MISSOURI COUNTY IS STANDING UP TO THE LIBERAL GUN CONTROL

[10_fan]

Sheriff In One County Now Has the Power to Arrest Feds Attempting to Enforce Gun Control
Beth Baumann | Feb 24, 2021 6:45 PM

Sheriff In One County Now Has the Power to Arrest Feds Attempting to Enforce Gun Control
Source: AP Photo/Ted S. Warren

Any state or federal agent looking to enforce gun control laws is going to want to think twice before heading to Newton County, Missouri, where the county commissioners recently reaffirmed their commitment to the Second Amendment. Under the newly-passed ordinance, the county sheriff has the authority to arrest anyone enforcing anti-gun legislation.


"Newton County Missouri declares that it must be the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms and that no person, including a public officer or county employee of this county or any political subdivision of this county, can have the authority to enforce or attempt to enforce and federal laws, orders, or rules infringing on the right to keep and bear arms," the ordinance stated.

The ordinance lists a number of potential gun control laws including:

Taxes and stamps imposed on firearms, ammunition and firearms accessories
Registering firearms, ammunition and firearms accessories
Confiscation of firearms, ammunition and firearms accessories
Commissioners also took into account any potential anti-gun legislation and policies currently in the pipeline, whether in Congress or the White House. That is why the ordinance said the county would not recognize any laws that would limit a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Those laws would be deemed "null and void" in Newton County.

[Kenk]

So it's basically a Second Amendment Sanctuary, correct 😊

[10_fan]

in a sense yes however the people are standing in as auxiliary LEO and the sheriff of that county has given permission to the deputies to arrest any federal agent or other person trying to take a resident firearms of said county

[sqlbullet]

Interesting.

Without lending support to federal laws that are overly burdensome,  does this not directly contradict Article VI of the constitution?

[10_fan]

Interesting.

Without lending support to federral laws that are overly burdensome,  does this not directly contradict Article VI of the constitution?

the Constitution allows states to make their own laws

[sqlbullet]

Interesting.

Without lending support to federral laws that are overly burdensome,  does this not directly contradict Article VI of the constitution?

the Constitution allows states to make their own laws

Never said it didn't.  I asked how this doesn't contradict Article VI.

[Graybeard]

Interesting.

Without lending support to federral laws that are overly burdensome,  does this not directly contradict Article VI of the constitution?

the Constitution allows states to make their own laws




It appears to, yet so do the various versions of the legalization of marijuana and other drugs from various states. Looking at the two, one is about additional tax revenue and the other an existing constitutional right. Call me cynical, but I think I can guess which one this administration would challenge first.

[10_fan]

Interesting.

Without lending support to federral laws that are overly burdensome,  does this not directly contradict Article VI of the constitution?

the Constitution allows states to make their own laws

Never said it didn't.  I asked how this doesn't contradict Article VI.

I meant nothing negative brother it does in fact contradict the Constitution however the Second Amendment is also part of the Constitution so in my opinion there's a double negative here, so supporting the constitution can be a double edge sir