Remember: John Brown was hung for treason by the State of Virginia!
SC Attorney General: Come Get the Guns!
In an opinion requested by Kershaw County Sheriff Jim Matthews, SC Attorney General Allan Wilson suggest that if federal gun confiscation was ordered that neither state law nor state law officials may interfere or otherwise impede federal law enforcement officers as they perform their lawful duties.Sighting many examples of case-law (incremental social engineering by the use of precedent to move public policy) Wilson makes the case for federal supremacy, when and if the federal government should choose to enforce, whatever law that is passed.
The seven page opinion was prompted when concerned residents asked the sheriff if he would take their guns if federal law required it. “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 in a State paper interview. The report also states Matthews said it’s pretty clear that sheriffs do not enforce federal laws, and he doesn’t believe that he can stop federal agents from coming into his county to enforce them.
With this opinion by the SCAG, state law enforcement will not stand in the way of gun confiscation.
In the Attorney General’s opinion “federal agents are immune from state prosecution even when their conduct violated internal agency regulations or exceeded their express authority”.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 inference with his ransacking. The opinion also states “…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.”
Would enforcing an unconstitutional ”law” be considered to be an act of “lawful duties”? Are federal gun control “laws” “necessary and proper”for the federal government to be dictating?
Finally in his conclusion SCAG Allan Wilson writes “…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.”And then he sights yet another in a long list of cases to back up his opinion but there it was again that pesky little phrase, “lawful duties. 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“?
Read more...
