I’m busy today passing out flyers for Missouri’s annual Gun Rights Rally. The rally is scheduled for Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 @ 10am on the steps of the Missouri Capitol in Jeff City.
Last year’s rally was flooded out. Let’s make up for that this year.
There were two acts of rebellion this week. One occurred in Washington…state, that is. The other occurred in Boston—241 years ago. That second act of rebellion is known as the Boston Tea Party.
The Boston Tea Party, December 16, 1773.
If you look at root causes, you’ll notice that both events were/are driven by the same motivation—rebellion against a corrupt and tyrannical state. In Boston, the root cause of the Tea Party was an act of economic warfare by the British East India company with the compliance of the British government against the growing competition of the American colonies, especially the ship owners of New England.
In Washington state, the rebellion is more wide-spread. It is the conservative gun-owners and law enforcement officials against the liberals in control of the Seattle/Tacoma area. The conservatives own the statehouse, less the Governor. Seattle/Tacoma has the larger population and controls the Governor. Bloomberg paid for the passage of Initiative 594 that imposed unrealistic regulations on the ownership and transfer of firearms.
The anniversary of the Boston Tea Party slipped by with little attention, if any, from the mainstream media. Their attention was focused on Washington state and the public rejection of I-594 by gun owners and law enforcement across the state.
The MSM was watching, but not reporting—unless the Seattle liberal machine tried to enforce their new law at a rally and it blew up in their face. But, the libs backed down and no confrontation, other than in local headlines, took place. Even less attention by the MSM was given to a press release by the Sheriff and Prosecutor of Lewis County, WA. They declared they would not enforce the new I-594 law.
‘I Will Not Comply’ rally draws gun-rights supporters to Olympia
Protesters rallied at the state Capitol in Olympia to denounce an expanded initiative on gun-purchase background checks that voters widely approved last month.
Originally published December 13, 2014 at 7:00 PM | Page modified December 15, 2014 at 7:10 AM
By Joseph O’Sullivan, Seattle Times Olympia bureau
Alan Berner / The Seattle Times. Above, Sam Wilson, carrying a rifle on his back, waits on the Capitol grounds to address the crowd.
OLYMPIA — Following a tradition going back to at least the Whiskey Rebellion of the early 1790s, demonstrators gathered here Saturday afternoon at the Capitol to protest the tyranny of what they consider unlawful American government.
But instead of decrying a tax on distilled liquor such as Pennsylvanians did just years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, demonstrators here at the “I Will Not Comply” rally denounced a law expanding gun-purchase background checks that was approved last month by Washington voters.
Initiative 594, which voters passed by a 19-point margin, expands background checks to people buying firearms in private sales or exchanging them in a transfer.
…
Speaking to the crowd, rally organizer Gavin Seim blamed events like the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut on people trying to regulate firearms.
“The people that are trying to take our guns are the ones that are causing events where children and families and people are lost,” said Seim, who ran unsuccessfully this year for U.S. Congress.
Washington State Patrol put the crowd at about 1,000 people; Seim estimated 1,500.
You can read the entire artlcle here at the Seattle Times.
The Washington state liberals and Bloomberg used the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School as justification. This week, some of the families of the Sandy Hook victims filed suit against Bushmaster and others claiming the AR-15 is a military weapon and unsuitable for civilian use, therefore the sale of such a weapon should be banned.
I won’t post a portion of that article, it is just too stupid. You can follow the link and read it yourself. All I’ll say that New England, suffering under liberal oppression, is the only area such a suit has a chance of winning. Manufacturers cannot be held responsible for the use of their products. If that were so, no brewery would now exist in the United States, nor would alcohol be allowed to be imported.
The act of rebellion in Washington state was largely ignored outside of Seattle. The Connecticut lawsuit, however, could have wide-spread impact if the families win. Of course it would be too much to expect for them to sue the real culprits, the local school district who chose to allow those students and teachers to be unprotected, exposed and vulnerable to a mental defective and thief.
If you haven’t heard, there is another constitutional amendment on Missouri’s November ballot, Constitutional Amendment #6 (HJR 90). No, it’s not the education amendment, it’s another one to define early voting. Democrats usually push for early voting. They remember the old adage, “Vote early, Vote often.” In many areas of the state, precincts in Kansas City and St Louis for example, early voting allows for massive vote fraud.
