National sheriffs’ group, opposed to federal laws on guns and taxes

[seahooker]

Local police chiefs and sheriffs typically swear to enforce the laws of their state. But a group called the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is intent on strictly enforcing their view of the U.S. Constitution and, according to a long new piece by the Center for Public Integrity, “its ambition is to encourage law enforcement officers to defy laws they decide themselves are illegal.” In essence, they are troubled by the overreach of the federal government in matters concerning guns, taxes and land management, and founder Richard Mack has described the federals as “the greatest threat we face today,” and his association as “the army to set our nation free.”

[wvit1001]

Richard Ivan Mack is the former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona and is best known for his role in a lawsuit brought against the federal government of the United States which alleged that portions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the United States Constitution. He is a former lobbyist for Gun Owners of America (GOA) and a two-time candidate for United States Congress. Mack is also the founder of Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), and established the "County Sheriff Project" movement, both of whom claim the power to refuse to enforce federal laws

In 2011 Mack founded the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA). The organization has a mission similar to Oath Keepers, encouraging members to refuse to enforce laws that they believe are unconstitutional.

Mack is also on the board of Oath Keepers, a far-right patriot organisation known for its controversial presence during the Ferguson unrest and for supporting Cliven Bundy in his standoff against the federal government. In April, 2014, Mack asserted that as part of the citizen response to the Bundy standoff that the Oath Keepers were "...actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they're gonna start shooting, it's going to be women that are gonna be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers."

The Southern Poverty Law Center included both CSPOA and Oath Keepers on its list of 1,096 anti-government "patriot" groups active in 2013.[1] Mack announced in 2011 that he was initiating a lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center for libel, slander, and defamation.

[wvit1001]

Connections to white supremacist groups and movements

Mack's legal theories that a local sheriff can override federal authority derive from the white supremacist Posse comitatus movement, whose rhetoric he regularly references.

[hoosier_daddy]

any time anyone uses the word "constitution" in their association name, and it is connected to the NRA and/or gun laws in general, you can be sure they do not have a clue about the Constitution.  it is like groups that use the word "Christian" and are some kind of political action group.  ain't no way they are Christian. 

[HK91-762mm]

  I know Sheriff Richard Mack having met him at the major Gun rights rally in Albany,,hes a pretty nice guy!!

To Be on the SPLC hit list is an Honor!!!

[sine-qua-non]

Why can I be sure!  You don't seem to have a clue or even care about our Constitution or its supporters.

And look up what the Posse Comitatus Act was about before you come here showing your ignorance

[D2D]

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a racist group that seeks the extermination of all conservative people!

[wvit1001]

The Posse Comitatus (Latin, "force of the county") is a loosely organized, far-right social movement in the United States starting in the late 1960s, whose members spread a conspiracy-minded, anti-government and anti-semitic message in the name of white Christians to counter what they believe is an attack on their social and political rights.

Many Posse members practice survivalism and played a role in the formation of the armed citizens' militias in the 1990s. The Posse Comitatus pioneered the use of false liens and other types of paper terrorism.

[sweetwater5s9]

Mack first made it to the national stage in 1996 as a sheriff from Arizona, when he and a sheriff from Montana challenged a provision of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act before the U.S. Supreme Court. They argued it was unconstitutional for the federal government to require local chief law enforcement officers to run background checks on prospective gun buyers — and won, in a 5-4 ruling that struck down that provision of the act.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/23007-major-media-takes-notice-of-constitutional-sheriffs-and-their-campaign



Wednesday, 20 April 2016   

 Major Media Takes Notice of Constitutional Sheriffs and Their Campaign

[wvit1001]

The immediate effects of the ruling on the Brady Bill were negligible. The vast majority of local and state law enforcement officials supported the interim provisions and were happy to comply with the background checks. The issue ended with the completion of the federal background check database. However, Printz v. United States was an important ruling in support of States' Rights and limits on Federal power.

The political poles have reversed from Printz, especially after the attack on the World Trade Center; where Printz protected conservative local authorities from liberal federal power, it also now protects liberal local authorities from conservative federal power. Professor Ann Althouse has suggested, retained in its strong form, the anti-commandeering doctrine announced in Printz "can work as a safeguard for the rights of the people";"the federal government might go too far in prosecuting the war on terrorism," Printz provides a circuit-breaker that might allow local and state officials to refuse to enforce regulations curbing individual rights. Moreover, "y denying the means of commandeering to the federal government, the courts have created an incentive [for Congress] to adopt policies that inspire [rather than demand] compliance, thus preserving a beneficial structural safeguard for individual rights," and "state and local government autonomy can exert pressure on the federal government to moderate its efforts and take care not to offend constitutional rights."[1] All of this was finally settled with the 2d Amendment being made "fully applicable" to the States with the Incorporation of the 14th Amendment, see, McDonald vs. City of Chicago (2010), upholding the Heller case of 2008, see Heller vs. District of Colombia. The Right to "...keep and bear arms," is now a fundamental and individual right and self-defense is the "central component" of the 2d Amendment. Americans must be allowed to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes (such as to do so within the home). The term "such as" is descriptive of one of the "lawful purposes" and is not a definitive restriction. The States can only "add-to" individual and fundamental rights but can never diminish them

[wvit1001]

the real question is why wouldn't a law enforcement officer want to do a background check on someone buying a gun?

[D2D]

Wvit, link to your source!