. would like to see changed.

By Matthew Steffy
Jefferson County Neighbors

BROOKVILLE — Jefferson County Sheriff Carl Gotwald Sr. does not understand some of the restrictions placed on his office, and he addressed the issue Thursday.

"They have us kind of in limbo right now," he said. "If somebody is in court and starts beating the judge in the head, we hear the alarm and we go upstairs. The judge is laying there in a pool of blood and the other man is standing there.

"We wouldn't be able to do anything because we have to visually see the crime committed. At that point, our only option would be to call the borough police."

Situations similar to the courtroom analogy do occur at the jail, Gotwald said, but the state police are called rather than the sheriff's office because the sheriff's office does not have police powers.

Gotwald is asking the Jefferson County Commissioners to change that. He noted that the office did have the powers of police from 1804 until three years ago.

"When somebody calls in and says there's a crime being committed, I think the deputy on duty should be able to make an arrest," Gotwald said.

Furthermore, Gotwald said all deputies received training nearly identical to borough and state police, and many Jefferson County Sheriff's deputies have served on police forces.

"We have 16 certified deputies," he said. "Half or more are retired state police officers. Three are municipal officers who work here during the day. They can't make an arrest from 8:30 (a.m.) to 4:30 (p.m.), then they can go and put a different uniform on and make arrests all night long."

The county commissioners weighed in on the subject Thursday, and said it was something to be considered.

"I'm not saying I'm for or against it," commissioner Jeffrey Pisarcik said. "That would cost the county so much money that taxes would go up. Yes, all municipalities and townships would have law enforcement, but the cost of the sheriff's office policing every inch of this county would be astronomical."

Last year, townships were concerned because the state legislature had proposed a bill that would require townships and municipalities to pay a higher property tax to help fund the state police. The justification for the bill was that those areas were using the state police as its primary enforcement entity.

That bill has "been dropped for now," Pisarcik said. He noted, however, that "after elections that could change and be brought up again. We all know how elections can change things."

Allowing the sheriff's office police powers may eliminate the need to directly assist with funding for the state police, but property taxes may still have to be increased in that event.

"Even then, somebody is going to have to pay for it," commission Chairman Paul Corbin said. "It would be a county wide rise in property taxes, and we are just not in favor of that."

"It's not a bad idea," Pisarcik said. "But, that service comes at a cost. Can you afford that cost and do you want to."

Commissioner James McIntyre said granting police powers would also cause much higher insurance cost, saying, "Included in that is a tremendous increase in liability."

Gotwald does not necessary see a correlation between police powers and increased costs.

"We had the powers for a hundred years and the cost of this office didn't go up," he said, saying that was adjusted for inflation. "Those costs haven't gone down because police powers have been taken away."

According to Gotwald, establishing police powers does not mean the office will be expanded, because the county commissioner would still control the office's budget.

"You can't expand without money, and they control that," he said. "So, really, to cost the counties more money isn't true."

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Shoul...924.S.56776711


(Too long to post here, lots of comments and explanations)


http://www.pasheriffs.org/about-us/sheriff-history/


snippet:

The Sheriff is empowered to appoint deputies, and the deputies have the same powers as the Sheriff when performing their duties. the Sheriff is also invested with the power of the "posse comitatus" (the power or force of the county), which is the power to call upon "the entire population of the county above the age of fifteen, which the Sheriff may summon to his assistance in certain cases, to aid him in keeping the peace, and in pursuing and arresting felons."

http://www.sheriffbrigadesofpenn.com...ement-officer/


snippet:

We are constantly told (particularly by attorneys and judges) that the District Attorney is the “Chief Law Enforcement Officer” in the County. But this statement is simply not true.
The District Attorney (DA) is the chief prosecutor in the County. Though elected, the DA: must be an attorney; holds the “Office of attorney at law” (Title 42, Section 2521); is an officer of the courts and reports to the State Supreme Court. (Article V, Section 10 ( c ) of the “1968 Pennsylvania Constitution”); cannot arrest anyone; etc. The District Attorney is clearly a member of the Judicial Branch of government. If there is any “separation of powers” today, the DA could not possibly be part of the Executive Branch of a constitutional republic.
The Sheriff is the lawful Chief Executive Officer and highest Peace Officer of the entire County in which he or she was elected. Unlike the State Police and Municipal Police, the Sheriff reports directly to the Citizens of the County. In today’s terms, the Sheriff is the “Chief Law Enforcement Officer” (CELO) of the County. The duties, responsibilities and authorities of the County Sheriff (a constitutional officer) are, at a minimum, the same as they were when the State Constitution was originally written. The duties, responsibilities and/or authorities of the Sheriff cannot be diminished by those in the legislature or the courts of the State or of the County. Only the Citizens of this Commonwealth, by a constitutional amendment (that is lawfully done) can diminish the duties, responsibilities and/or authorities of the County Sheriff. These facts, and many more, were true and recognized in Pennsylvania long before it became a State on September 28, 1776 and lawfully remain true today.
In support of the statements presented herein above, consider the following relevant excerpts from: A Treatise on the Law of Sheriffs, Coroners and Constables with Forms, written by Walter H. Anderson, LL.B., LL, D., in 1941
Volume I, Chapter II,
Section 42. Powers and Duties of Sheriff Implied from Name and Nature of His Office. – A sheriff is an officer of great antiquity, dignity, trust and authority. He was chief officer to the King within his county; no suit began, no process was served, but by the sheriff. He was to return indifferent juries for the trial of men’s lives, liberties, lands, goods, etc. At the end of suits he was and still is required to make execution which is the life and fruit of the law. So it is seen that original process moved and was directed to the sheriff, subsequent proceedings were circulated in him and were at last finished and completed by him. And if execution be the life of the law, as it is alleged to be, it seems (as one says) to be seated in the sheriff as in the heart which is primum vivens and ultimum moriens. The sheriff is also the principle conservator of the peace within the county which is the life of the commonwealth.* The powers and duties of the sheriff as implied from the name and nature of his office are still the same today as they were at common law, except, insofar as it has been modified by constitutional and statutory provisions.* He is still an officer of the court and subject to its orders and directions.* The sheriff is still made responsible as conservator of the peace and protector of society against vice and crime.*
Section 43. Rights of the Sheriff as Constitutional Officer. – Where the sheriff is named in the Constitution his duties are the same as they were at the time the Constitution was adopted.* Where the office of sheriff is named as a constitutional officer the people intended that those officers should exercise the powers and perform the duties then recognized as appertaining to the respective offices which they were to hold. This thought is well expressed in an early Wisconsin case. (State ex, rel. Kennedy v. Brunst, 26 Wis. 412, 7 Am. Rep. 84) “Now it is quite true that the constitution nowhere defines what powers, rights and duties shall attach or belong to the office of sheriff. But there can be no doubt that the framers of the Constitution had reference to the office with those generally recognized legal duties and functions belonging to it in this country, and in the territory, when the Constitution was adopted.”* While the legislature may impose additional duties upon the sheriff, where he is recognized as a constitutional officer, it cannot restrict or reduce his powers as allowed by the Constitution, or as they were recognized when the Constitution was adopted.*

As Sheriff Jonathan Held stated in his Townhall Meeting this past Wed eve...'I have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and of Pennsylvania and to protect the people of this state. I will uphold my oath.' (from memory, not a word-for-word quote)

[FromMyColdDeadHands]

Important to remember that many of these Sheriffs take federal drug task force money. Its one thing to take a verbal stand, a literal one is quite different.

Lets see whose standing where when the going gets tough.