This amendment, however, the dems don’t support. Why? Because it limits early voting to the five business days prior to the election and only during normal business hours—9am to 5pm…and only if the Legislature provides funding. Such an amendment makes it more difficult, not impossible but more difficult for the democrats to exploit and makes vote fraud more difficult as well. This amendment is thought to be a pre-emptive strike at democrat sponsored bills that would allow up to 6 weeks of early voting including weekends.
Since the amendment has been passed in the legislature, the dem’s only hope is to obfuscate the language on the ballot. One of their pet judges changed the ballot language to read like the dems wanted. The Secretary of State immediately appealed the decision.
THE 2014 BALLOT — ‘Missouri court reworks early voting ballot summary,’ AP: “A Missouri appeals court panel rewrote the ballot summary Monday for an early voting proposal, ruling that the wording approved by lawmakers was misleading because it failed to mention the measure is contingent upon funding. A proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot will ask Missouri voters whether to authorize a no-excuses-needed early voting period for future general elections. The six-day voting period would be limited to business hours on weekdays. In its ruling Monday, a panel of the Western District appeals court said the summary prepared by the Legislature failed to note the early voting period would occur only if the Legislature and governor provide funding for it. …
“The appeals court ordered additional wording to be included in the ballot summary. The rewritten ballot summary will state: ‘Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to permit voting in person or by mail for a period of six business days prior to and including the Wednesday before the election day in general elections, but only if the legislature and the governor appropriate and disburse funds to pay for the increased costs of such voting?’
“The legal challenge to the measure had been brought by an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of civil rights leaders Norman Seay and Nimrod Chapel. The lawsuit argued that the court should simply strike the measure from the ballot if it decided the Legislature’s summary was unfair. But the appeals court rejected that approach, concluding it has the authority to rewrite the wording.” — PoliticMO Newsletter, September 16, 2014, and The Southeast Missourian.
Like I said, lawfare. If you can’t win, or don’t believe you can win at the polls, sue.
***
Remember the internecine battles during this year’s primaries between the Senate Conservative Fund (SCF) who was backing conservatives and the National Republican Senate Committee (NRSC) who was backing RINOs and anyone running against SCF supported conservatives? Well, the NRSC wants to make up.
Red State has a report today about the NRSC’s attempts to gain—not the SCF’s support, no, just their money. The NRSC spent all theirs fighting Republican conservatives during the primary.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee Loves the Senate Conservatives Fund (Or At Least Its Money)
Remember how the National Republican Senatorial Committee wanted everyone to know just how terrible the Senate Conservatives Fund is?
Remember how NRSC consultants took to op-ed pages, pushed reporters, and tweeted about the lavish and extravagant expenses of SCF?
Remember how when a candidate got endorsed by SCF, everyone knew immediately NRSC would support the opposite candidate out of spite? (See e.g. Ben Sasse v. Shane Osborn)
Remember how the NRSC, Chamber of Commerce, and other establishment groups poured tons of money into primaries to stop SCF gains and those of other outside groups?
Well, NRSC spent so much money trying to ensure its incumbents were protected that it now has no money to pick up new seats. Brilliant strategy there Jerry Moran and Josh Holmes. Just brilliant.
So what is the NRSC doing now? Begging the Senate Conservatives Fund to spend money.
The column continues at the Red State website. As far as I’m concerned, the NRSC is nothing more than a parasite, attempting to maintain the RINOs’ status quo in Washington.
***
This is the next gun-grabber tactic. Sue ammo retailers.
Online ammo retailers targeted in lawsuit by anti-gun violence group
– The Washington Times – Monday, September 15, 2014
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is filing a lawsuit against online retailers that allegedly sold ammunition to James Holmes, the suspect accused of the Aurora theater killings.
“The lawsuit alleges that the websites negligently supplied Holmes with the arsenal he used to kill 12 people and wound at least 58 others by failing to use any screening mechanism to determine his identity or intent for the products,” the Brady Center said in a media release, Fox-affiliated KDVR reported.
