It’s no wonder that you are confused. Nobody has said that the oath has power. The oath they swear to is to uphold the Constitution. It is the Constitution that holds power over the law. By refusing to enforce an unconstitutional law, the sheriffs are being true to their oath.
Yes, that’s what denied cert means… The supreme court saw nothing to review in the appeal…
No, it means the Court chose to not hear the case. It says nothing about their reasoning behind that descision.
I suggest you read the actual decision… Here is a pretty good little snippet…
The didn’t address the constitutionality of SAPA but certainly addressed the constitutionality of the NFA.
No. They ruled that the ATF has the authority to tax and that that tax did not violate the 2nd Amendment Rights of the plaintiff. They did not rule on the Constitutionality of the NFA. This was an Interstate Commerce and Authority to tax, not a gun rights case.
Gotta love the “constitutional” lawyers… Meanwhile, people go to prison…
Bump stock owners have 90 days from March 26th to turn in their bump stocks…
Speaking of bumps
Upon further questioning the sheriff is objecting to his straw-man of having to confiscate weapons…
I shall call it … “Sheriff Nullification!”
LOL… When the sheriff is actually asked to confiscate weapons based on the proposed laws, get back to us…
So can Alabama pass a law reinstituting slavery…and that would be constitutional in your book. After all it’s due process.
If that’s thier reasoning then poll taxes are also legal.
People that want silencers banned/restricted watch too many movies and think that’s how they actually sound.
It’s akin to saying helicopters shouldn’t have mufflers because “Airwolf” could hover silently. Yes I know I’m dating myself with that reference.
Yet another magnificent ruling by the ephors based on ignorance.
In this particular case, the state didn’t get its cut.
Arms is today just as it was then all inclusive.
No, he wasn’t wrong, merely being misconstrued by gun control advocates, the permissible limits he was talking about were things like having been convicted of a crime, adjudicated mentally ill or not being able to be armed in prison or court. He was not talking about banning classes of common guns.
ABSOLUTELY! Let’s have all people who support breaking our law move, but not to Texas. I propose California instead, and not people constitutionally bearing arms, but people who enter our country illegally. We should adopt this policy immediately…
None of which infringe on “The Right of The People”, only individuals who have had due process.
