Newton County Second Amendment Preservation Act

S

steve4102

New member
Newton County Missouri has passed a Bill that would allow its Sheriff to arrest Federal Agents who enforce Unconstitutional Federal Laws that they fell violate both the State and Federal Constitutions.

Here is the bill
https://www.newtoncountymo.com/notices/newton-county-second-amendment-preservation-act

Here is one of many news articles on this.

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horo...s-arrest-of-feds-who-violate-second-amendment

What are the true legal aspects of this in regard to Federal Laws, The Supremecy Clause, the Interstate commerce Clause and a local sheriffs ability to arrest Federal Law Enforcement.

This reminds me of the Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act, that got two gun owners arrested by the Feds for believing their state could nullify Federal Law.
 
Not a lawyer, but IMHO a federal law is not "unconstitutional" if a county sheriff says so, or because a county board of commissioners says so, or because the Missouri state legislature says so. A federal law is unconstitutional only when the federal judiciary says it is unconstitutional.

These types of "sanctuary" laws are, IMHP, dangerous, because gullible people may actually believe they offer defense/protection for engaging in illegal activities. These laws are political grandstanding. They are pretty much reverse virtue signaling.
 
It isn't a good protection for the local individual, but it does set up potential cases to force courts to examine the constitutionality of certain laws.
 
Same thing in Maine this week... just political headlines.

The Fort Fairfield, Maine Town Council just voted in favor of a resolution and declared the town a "Second Amendment sanctuary."

Makes for good headlines, but that's about it. AB is right, Federal Law over rides it.
 
Good for Fort Fairfield. :confused:

Fort Fairfield is potato farming country, in the extreme northeast corner of Maine. It directly abuts Canada, and 6% of the population speaks French as their native language. 2010 population was 3,496 and the population is declining -- it was 3,579 in 2000. I'd venture to guess that, except an occasional CBP agent, Fort Fairfield hasn't seen a federal LEO in decades.

Political grandstanding.

[edit to add] https://bangordailynews.com/2021/02...tion-will-not-interfere-with-law-enforcement/

According to the Bangor Daily News, the town manager says

Fort Fairfield’s Second Amendment sanctuary designation does not mean the town will interfere with law enforcement, according to Town Manager Andrea Powers.
Click to expand...

So they acknowledge that the "sanctuary" provides no sanctuary. I'm not sure how much dumber you can get than that.
 
Is there any cases, or legal precedence that allows for Sheriffs or State LEO to arrest Federal agents for enforcing federal law?
 
I don't think anyone in State or local law enforcement is that stupid, to attempt to arrest a Federal agent on an aforementioned "declaration".

But, then again, I am not always right and tend to overestimate the intelligence and grossly underestimate the ego of some of my fellow Americans. ;)
 
Last edited:
steve4102 said:
Is there any cases, or legal precedence that allows for Sheriffs or State LEO to arrest Federal agents for enforcing federal law?
Click to expand...

First:
The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name. (K'ung-fu-tzu)
Click to expand...
So the word is "precedent", not "precedence", and the plural is "precedents."

In any event, State nullification of federal law is a chimera.

  1. The Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2, emphasis added):
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    Click to expand...

  2. There's some 200 years of Supreme Court precedent rejecting State nullification of federal law:

    • United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809)

    • Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816)

    • Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)

    • McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)

    • Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824)

    • Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)

    • Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842)

    • Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)

    • Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

    • Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La. 1960), aff'd 364 U.S. 500 (1960).

  3. The Ninth Circuit has specifically ruled against Montana in a "firearm freedom law" case, Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013).

  4. A State may decide not to enforce federal law or assist with the furtherance of federal policy (Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997)), but a State may not nullify federal law; and the federal agents may still enforce federal law without a State's help.

  5. For an example of these principles applied to state marijuana laws, see Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011) in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that a Sheriff was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. But the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted (at pp. 1065 - 1066, emphasis added):
    ...Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...
    Click to expand...

  6. A Kansas law similar to the Montana law cited in the OP didn't work for Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler who made suppressors in Kansas and were then were convicted in federal court in Kansas for violating the NFA.
 
Is there any cases, or legal precedence that allows for Sheriffs or State LEO to arrest Federal agents for enforcing federal law?
Click to expand...

None that I am aware of, however, there is also nothing I am aware of that allows Federal agents to break the law while "enforcing" Federal law.

Agents are expected to notify local LEOs, obey all laws and have the proper writs and warrants, and respect local authority. In other words, all the "i"'s dotted and "t"s crossed.

When this doesn't happen, isn't enforced from the top down by the Fed, you can get monumental screw-ups like Ruby Ridge and Waco.