The lawsuit comes as the Brady Center continues its “Stop Bad Apple Gun Dealers” campaign, which seeks to target those who “supply guns to criminals by selling them to straw purchasers (people buying guns for others), gun traffickers (people buying guns to illegally resell), and other dangerous people,” according to its Web page.
The lawsuit in the Aurora, Colorado, case will be filed on behalf of Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter Jessica Ghawi was killed on July 20, 2012, when Mr. Holmes allegedly gunned down 12 people at a Century movie theater. The official announcement was set to be made Tuesday in Denver, KDVR reported.
The Brady Center said it plans to name Lucky Gunner, at BulkAmmo.com, as well as other online weapons sellers in the lawsuit, the station said.
We must be ever vigilant.
Second Amendment supporters and the Second Amendment Foundation won a hard-fought ruling in Washington, DC. Over the weekend a federal Judge threw out DC’s ban on carrying a weapon. The Judge ruled that the constitutional right, inherent in the 2nd Amendment, to self-defense is not limited to ones residence.
People who live in Washington, D.C. can now carry guns in public. A federal judge this weekend that the district’s initial ban is unconstitutional violating the Second Amendment.
According to court documents, the 2008 law mandated that handgun owners specify where they planned to use their guns and denied permits to anyone planning to carry handguns outside of their homes.
The judge ordered a reversal on the law immediately, but police officers have not yet been told to stop enforcing it. — FOXNews.
Federal judge rules DC ban on gun carry rights unconstitutional
A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned the city’s total ban on residents being allowed to carry firearms outside their home in a landmark decision for gun-rights activists.
Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. wrote in his ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, therefore gun-control laws in the nation’s capital are “unconstitutional.”
“We won,” Alan Gura, the lead attorney for the Second Amendment Foundation, told Fox News in a phone interview. “I’m very pleased with the decision that the city can’t forbid the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right.”
Gura said he expects the District to appeal this decision but added, “We’ll be happy to keep the fight going.”
The decision leaves no gray area in gun-carrying rights.
Judge Scullin extensively referenced the Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) to concluding “there is no longer any basis on which this court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.”
The court ordered the city to now allow residents from the District and other states to carry weapon within its boundaries.
Judge Scullin wrote that the court “enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of [D.C. firearms laws] unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”
The District was expected to appeal the decision and did so today. But the city of Washington, is refusing to submit to the judicial order saying, they will appeal instead of obeying the judicial order. That seems to be SOP for Washington, either the city or the administration, delay, procrastinate all the while ignoring the law.
D.C. police won’t enforce handgun ban; stay of ruling overturning law will be sought
D.C. police were told Sunday not to arrest people for carrying handguns on the street in the wake of a judge’s ruling that overturned the city’s principal gun-control law.
However, the D.C. attorney general’s office said it would seek a stay of the ruling while the city decides whether to appeal.
In an order approved by Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier, police were told that District residents are permitted to carry pistols if the weapons are registered. Those who had not registered their handguns could be charged on that ground, the instruction said.
The number of registered pistols is thought to be low.
The city’s attorney, who argued the case in court, believes Judge Scullin’s order will be reversed and is appealing it.
The Judge Scullin’s order, he makes this statement, “constitutional under any level of scrutiny.” That is an important phrase. Next Tuesday, Missourians will have the opportunity to approve a change to Missouri’s Constitution adding the phrase, “strict scrutiny” when interpreting Missourian’s rights to keep and bear arms. It is a legal term, but the strict scrutiny is one reason why Judge Scullin ruled as he did.
Vote Yes! for Amendment 5 next Tuesday.
Yesterday, July 14th, was the deadline for Governor Nixon to veto, sign or ignore the pile of bills on his desk. One, SB 656, was one of those waiting for Nixon’s action. Late yesterday—at the very last minute, he vetoed SB 656.
What was SB 656? It was a bill that among other things, allowed teachers to protect their students after extensive training and certification by law enforcement, similar training, in fact, that LEOs undergo.
Nixon vetoed it saying it endangered the children. He prefers School Resource officers. So he said. Some school districts cannot afford hiring police to patrol their schools every day nor does every police department have extra officers to station them at every school.
