By: Larry Pratt

Sheriffs to the Rescue

Thursday, 09 February 2012 09:33 Written by Larry Pratt

Richard Mack is well known as the first of eventually six sheriffs to take on the Brady Law. And, much to the delight of pro-gunners around the country, the Supreme Court agreed with Mack in 1995 that the federal government did not have constitutional authority to force state officials to conduct background checks.

Mack is no longer in office, but that has not stopped him from staying involved in promoting constitutional issues. He is now taking the lead in informing sheriffs of the authority they have as the chief law enforcement officer in their counties. While this has come as a surprise to many federal officials, the Constitution is quite specific in terms of what they are allowed to do. Almost all the powers which “We the People” have delegated to the federal government are listed in the 18 clauses found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Sheriffs find that when they warn the feds not to conduct an unconstitutional police action against one of their citizens, the feds back down. Sometimes the feds threaten to arrest them, but when the sheriff’s response is “game on,” the stalemate ends with the feds backing down.

I recently attended the first conference of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. Nearly 100 sheriffs attended, in addition to many police chiefs and some county councilmen. One of the encouraging things about the conference was that while many of the sheriffs there were not initially willing to risk a confrontation with the feds, they are now willing to do so after hearing the testimonies from many of their fellow constables. It was very educational for them to hear how different sheriffs have “faced down” the feds.

For example, Tony DeMeo is a former Jersey City cop who ended up getting elected as Sheriff in Nye County, Nevada. He became a pivotal player in his county by protecting citizens from an outrageous abuse of power that was perpetrated by the Bureau of Land Management.

Pro-gun activists will remember the stalwart Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho who served in the 1990s. Well her husband, Wayne Hage leased acreage for his ranch from the BLM. Hage had ownership of the water rights -- as long as he used the water at least once during the year.

Later, the BLM decided that Hage did not belong on the land, and so they began to confiscate his cattle. After the second theft, Hage enlisted DeMeo's assistance, which helped him deal with the BLM when they arrived a third time to confiscate even more cattle. Sheriff DeMeo confronted the BLM agents and backed them down to the point where Hage no longer had to worry about the BLM's larceny anymore.

After Hage’s death, his son won a lawsuit begun by his dad against the federales, and now a court ruling has established that the Hage family can live without fear of their government stealing their property.

It is clear that there are many sheriffs who are willing to protect their counties, but do not know what they can -- and should -- do. The Gun Owners online book store carries Richard Mack’s little book The County Sheriff, America’s Last Hope (http://gunowners.org/store/books). If your sheriff is not aware of his powers – and his responsibility – please give him a copy of this book.

We can put the federal Jeanie back in the bottle, one sheriff at a time.

Sheriffs Standing with the People against the Feds

Wednesday, 04 January 2012 23:22 Written by Larry Pratt

I have reported earlier that sheriffs in New Mexico are threatening to arrest federal agents if they attempt to enforce unconstitutional federal acts in contravention of state law.

The even better news is that sheriffs in other states are doing the same. Sheriff Brad Rogers of Elkhart County, Indiana has told Food and Drug Administration agents they will be arrested if they go on Amish farmer David Hochstetler’s land. Having falsely alleged that raw, unpasteurized milk sold by Hochstetler had caused several cases of food poisoning, the FDA filed a complaint in federal court to support their attack on the farmer.

I have consumed raw milk for years and can affirm that it is not only safe, but much healthier than pasteurized milk.

The threat of incarceration led the feds to withdraw their complaint against Hochstetler. This was even after US Department of Justice attorney Ross Goldstein emailed the Sheriff that he would be arrested if he protected Hochstetler. When Sheriff Rogers refused to back down, the FDA cried uncle.

Rogers’s communication to the feds seemed to have been quite convincing: “Any further attempts to inspect this farm without a warrant signed by a local judge, based on probable cause, will result in Federal inspectors’ removal or arrest for trespassing by my officers or I.” The feds have gotten used to acting without due process -- in this case, that means not bothering to get a search warrant.

Rogers’ campaign website listed his number one objective as “Upholding the Constitution.” He is also concerned about the heart condition of his inmates and is determined to help “Provide Hope to Change a Heart.” Under that header he says, “The Elkhart County jail has 74 church services a month and allows unprecedented access to ministry volunteers. Not only can we impact inmates for the here and now, but for eternity.”

Sheriff Rogers requires his deputies to take three, two-day classes on the Constitution (at a tuition rate of $125 per person).

Rogers is not alone in his love for the Constitution. Ellis County, Texas Sheriff Johnny Brown has stated that he would resist any effort by the federal government to confiscate firearms in his county.

