Refusing to enforce gun laws

Nullification, as it should be. It isn’t generally discussed (such discussion would ruin the anti-rights, i.e. Progressive, narrative) but taking that oath not only allows an individual in law enforcement to judge the constitutionality or legality of an order or a law, it requires it.

That is its whole and only purpose. They don’t take an oath to blindly follow orders, or to obey the Dear Leader or any such nonsense as happens in more backward societies. They take an oath to uphold the constitution. That is not a trivial distinction. Those are functionally opposite concepts, so long as the constitution in question supports human rights. I’d rather they take an oath to uphold human rights (and prove that they understand the meaning of same) being as the constitution is valid only to the extent that it recognizes and protects human rights.

Know which side your sheriff serves!

4 thoughts on “Refusing to enforce gun laws

  1. Very well said. Similarly, the phrase “lawful orders” in the military oath is critical. It implies a duty to determine whether an order is lawful or not before following it, and it means that a person who follows orders when he knew, or should reasonably have known, those to be unlawful has violated his oath.

    Furthermore, a person who has taken any oath of office and then neglects his duty to judge the constitutionality or legality of his actions is a perjurer, and should be subject to impeachment and criminal sanctions for that felony.

    Unfortunately, it is clearly the case that nearly everyone in Washington and any other capital is, for these reasons, a felon.

  2. I’ve always considered that to apply to *every* person that works “for” the government. Not a one of them should “enforce” or otherwise apply an unconstitutional statute. This includes the judges of the “lower” courts — the idea that a judge is “bound” by a higher court’s decision that something “is constitutional” when the judge in question thinks it is *not* constitutional is just absurd. The judge’s oath was to uphold the Constitution — not the decisions of other judges.

  3. As much of a fan of this, as I am, it really is of little difference to me as other selective enforcement of the law.

    So yeah, while this guy and the officers under him may not prosecute you for carrying a gun without a permit, or sawing off the barrel of your shotgun etc, it’s still a magical house of cards that can fall at any moment without warning, and the end result is you in the Crowbar Hotel.

    It’s a good start, but the end goal is to have the state (and nation) recognize the laws as they were written.

  4. The origin of “nullification” is the Virginia nullification of the Alien and Sedition acts — among the earliest examples of grossly unconstitutional laws passed by power-hungry politicians.
    I learned something interesting about that recently: the driving force behind that nullification effort was, of all people, James Madison.
    (Source: Henry Adams, “The Life of Albert Gallatin”, 1879 — available from gutenberg.org — recommended)

Comments are closed.