Regardless of his motives, what Nixon has done was to leave schools open for more shootings. Our students must continue to be taught in free-fire zones.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:49
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) vetoed legislation Monday that would have allowed vetted and trained teachers and school administrators to carry firearms on campus. The measure had passed the Republican-dominated state house by a strong 111-28 vote and the state senate in a 21-7 vote.
“I cannot condone putting firearms in the hands of educators,” Nixon said. “Arming teachers will not make our schools safer.”
Nixon said he supports the use of duly authorized law enforcement officers employed as school resource officers.
The bill, SB 656, was designed to allow school districts to cross-train faculty to a new “school protection officer” standard. These volunteer teachers and administrators would need a valid Missouri concealed-carry permit and complete a Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission certification course. Following these steps, they would be allowed to carry on school grounds if the district opted to allow armed personnel on campus.
Over the summer, no fewer than 10 school districts have sent selected teachers and staff through up to 75 hours of training in anticipation of the bill being signed by the governor. This required training ran at a cost of $17,500 for every two staff members.
Bloomberg surrogates, Moms Demand Action, are ecstatic that student remain endangered.
***
In another firearm related issue, Jackson County quietly passed an ordinance earlier this year prohibiting firing a firearm within the county. The way the law is written, if you have to shoot to protect yourself, you will be arrested, regardless of the merits of the act, for shooting within the county.
Kevin Jamison, one of the creator’s of Missouri’s CCW law and President of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance, had this to say.
Jackson County has an ordinance which prohibits shooting in the “urban tier” of the country. There is a map of this urban tier but it takes some effort to get. It does not exempt self-defense. The ordinance was slipped through last December without public notice. It does allow for ranges but does not define them and no county permit for ranges exists. This complicates some of the CCW instructors who have a home range. There was a hearing on a repeal sponsored by County Legislator Greg Grounds. The hearing was continued to 28 July, 2014 at 2:30 in the Jackson County Independence courthouse, in the basement. There were a great number of people there today. That always gets a politician’s attention.
The Jackson County Sheriff’s office says that they did not request this ordinance.
Spread the word.
***
SJR 36, also known as Amendment 5 on the August 5th ballot continues to be under fire from gun control activists. An appellate hearing occurred yesterday before the Missouri Supreme Court. Ron Calzone, a gun-rights activist was present and made this report.
What do you think “unalienable right” means?
Today I went to the MO Supreme Court hearing over the ballot title for Amendment 5, the super strong gun rights amendment sponsored by Sen. Kurt Schaefer.
The lawyer for the anti-gun side said, (beginning at about 2:50 of the audio link): “The effect of the word ‘unalienable’ has no legal meaning, as we argued in our brief. Three states have, that I have found, have the phrase “inalienable right’ in their constitution. In all three of those states their Supreme Courts have said, specially, that the use of the word ‘inalienable’ does not trigger strict scrutiny standards and that they will review those under rational basis.
This type of thinking is exactly why, in SJR 36, we advocated for the addition of a specific requirement that gun rights be protected by “strict scrutiny” standards in court.
For a 4 minute primer on Strict Scrutiny vs. the Rational Basis Test, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzETeTvYDu4
You’ll see that the rational basis test the anti-gun lawyer argued allows government restriction on gun rights for about any reason. You can also see why it’s so important to pass Amendment 5!
Missouri Governor Nixon’s veto deadline is approaching. It has passed for some bills, but for those passed near the end of the legislative session, the deadline is July 14, 2014, this coming Monday. If Nixon does not veto any outstanding bill, it automatically passes into law without his signature. That tactic allows Nixon to fence-sit on some issues. He can claim he never signed the bill and the supporters get their bill passed. Neat!
One such bill is SB 656. This bill is an amalgam of several bills that update various gun issues in Missouri. Some of those issues are: allowing teachers to be armed in schools after certification by law enforcement, lowering the CCW age from 21 to 19, younger for those on active duty in the military, explicitly allowing open carry throughout the state superseding any local prohibitions.
I’ve not heard of any movements against this bill since it was passed in the legislature. The libs and gun-grabbers seem to be focusing on Amendment 5 (AKA SJR 36).
The gun-grabbers are attacking Amendment 5 again. They lost a suit in late June on how the amendment appeared on the ballot. The Cole County Judge declared the suit by a St. Louis police chief and a Bloomberg surrogate to be without merit. Now those same libs have appealed their suit to vacate or change the amendment.