Sheriff Joe Baca in Sierra County, California told his county commission that he will not enforce road closures on Bureau of Land Management and Gila National Forest Lands.

Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County, Oregon has told the Forest Service that he will protect those using the forest in his county. He has written a short treatise entitled, “Unraveling Federal Jurisdiction within a State.” It is actually a scholarly piece based on citations from the Constitution, court cases and statutes and concludes that the Forest Service has no authority in any county.

Siskiyou County, California Sheriff Jon Lopey has said: “I have told federal and state officials over and over that, yes, we want to preserve the environment, but you care more about the fish, frogs, trees and birds than you do about the human race. When will you start to balance your decisions to the needs of the people?...We are right now in a fight for our survival.” Lopey spearheaded a coalition of eight sheriffs calling themselves: “Defend Rural America.”

In the days after Hurricane Katrina, power was out for days. Food and medicine were about to be lost. So Sheriff Billy McGee of Forrest County, Mississippi -- a Democrat -- took action when he realized that a federal shipment of six trucks of ice bound for Hattiesburg turned out to be only four. McGee went in search of the other two and found them being guarded by some Army reservists who possessed bureaucratic mindsets.

McGee took steps to secure the ice, but was told he was not authorized to take the vehicles. When a reservist would not get off one of the trucks, McGee had him handcuffed. The ice was delivered where it was needed in Hattiesburg, explaining why McGee is also known as The Ice Man.

Not surprisingly, the feds have brought suit against the Sheriff in federal court. Perhaps McGee will arrest any marshals seeking to interfere with the duties of a peace officer.

It is encouraging that men of integrity, who understand that the sheriff is the top law enforcement officer in his county, have been elected in counties around the country. We should be looking for more who fit this description.

Please let me know if you are aware of any constitutional sheriffs, and use the contact button on the website to send me their names and stories.

Wednesday, 05 October 2011 14:58 Written by Larry Pratt

-- Gun Owners of America to help take this case to the Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia -- known as “Heller II.” This case is a challenge to the onerous registration requirements, and ban on so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines, which DC adopted after the District Government lost the Heller I case in the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, plaintiff Heller asked the Court to use “strict scrutiny” to strike down the D.C. regulations. The District of Columbia argued against this standard, believing that the Court should be more deferential to its efforts to curb violence.

Predictably, the Court of Appeals rejected Heller’s proposal and refused to use “strict scrutiny” -- instead using a lower barrier which would permit the DC government to restrict people’s Second Amendment rights, so long as they were “reasonably related” to an “important governmental interest.”

The courts have fabricated different levels of review which serve as balancing tests. A “strict scrutiny” test tips the scales more heavily against the government, making it harder to justify laws that would infringe upon people’s liberties. Lower levels of balancing -- known as “intermediate scrutiny” or “rational basis” -- unduly give the government more leeway in restricting people’s liberties.

Of course, which standard a judge uses all depends on the outcome they’d like to achieve in the end. It’s the ultimate in circular reasoning.

The reality is that the Second Amendment provides us with its own level of scrutiny. As stated in GOA’s amicus brief, “the Second Amendment establishes its own standard of review for courts to apply -- ‘shall not be infringed.’”

Nevertheless, the Court decided 2-1 to uphold the District’s restrictions on firearms ownership. It also remanded the case to the district court to gather further evidence on whether D.C.’s registration regulations are reasonable.

There is some good news, however, and it was found in Judge Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion. Although no explicit credit is given, Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent largely uses the same approach put forth by GOA in its amicus curiae brief in the case -- the only amicus brief filed supporting Heller.

Kavanaugh echoes GOA’s brief when he says that the Heller I case “neither requires nor permits any balancing beyond that accomplished by the Framers themselves.” That’s the bottom line: the Framers, in the Second Amendment, completely rejected any balancing of our gun rights when they said that our God-given right to arms shall not be infringed.

GOA’s amicus brief also drew from the Supreme Court’s recent decisions. In neither Heller nor McDonald did the Supreme Court adopt a First Amendment balancing test (e.g., rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny) as the way to decide Second Amendment cases. Unfortunately, judges reserve to themselves the decision as to whether to use “strict scrutiny” or some other test -- usually based on whether they want the plaintiff or defendant to win. There are no Second Amendment principles at work -- just the personal feelings of the judges.

But Judge Kavanaugh was able to think outside the box of plaintiff Heller and defendant District of Columbia -- and rejected both intermediate and strict scrutiny -- which was exactly what GOA’s brief had urged the Court of Appeals to do!

In his opinion, Judge Kavanaugh wrote that “in my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.” (Emphasis added.)

