Posted: 2/8/2013 11:52:09 AM EDT
|
It was brought up by a speaker at the 2A rally that SC Attorney General Alan Wilson said that sheriffs in SC do not have authority to prevent federal officials from confiscating firearms from the people of South Carolina.
Who does this guy work for? Apparently not us. |
|
That's fine if he wants to start pissing people off. People will remind him of his stance on things come election time in a couple years. And no matter what he thinks, I'm pretty sure that when the sheriffs and their depts. ban together it won't matter what he says. I'm so tired of hearing about SC reps that are even contemplating supporting any of the stupid legislation being proposed right now. SC is a state of tradition, respect, and strong SOUTHERN heritage. I, for one, will not accept any form of tyranny from any government whether state or federal. Writing emails obviously does not get the point across when all you get in return is a generic response. We, as the citizens of this great state need to ban together to show that we will not and shall not give up any rights and freedoms afforded to us by the Constitution and God. Any thoughts/ideas?
Also: I don't mean to rant, because I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir. But I'm just tired of my rights being threatened so much as of late. |
| Why is this big news? The federal government has authority over the state and local governments. The feds have at times sent army troops to enforce federal law and court decisions. |
|
Quoted:
Alan's also the peach of a guy who kept Jason Dickey in jail after the State Supreme Court overturned the case against Jason. I would not trust Mr Wilson as far as I could throw Jake Knotts. Hope you work out...jake knotts has more weight than BossHog has cigars, and those were unlimited. |
|
Quoted:
who is the federal government going to use to enforce this law? ATF, DEA, FBI, SLED?.....lol Anybody willing to do it for a paycheck. There's plenty of anti's that would take the job for the thought of a government paycheck and benefits. In reality, they wont need to confiscate them; they just keep brainwashing and fear-mongering the youth and their offspring into turning them in after we are long gone. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
who is the federal government going to use to enforce this law? ATF, DEA, FBI, SLED?.....lol Anybody willing to do it for a paycheck. There's plenty of anti's that would take the job for the thought of a government paycheck and benefits. In reality, they wont need to confiscate them; they just keep brainwashing and fear-mongering the youth and their offspring into turning them in after we are long gone. Thats what Homeland is for...didn't you get the memo on all the bullet purchases? 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
who is the federal government going to use to enforce this law? ATF, DEA, FBI, SLED?.....lol Anybody willing to do it for a paycheck. There's plenty of anti's that would take the job for the thought of a government paycheck and benefits. In reality, they wont need to confiscate them; they just keep brainwashing and fear-mongering the youth and their offspring into turning them in after we are long gone. Thats what Homeland is for...didn't you get the memo on all the bullet purchases?
GD is a couple tabs over....your "anybody willing to do it for a paycheck" is tinfoiled, this is south carolina its a 90% pro-2A law enforcement state....your going to need 100's of agents or officers and, ill teach my kids and anyone i can what they need to know, but after i'm gone....it doesn't matter, it will be up to them and if they screw up, then they deal with it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
who is the federal government going to use to enforce this law? ATF, DEA, FBI, SLED?.....lol Anybody willing to do it for a paycheck. There's plenty of anti's that would take the job for the thought of a government paycheck and benefits. In reality, they wont need to confiscate them; they just keep brainwashing and fear-mongering the youth and their offspring into turning them in after we are long gone. Thats what Homeland is for...didn't you get the memo on all the bullet purchases?
GD is a couple tabs over....your "anybody willing to do it for a paycheck" is tinfoiled, this is south carolina its a 90% pro-2A law enforcement state....your going to need 100's of agents or officers and, ill teach my kids and anyone i can what they need to know, but after i'm gone....it doesn't matter, it will be up to them and if they screw up, then they deal with it. I was referring to the question of who would they find to do it - they will hire anybody willing to take the pay, benefits, and illusion of job security. I don't think it is tinfoiled to believe that people will take a paycheck to do what amounts to just a job to them. Now, would it work? Effectively, no. Some will fight back. But many others will reluctantly turn them in; feeling that their guns arent worth losing their livelyhoods or lives over. I can completely understand and agree with you teaching your kids - that is admirable, but i cant share your apathy about what happens after we are gone. America the beautiful is far more important than what happens to her while we are here. It's the long con they are going for; not necessarily the sudden knock in the middle of the night that may be met with gunfire. |
|
The academy in south carolina won't take just people of the street unless they are already hired by a department. The federal government A: can't just hire joe blow with no arrest powers or jurisdiction, B: doesn't have the money to hire 100's of agents....there are ways these things work
forced confiscation won't happen in our lifetime...not in the south, they might change the law, might make them illegal, but there is no way to physically enforce it....... drugs are illegal.....no one is going around door to door trying to find the drugs and money |
|
Quoted: Why is this big news? The federal government has authority over the state and local governments. The feds have at times sent army troops to enforce federal law and court decisions. No, they don't. The states created the Federal government, at the behest of the People. People created each state (original 13); and those States created the Federal government (Consitution).
<dl> <dd>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. </dd> </dl>
<dl> <dd>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. </dd> </dl> If the States can prohibit powers to the United States, how can the United States have authority over the States? In these sophisticated and nuanced modern, Progressive Communist times, where the Progressives Communists have decreed that the States are merely administrative appendages of the almighty, benevolent and omnipotent Federal Government, who rules all through its great wisdom and overwhelming, crushing regulations, what we are told is and what actually is are two different things. "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491. " An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton Vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442 |