The libs proclaim to support choice…as long as they can dictate what those choices are. My choice is to vote YES! on Amendment 5.
***
The Louisiana state education board is backing off on their threat to sue Governor Bobby Jindal over Common Core. Jindal is against it, the board is for it. The nation’s education elite is finding support for Common Core sifting through their fingers. Centralized control of education continues to take a beating.
Louisiana School Board May Back Down In Feud With Jindal
10:14 PM 07/10/2014
The state school board of Louisiana, which is on the brink of launching a lawsuit against Gov. Bobby Jindal over his plan to pull the state out of Common Core, indicated Thursday that it may be willing to back down and negotiate.
Rather than use new Common Core-aligned standardized tests created by the multi-state consortium Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), officers with Louisiana’s Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) indicated that they are willing to continue using a modified form of the state’s old LEAP exams for one additional year.
The modified test, said BESE Chairman Chas Roemer, would incorporate some questions from the PARCC exam in order to adhere to a state law requiring that 2015′s standardized tests be comparable to tests used in other states.
The proposal comes one week before a July 17 meeting that has been scheduled between Jindal and state Superintendent John White. It is hoped that the meeting will help forestall a possible lawsuit by BESE against Jindal.
“It’s not 100 percent what the governor wanted and is not 100 percent what BESE wanted,” said Roemer in a conference call with reporters, adding that he was “optimistic” that Jindal would be open to an agreement.
Jindal’s office appears to be holding fast for the time being, however. Kristy Nichols, the governor’s commissioner of administration, told reporters she believed BESE’s plan was unworkable because it relies on contracts the governor maintains are invalid.
Certain aspects of the deal suggest the proposed compromise could simply be smoke and mirrors. Even the original PARCC test plan would have been a mix of national and state questions, since PARCC only produces math and English tests, leaving science and social studies up to individual states.
The proposed plan to maintain the LEAP test could still allow the state to rely on PARCC for most of its English and math questions, indicating that the “compromise” could amount to the PARCC exam under a new name. With Jindal expressing a strong commitment to rooting out any trace of Common Core from the state, even allowing Common Core-derived questions onto a Louisiana-created test could be a significant concession for him.
Jindal, once a supporter of Common Core, has switched sides in the past year and become one of the most prominent Republican critics of the multistate standards, even comparing them to Soviet totalitarianism. He urged both BESE and the Louisiana legislature to pull the state out of PARCC, but when both refused he decided to take action himself, issuing a set of executive orders demanding the state craft new education standards.
Jindal also suspended a contract the state had made to supply the PARCC test next year, claiming that it violated the state’s procurement laws. The PARCC tests, one of two major multi-state exams created to align with Common Core, are considered a key component of the standards’ implementation.
Until Thursday, both BESE and Superintendent White have stood firmly against Jindal’s actions, insisting that his executive orders are illegal and that the state will both proceed with Common Core and the PARCC tests as planned. White in particular has urged BESE to file a lawsuit challenging Jindal’s orders, and last week BESE voted to retain its own legal counsel should such a course of action arise.
The feud has caused sharp divisions between figures who were once allies on the issue of education. Both Jindal and BESE Chairman Roemer are Republicans, while White is an independent who has worked closely with Jindal in defending the state’s school voucher plan from a federal challenge.
The fresh battle between the three has proven to be the most bitter of many Common Core fights across the country in 2014. If Jindal gets his way, Louisiana will be the fourth state to break off from Common Core, following Indiana, South Carolina and Oklahoma.
The problem the BESE found was not philosophical. They backed off because they came to believe they couldn’t win against Jindal’s opposition. So, they decided to take the next best, from their standpoint, step—defer the decision to next year. That tactic always works with politicians.
de·fi·ancediˈfīəns/nounnoun: defiance1.open resistance; bold disobedience.“the demonstration was held in defiance of official warnings”
|
|
The country has been watching an act of defiance in Nevada for the last week. That confrontation between citizens and members of the federal government has subsided…for now. There was another act of defiance occurring in New York. That one received little attention from the media.
The state of New York requires gun owners to register certain firearms. Compliance to that law, known as the SAFE Act, has been low. Protesters to that law met outside the office of State Senator Mark Grisanti to protest the act.