Criticizing the majority opinion as reverting back to the “familiar” standards of scrutiny, Judge Kavanaugh even cited some of the same authorities that GOA did. For example, in oral argument of the Heller I case, Chief Justice Roberts noted that “none of” the standards of scrutiny “appear in the Constitution ... these standards that apply in the First Amendment just kind of developed over the years as sort of baggage that the First Amendment picked up.” This obscure reference was in the GOA brief, and then used by Judge Kavanaugh.

Judge Kavanaugh even set the record straight about the gun-grabbers’ label of AR-15's as assault weapons, calling it “rhetorical,” and pointing out that “if a gun is effective for ‘offense,’ it might ... also be effective for ‘defense.’”

Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion is the first we have seen since the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald that unambiguously reject any and all of the “interest balancing tests” in deciding Second Amendment challenges.

Should the Judge Kavanaugh position be reinforced by the Supreme Court, it will mean great strides towards returning the Second Amendment to the original meaning it had when adopted, where “some types of ‘arms’ are protected absolutely,” and where mere judges are not given the power to decide “whether the right is really worth insisting on.”

New Mexico Sheriffs Standing Tall

Monday, 21 November 2011 18:31 Written by Larry Pratt

GOA member Dr. Ray Seidel alerted me to the stirring of freedom that is taking place in his village of Ruidoso, New Mexico. I have already reported on the first battle with Mayor Ray Alborn and how he tried to impose an unconstitutional gun ban in the village. To get the full story of what happened in Ruidoso, you can go here and listen to my first debriefing session with Seidel.

I recently interviewed Dr. Seidel a second time on my Gun Owners News Hour weekly radio program and asked him about several acts of local interposition in the surrounding counties -- all of which underscores the importance of the office of the sheriff and the militia.

Following new federal legislation the Forest Service moved to close off most of the Gila National Forest. A protest rally was held in Deming, New Mexico and afterwards, a militia of sorts was formed. Many lingered after the event and exchanged phone numbers. They agreed to be available at any time a call would be made. They always have rifles, ammo and other gear in their vehicles. Word was sent to the Forest Service that any effort to impede visitors to the Forest would be resisted.

In the Southeast corner of the state, many landowners have working oil wells on their property. The EPA told the oil operators they would have to stop operating their wells because there was too much risk of harming the environment. At a town hall meeting convened by the EPA, a woman in her 60s rose to address the feds. She pointed out that her land had been in her family for over 200 years, and she was not about to let some official from an unconstitutional bureaucracy tell her what she could or could not do with her land.

The woman ended by warning the feds that her family has many guns and a huge supply of ammunition, and they would use all of it if needed to keep the EPA off of their land. The locals who had packed out the hearing room jumped to their feet with a shout and prolonged applause. That was in August of this year. As of November, oil is still being pumped at full tilt.

In Otero County, villages in the mountains are surrounded by forests. The county commission voted to establish an 80,000 acre plan to manage forest overgrowth. Residents wanted to cut fire breaks to protect their homes in Cloudcroft, but the Forest Service said, “No.” The residents responded that they had to for safety’s sake and were going to construct the fire break in spite of the Forest Service. Residents were told that if they cut down any trees, they would be arrested. But Sheriff Benny House told the Forest Service that if they made any arrests, they would be arrested for false arrest.

Not only were the trees cut down with no opposition from the feds, the first tree was cut down by Congressman Steve Pearce (R-2^nd District). Would that there were many more like Rep. Pearce. The folks in the Second District are blessed with a constitution-supporting congressman and a number of constitutional sheriffs backed by the militias of their counties. This is the way that local governments can push back and help the feds to live within the limitations that have been placed upon them in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

As you can see, there’s a lot happening in New Mexico. And Dr. Seidel has been at the center of a lot of it. Two weeks after the people of Ruidoso prevailed in the gun ban debate, Mayor Alborn decided to seek revenge. He went to the state capital of Santa Fe and met with federal officials there. That same week, Seidel got a notice from the IRS that he had until a certain date to file his taxes, which he has refused to do for several years.

Seidel makes no secret of his refusal to submit to the IRS which he considers as part of an unconstitutional regime in Washington. The IRS intended to encumber his assets if he did not bend his knee. Seidel visited with the county sheriff who understood what Seidel was trying to do and told him he “would have his back.” The same was true for the village police chief – the same officer who refused to have his men arrest people who were defying the Ruidoso gun ban by carrying openly in the village council chambers.

Not only was the sheriff and police chief alerted to the possibility of IRS action against Seidel, but so was the militia in Lincoln County – some 200 plus men who keep their rifle and battle bag in their vehicles 24/7. They can muster in about 30 minutes at any place in the county.

