Washington Post: Virginia’s Second Amendment ‘Sanctuaries’ Can’t Ignore New Gun Control Laws
BY Herschel Smith
4 years, 9 months ago
The Washington Post editorial page.
It would be far more alarming if a local sheriff actually makes good on the threat — by refusing, for instance, to seize a weapon from a self-destructive son or daughter whose parents have convinced a judge that suicide may be imminent if law enforcement does not intervene. In that case, it would be not only irresponsible but also illegal, and quite likely would expose sheriffs personally, as well as the localities they represent, to liability in the event of an act of violence.
[ … ]
Gun-rights activists are free to denounce such laws; they are free to mount legal challenges to their constitutionality. But unless and until the laws are struck down by a court, no one is free to violate them.
Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold and enforce duly enacted laws. For a sheriff to refuse to enforce a protective order handed down by a court would be “an unspeakable betrayal” of his duties, Mark R. Herring, Virginia’s attorney general, told us.
Well now, if this is all so easy and clear, why are they so worried about it?
Perhaps because they know that it isn’t so easy and clear, and they can’t help but be controllers to the final breath. “Can a leopard change its spots?”
The title of the opinion piece is “Virginia’s Second Amendment ‘Sanctuaries’ Can’t Ignore New Gun Control Laws.” Well sure they can. The question is what happens then? This is what worries the WaPo, and it should.
The context for this is what we’ve discussed many times before. Unlike the editors at The Washington Post, we know that rights come from the Almighty. The constitution is a covenant between men, and rights are only recognized by them, not created. Thus, black robes who deny those rights are the same as legislators who deny them, i.e, it’s all tyranny, and it doesn’t make one iota of difference who enacts that tyranny.
Action to resist that tyranny is local in this case, and we’ve noted that there is a war brewing between state-level pols and local pols and Sheriffs. We might remark that county Sheriffs should be locally funded anyway, and that sending tax monies to Richmond is the wrong way to do that. In any case, let’s say that the legislature declares that the salaries for constitutional sheriffs is now zero ($0) per year.
What then? Counties will have to fund county law enforcement if they want it at all. The next step might involve armed agents of the state entering counties to apprehend and arrest county sheriffs and his deputies. What then?
The next step might involve boys in Ghillie suits sitting in the hills and hollows of Virginia shooting tires out of vehicles, with boys in masks, black tactical gear and body armor surrounding those vehicles with the state agents inside.
The next step might involve blindfolding those agents, driving them to the county line, confiscating their phones, money, vehicles, firearms and comms gear, dropping them off, and letting them walk home after telling them that “We will allow you to get out of this unscathed this one time, and this one time only.”
Do you see how this game is played? This is called 4GW, and it gets uglier from this point onward. And lest you think this is some sort of exaggerated, extremist talk, remember that George Washington was an illegal, extremist militia founder. This is all part of American history and this was all done about 200 years ago.
4GW is like tic-tac-toe. The only winning move is not to play the game. That’s the best bet for the controllers. Pass the silly laws, ignore it when the laws are ignored, and try to get out of this with just a modicum of dignity left. Or better yet, don’t pass the silly laws at all.
As always, this commentary is for the meant only for educational and instructional purposes only, all characters are fictional, and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.
|
|
On March 2, 2020 at 9:16 am, X said:
Yeah, but can states and municipalities ignore Federal immigration laws and refuse to turn illegal aliens over for deportation? OF COURSE the Washington Post thinks they can.
If the Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates were a hardcore fundamentalist Christian, and passed a bill sponsored by a fundamentalist Christian to ban or restrict abortion, would the Washington Post tell us that the law must be followed?
OF COURSE NOT. But when we have a left-wing Jewish Speaker, and a left-wing Jewish Delegate sponsor gun control legislation… why, THAT’S DIFFERENT, and the law must not be questioned.
I’m so tired of all this. There is no point in arguing with these people, or even wasting the time to point out their logical inconsistencies, because they’re not logical. They don’t care about the law or the Constitution, they care about the end results they want and nothing else. You can’t shame people who have no shame. We’re not playing on the same field as they are. We shouldn’t even be in the same country as they are.
On March 2, 2020 at 1:31 pm, MTHead said:
And, it’s been decided by SCOTUS many times that law enforcement is under no obligation to enforce anything. Even with prior knowledge that a crime may be committed. Virginia AG knows it.
And counties should be funding their own sheriffs. Cut out the middleman. We do out west.
On March 2, 2020 at 2:47 pm, dds said:
There’s an underlying layer to this that should be brought up and discussed for it is fundamental.
At the interface between Law and Public is a man or woman who simply cannot, probably should not, and in probably the overwhelming majority of cases chooses not to, enforce each and every infraction of law they witness.
Bottom line, the people at the top of the pyramid can do what ever they feel is best. Meanwhile, the folks at the pointy end will continue to do their jobs pretty much as they’ve been doing them all along.
There is pretty much squat that an Attorney General can do to a Deputy Sheriff that chooses not to notice a law being broken.
On March 2, 2020 at 2:56 pm, Ned2 said:
A law that is merely offensive to the Constitution is therefore null and void, and cannot be enforced as it would contradict the oath all LEO’s take.
On March 2, 2020 at 9:03 pm, Sanders said:
If you’re going to let them go with a warning, you should probably notch an ear so you know if they come back….
On March 3, 2020 at 11:30 am, David said:
A local sheriff might arrest state officials, up to and including the governor. Laws that are not constitutional are void, and enforcing some of these laws would be theft under the color of law. It does not matter that a court has not so ruled.