Shredding SAFE Act Registration Forms In New York
Caleb Howe (Diary) |
On Tuesday in upstate New York, outside the office of State Senator Mark Grisanti, gun owners gathered in protest. Together they shredded their SAFE Act registration cards to signify their non-compliance with the controversial new law. Grisanti is a Republican who helped to pass the SAFE Act, including by offering up changes to the bill to make it bipartisan.
Human Events wrote last week about a recent SAFE Act protest that had a huge turnout, and involved many of the same people and groups as the rally on Tuesday, where gun owners intend to shred their registration forms as a form of protest. One of the organizers, Rus Thompson of TEA New York, was recently interviewed about this event, and discussed in depth the reasoning behind the shredding.
Gun owners across the state have been speaking out and protesting the SAFE Act from the beginning. As Bearing Arms reported yesterday, as many as one million are refusing to register their weapons.
Non-compliance of the ban is expected to be between 90%-99%, but a provision in the NY SAFE Act prevents registration data from being shared with the public.
Non-compliance in the neighboring state of Connecticut is thought to be in excess of 85%, with an estimated 80,000-100,000 gun owners refusing to register their firearms. Connecticut State Police have made no move to enforce their law four months after their registration deadline, fearing possible armed resistance.
Conservative estimates are that at least 300,000 and as many as one million New Yorkers will likewise practice civil disobedience and refuse to comply with the registration requirement.
The Shredding Registration event has a Facebook page here, and was covered live by a local Buffalo talk radio station here.
The defiance in New York isn’t limited to gun owners. Some officials—county Sheriffs, have declared they won’t enforce the law, either.
Despite deadline, protesters ‘will not comply’ with SAFE Act
Registration deadline for law was Tuesday
on April 15, 2014 – 8:30 PM, updated April 16, 2014 at 2:04 AM
Rus Thompson, a tea party activist, shreds the state assault weapon registration form during a rally Tuesday outside the Mahoney State Building. Harry Scull Jr. /Buffalo News
Owners of assault-style weapons were supposed to have registered their guns by Tuesday.
But there is no way of knowing exactly how many of these weapons there are in the state and how many were registered under the NY SAFE Act.
The state refuses to say how many were registered, claiming it is confidential information protected by the law.
Gun-rights advocates estimate compliance will be less than 10 percent.
And in Erie County, the sheriff says he will not force his deputies to enforce registration.
“Theoretically, any law enforcement officer who encounters anyone with this type of gun at a minimum is supposed to record the serial number and the individual’s identity and report it to Albany,” Sheriff Timothy B. Howard said.
But will his deputies do that?
“I don’t know. I am not encouraging them to do it. At the same time, their own consciences should be their guide. I am not forcing my conscience on them. That is a decision they should make,” Howard said.
The sheriff’s opposition sits well with roughly 70 opponents of the law who gathered outside the Walter J. Mahoney State Office Building in downtown Buffalo late Tuesday afternoon to shred State Police registration forms for assault weapons.
It was seen as a form of civil disobedience to a law that opponents say was hastily drafted some 16 months ago in response to the December 2012 massacre in Newtown, Conn., where 20 elementary school children and six adults were slain by a heavily armed gunman.
But rather than make the public safer, opponents contend the law’s main accomplishment has been to create a new classification of criminals – individuals who out of conscience refuse to register their assault weapons because they believe the law overstepped their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The column continues at the website. The Erie County Sheriff echoes the sentiments of many law enforcement officials across the country. “Will…shall I comply with a law that is clearly unenforceable and does nothing more than make criminals out of formerly law-abiding citizens?”
The New York Sheriffs Organization has examined the SAFE Act and has found a number of flaws and inconsistencies. They noted these flaws on their website and point out that a number of the Act’s provisions are unenforceable and produce undue burden of their offices and other agencies and institutions.
Three acts of defiance with days of one another: the Bundy Ranch vs. the BLM, gun owners of New York vs. the SAFE Act, and the NY Erie County Sheriff versus that same SAFE Act. When you add the defiance of many states against Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, the refusal of those same states to create state exchanges, a person could reasonably expect more acts of defiance to occur at any time, any where.