I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, just an observation from the peanut gallery, about the way I understand things are supposed to work, and what can happen when the process isn't worked properly.
 
Don’t bet your freedom on it. To be fair, the feds likely aren’t coming after your average everyday joe who has an oil filter adapter... wait I mean “solvent trap”... but despite their lack of likely interest I still don’t care to bet my freedom on a town, county, or state declaring themselves as 2A sanctuaries.

Despite the confusion and possibly mistaken belief by some gullible citizens that they are safe, when they are not, I still support the 2A sanctuary movement. I believe it can have a “second thought” let’s think about this for a moment before larger governments enact gun bans. We saw that, sort of, in VA in late 2019 and early 2020
 
5whiskey said:
Despite the confusion and possibly mistaken belief by some gullible citizens that they are safe, when they are not, I still support the 2A sanctuary movement. I believe it can have a “second thought” let’s think about this for a moment before larger governments enact gun bans. We saw that, sort of, in VA in late 2019 and early 2020
Click to expand...
I am all in favor of local, county, and/or state governments adopting resolutions expressing support for the Second Amendment. What I have a problem with is adopting ordinances declaring that they are "sanctuaries" against federal law when, in fact, they are not in any way sanctuaries, and they have no legal standing or authority to declare themselves as such.
 
The problem with sanctuary is that it never actually exists, without "good men, armed and ready to battle" to preserve it.

Thing is, it only happens when BOTH side AGREE to let it happen. It sort of worked in the Middle Ages, because of the power of the Church. And even then, it wasn't absolute. While, once granted sanctuary, the Church wouldn't turn over the "bad guy" to local authority, (if a deal was made,) the Church could (temporarily) "consecrate" some of the Lord's men who could then go in and remove the bad guy from the church. Kind of like breaking your word without technically breaking your word....


People are going to misinterpret the term "sanctuary" indeed its already done in this thread. Consider the idea that saying "sanctuary" does not mean the local govt doing so will shield and protect people from arrest and prosecution, but that they are declaring their town/county, etc. a sanctuary for the IDEA of the 2nd Amendment rights, (or whatever the cause is), meaning only that THEY will not prosecute (things which are usually well outside their jurisdiction anyway) or pass laws or ordinances against the idea and concept they have declared "safe" in their jurisdiction.

This in no way means they will stop other authorities performing their duties, though it may mean they will not actively help them.

This is not a case of riding a cathedral bell in the tower crying "Sanctuary!!!", but more a matter of, as Inigo Montoya says "I do not think that word means what you think it means..."
 
44 AMP said:
People are going to misinterpret the term "sanctuary" indeed its already done in this thread. Consider the idea that saying "sanctuary" does not mean the local govt doing so will shield and protect people from arrest and prosecution, but that they are declaring their town/county, etc. a sanctuary for the IDEA of the 2nd Amendment rights, (or whatever the cause is), meaning only that THEY will not prosecute (things which are usually well outside their jurisdiction anyway) or pass laws or ordinances against the idea and concept they have declared "safe" in their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
That's not what "sanctuary" means, and I don't think it's the people in this thread who are misinterpreting the term. If anyone is misinterpreting it, it's the morons who pass these laws under the umbrella of the word "sanctuary."

Here's the Merriam-Webster definition of "sanctuary": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sanctuary

The part that applies in this context is:

2a
(1) : a place of refuge and protection​

(2) : a refuge for wildlife where predators are controlled and hunting is illegal​

b : the immunity from law attached to a sanctuary
Click to expand...

There's nothing in that definition about a sanctuary being nothing more than an idea or a concept. By definition, it is either a place (a physical location), or an actual immunity from law. These self-styled, self-proclaimed 2A "sanctuaries" are not sanctuaries in any way, shape, or form.
 
If the sheriff has his own crack armored division of Marines, a squadron of F22's and a few spare nukes--then by all means, sure it's a great idea.
 
I can understand the argument that "sanctuary" laws are mostly symbolic fluff with no teeth...but if this is the case, then how do so many cities get away with passing such sanctuary "laws" regarding illegal immigrants and refusing to cooperate with federal immigration services (ICE)?
 
"Agents are expected to notify local LEOs, obey all laws"

Well.....yes and no. When on-duty we were not restricted by any state laws on where to carry a weapon; other than in certain protected areas like prisons (jails), court rooms, etc. If we had to follow state laws, when I was working (long time ago...retired 2005), it would have been illegal to carry in many US cities, anywhere including the sidewalk on main street. And many of those conditions changed after 9/11.

Also, on notification. Normally that will be done; however, quite a few times it is not. A few reasons why are:

Local LE or Local LEO were being investigated
Local LE not reliable to keep an investigation confidential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top