And I can’t fault its logic:
The state of Montana, which came up with the idea that the guns made, sold and kept inside its borders simply are exempt from federal regulations and made that its law, now is considering a new weapon that could be used to cancel much of the authority of federal agents over its residents.
A new legislative proposal would declare that the state’s local county sheriffs are the pre-eminent law enforcement authority in their jurisdictions, and federal agents such as those working for the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and others, would be required to get permission from them before they could take any action.
States’ rights, anyone?
The proposal, Senate Bill 114, is called “An act regulating arrests, searches, and seizures by federal employees; providing that federal employees must obtain the county sheriff’s permission to arrest, search, and seize; providing exceptions; providing for prosecution of federal employees violating this act; rejecting federal laws purporting to give federal employees the authority of a county sheriff in this state; and providing an immediate effective date.”
Again, states’ rights, anyone?
Inside that mouthful of provisions is a requirement that federal agents work through and get permission from sheriffs before taking any action to arrest anyone, seize any object or search anywhere. And it includes a promise of consequences if that is not followed:
“An arrest, search, or seizure or attempted arrest, search, or seizure in violation of [section 2] is unlawful, and the persons involved must be prosecuted by the county attorney for kidnapping if an arrest or attempted arrest occurred, for trespass if a search or attempted search occurred, for theft if a seizure or attempted seizure occurred, and for any applicable homicide offense if loss of life occurred. The persons involved must also be charged with any other applicable criminal offense in Title 45,” the bill explains.
Read the full article here.
Your thoughts?
BZ
Tenth Amendment. The power for the county sheriff is there. Interesting slant on this
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/01/14/judge-john-m-roll-a-true-american-hero/
This one is going to end up at the Supreme Court before it’s all over…
WSF: as a member of Oathkeepers, people sometimes forget, purposely, history.
NFO: I’d suggest, in the current climate, this is indeed a given. And any current SCOTUS opinion will be, as always, 5 – 4.
BZ
good for Montana!
Southern Montana…
The temps and snow are moderate there, right? ‘Cause I may move there.
The 2nd Amendment backed by the 10th Amendment and the explicit allowing of the States to have non-regular militia in Art. I, Sec. 10 in the main body of the Constitution.
States cannot protect themselves with non-regular militia if they cannot have their people armed to the defense of the State. The 2nd precludes denying civilians man-carried arms by tradition that goes back centuries into English history. The right to keep and bear is two fold: keep and keep plus bear. For a man’s home to be his castle he must be able to keep arms, and many estates in England had crew served weapons that could be called upon in times of danger, but had to remain on the estate otherwise… it could not be carried by a single person. For individual weapons that could be carried by a single person the right to keep and bear is to remain unabridged and individuals are responsible for what they carry.
MT is the leading front of this. There are three or four other States putting forward something like this (UT and WY, plus TN if memory serves) so that arms made in-State sold to residents are outside of federal jurisdiction. This will go to the SCOTUS. The States have a deep Constitutional case this may be the piece that will finally limit the federal commerce clause power as it impacts other powers speceifically reserved for the States. This could very well be the case that starts to remove the ‘commerce clause’ enabled bureaucracy of the federal government. Just like Heller it will be landmark in nature.