Seidel visited with the village assessor, who would be the official to place the encumbrances on his assets. Seidel explained (as he does with everyone) that Title 42, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Section 1983 of the federal code would be used to sue her personally for violating his civil rights -- that is, he would sue her if any of his assets were encumbered without having first secured a warrant from an Article III court.

Seidel has frequently argued that he will gladly submit to a federal court (authorized under Article III of the U.S. Constitution) as opposed to a mere tax court (which is an unconstitutional creature within the IRS). As with many administrative agencies, the combining of legislative, executive and judicial powers within the same four walls constitutes the very definition of tyranny which James Madison warned us about in Federalist 47.

Seidel has used Title 42 on other occasions. One involved a state trooper with an anger management problem who made a false arrest on Seidel’s son. Since being served with a Title 42 suit, the officer has been able to control his anger.

The deadline is long past, and the IRS has done nothing, so the assessor is off the hook for now. But New Mexico is becoming a text book example of how the Founding Fathers envisioned the states would rein in an out-of-control government.

As stated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 28: “It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.”

If there were more sheriffs like those in New Mexico serving around the country, we would be well on the way to safeguarding our liberties against Washington’s “invasions of the public liberty.” It also might occur to the Congress that more examples of sheriffs interposing themselves might result in shrinking down the federal government to do little more than just funding the national defense.

Wednesday, 21 September 2011 10:06 Written by Larry Pratt

Shootout in Ruidoso

Recently, I was involved in a shootout in the village ofRuidoso (Spanish for noisy) near our southern border. No, this time I was not using bullets.

I had been invited by GOA members in the New Mexico town to participate at a village council meeting. The chamber was filled to overflowing. Folks were outraged that the village mayor, Ray Alborn, had issued an executive order banning firearms anywhere on village property. Needless to say, half of us in attendance had hogs on our hips. GOA member Dr. Ray Seidel came dressed with an AR-15. I knew right away I was not in San Francisco.

The mayor issued his edict in spite of Article II, Section 6 of the New Mexico Constitution which prohibits municipalities and counties from regulating “in any way, any incident of the right to keep and bear arms.”

In spite of the state constitution’s clear language, the city attorney, Harry “Pete” Connelly, wrote an opinion saying that state law permitted the ban. Calls for him to be fired erupted during the hearing.

The mayor was raised in Houston by a single mother and never had any contact with firearms. They scare him. He offered as justification for his executive order that he wanted to ensure that people remain safe.

At the Council’s previous meeting, a citizen approached the podium with a sidearm in his holster and the Mayor had him disarmed. KASA-TV in Albuquerque recorded the mayor’s response: “At that time I realized how unprotected we are in the front of the room. There’s 11 of us, plus all of our citizens and employees who were at the meeting. [It hit home] how unprotected we were.”

When I testified at the hearing, the Mayor said that if he could, he would ban firearms throughout Ruidoso.

Those from Ruidoso handled the legal and constitutional issues well, so I addressed the historical aspect of gun free zones. Almost all of the mass murders in our country have occurred in gun free zones. I told the Council that in February of 2008, an irate taxpayer charged into the Kirkwood, Missouri chamber, killed two police officers, three councilmen and critically wounded the mayor before he was subdued by police who ran from other areas of the building.

Kirkwood’s council did not like the state’s concealed carry law and exercised the option in the law to declare their chamber a gun free zone.

In contrast to the almost 100 percent opposition from the public, a young woman named Andrea Reed -- along with her three kids -- was presented to the Council as part of a celebration of International Peace Day. After receiving a certificate from the Mayor, Andrea and her kids cavorted around as if they were dancing around a Maypole. They sang a little ditty about how peace is nice.

She remained for the gun ban item on the agenda and testified in favor of the Mayor’s position. She suggested a compromise – that gun owners leave their guns at home because such firepower made her nervous. I so wanted to assure her that every open carrier in the room was being very vigilant to ensure their guns did not jump out of their holsters. We were successful and she did not get shot. Whew!

The Council did not vote, but they are expected to vote down the Mayor’s gun ban. Regardless of what they do, the ban is unconstitutional.

I did an interview on a Ruidoso radio station (KEDU 102.3 FM) from the Gun Owners of America office in Springfield, Virginia and urged listeners to attend the next village meeting -- armed as before -- as Councilors are then expected to vote on the ban.

Gun owners don’t have anything to fear because Police Chief Richard Williams is a sworn officer who is in the Oath Keeper tradition. He told the Mayor that he would not arrest anybody for carrying in the Council chambers because such a ban -- whether it’s a mere edict from the Mayor or an ordinance from the Council -- is unconstitutional.

Looks like Mayor Alborn’s edict is stillborn.