snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Legal Affairs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 17 January 2013, 08:56 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,626
Cowboy County sheriffs are the ultimate legal authorities

Comment: I found this posted on a friends wall on facebook:

Did you know that no matter what gun control laws are passed by the
federal government, they can only be enforced in your area if your county
sheriff allows them to be? The ultimate legal authorities in the land are
the county sheriffs. This was established from the time of the Founding
Fathers and upheld by the US Supreme Court in the 1997 case of Printz v.
United States. Initially the case was Mack v. United States, but by the
time it reached the Supreme Court it was renamed.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 17 January 2013, 09:15 AM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,373
Default

How can the county sheriff be ultimate everywhere if some states don't have counties or sheriffs? Counties and sheriffs only exist if, when, and how a state law says that they do. (Connecticut has neither. There are historical counties that still show up on maps, but there is no county level of government.)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 17 January 2013, 10:45 AM
htonl's Avatar
htonl htonl is offline
 
Join Date: 20 July 2006
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 1,638
Crash

This is, apparently, a belief that is associated with the sovereign citizen/natural law/anti-tax movement. I don't quite understand why they would believe the county sheriff is the supreme authority, rather than the state governor or legislature, but one can't exactly expect logic.

Unsurprisingly, Printz v. U.S. doesn't stand for what they claim it does. You can read the article, but the short version is that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required "chief law enforcement officers" (presumably including sheriffs) to carry out certain actions to check up on gun sales, and the court ruled that this was unconstitutional. Needless to say, this doesn't give the county sheriff a veto over all federal laws.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 17 January 2013, 12:18 PM
BringTheNoise's Avatar
BringTheNoise BringTheNoise is offline
 
Join Date: 10 November 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 7,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by htonl View Post
This is, apparently, a belief that is associated with the sovereign citizen/natural law/anti-tax movement. I don't quite understand why they would believe the county sheriff is the supreme authority, rather than the state governor or legislature, but one can't exactly expect logic.
Are you denying the magical properties of the Caps Lock key???
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 17 January 2013, 03:08 PM
firefighter_raven's Avatar
firefighter_raven firefighter_raven is offline
 
Join Date: 27 September 2008
Location: Bend, OR
Posts: 2,994
Default

One of these idiot sheriffs that is sending the letter to Biden is from a neighboring county. The amount of stupid on the comment section of the article in the local news section is insane.
And maybe someone with more knowledge of the Constitution can help me but isn't the only body tasked with defining a law as unconstitutional is the Supreme Court?

Last edited by firefighter_raven; 17 January 2013 at 03:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 17 January 2013, 03:13 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 24,515
Default

Our county's sheriff certainly thinks he's the ultimate legal authority on everything.

(Arpaio in case you don't feel up to doing the geography work.)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 17 January 2013, 03:16 PM
firefighter_raven's Avatar
firefighter_raven firefighter_raven is offline
 
Join Date: 27 September 2008
Location: Bend, OR
Posts: 2,994
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Our county's sheriff certainly thinks he's the ultimate legal authority on everything.

(Arpaio in case you don't feel up to doing the geography work.)
When I was down in your area a couple of years ago for that nasty fire season, I remember wondering how he kept getting elected. Most of the people I met in Mesa and Phoenix area didn't seem the type to support him.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 17 January 2013, 08:35 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,626
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by htonl View Post
Unsurprisingly, Printz v. U.S. doesn't stand for what they claim it does. You can read the article, but the short version is that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required "chief law enforcement officers" (presumably including sheriffs) to carry out certain actions to check up on gun sales, and the court ruled that this was unconstitutional.
But isn't the point that SCOTUS found the Brady provisions unconstitutional because they required state officials to enforce federal regulations dealing with internal (rather than international or interstate) matters?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 17 January 2013, 08:48 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 24,515
Default

The UL in the OP says (if I'm reading it right) that the county sheriff could prevent anyone, including federal agents like the FBI or BATF from enforcing federal laws.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 17 January 2013, 09:03 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,626
Cowboy

I read it to mean that county sheriffs were responsible for enforcing federal laws at the local level and could not be compelled to do so.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 17 January 2013, 09:08 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is online now
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,461
Default

State and city law enforcement can still enforce federal laws, even if a Sheriff decides not to devote resources to it.

ETA: And htonl is right about it being connected to certain far right theories. See Posse Comitatus.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 17 January 2013, 09:40 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 24,515
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
I read it to mean that county sheriffs were responsible for enforcing federal laws at the local level and could not be compelled to do so.
I did not read it the OP UL that way. In particular the part about "only be enforced in your area if your county sheriff allows them" sounds like he's the one making the call if they can be enforced by anyone. If they meant they could only be enforced if he enforced them, then the use of "allow" is odd. I guess it could mean that he wouldn't allow his deputies to enforce them. The other part was the use of "ultimate legal authorities in the land" (bolding mine). "In the land" usually seems to mean the entire country or area, not just a county. Finally there is the "theme" of these types of ULs. They often have the theme that the federal government is illigitimate, illegal, or incapable. The idea that the OP UL is saying that the sheriff can prevent federal agencies from enforcing federal laws seems a lot more in keeping with these themes than if the OP UL was saying that the BATF or FBI could still enforce the laws themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 17 January 2013, 09:45 PM
htonl's Avatar
htonl htonl is offline
 
Join Date: 20 July 2006
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 1,638
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
I read it to mean that county sheriffs were responsible for enforcing federal laws at the local level and could not be compelled to do so.
This bit:

Quote:
Did you know that no matter what gun control laws are passed by the
federal government, they can only be enforced in your area if your county
sheriff allows them to be? The ultimate legal authorities in the land are
the county sheriffs.
I read to be a claim that sheriffs have a universal veto power over the enforcement of federal legislation by any agency, not just a claim that sheriffs can refuse to enforce it themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 17 January 2013, 09:52 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is online now
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,461
Default

It's a really standard Posse Comitatus/sovereign citizen/etc. statement.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 17 January 2013, 10:29 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,626
Cowboy

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
I did not read it the OP UL that way. In particular the part about "only be enforced in your area if your county sheriff allows them" sounds like he's the one making the call if they can be enforced by anyone.
Bur if the sheriff is the one in ultimate control of those who are tasked with enforcing such regulations, then it is true, in effect, that those regulations can only be enforced if he allows them to be.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 17 January 2013, 10:33 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 24,515
Default

The only way that would mean that they couldn't be enforced at all would be for the sheriff department to be the only law enforcement agency who could enforce federal laws.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 17 January 2013, 10:59 PM
Ali Infree's Avatar
Ali Infree Ali Infree is offline
 
Join Date: 02 February 2007
Location: Wheeling, WV
Posts: 2,538
Default

I understand that this belief exists in the land, but it does have all these issues doesn't it? If the sheriff doesn't allow water pollution laws to be enforced, then they are not enforced? Vaccinations of children? Not in my county? Payment of physician bills by the government? Nope, no socialism here! Regulation of the safety of food and medications...safety standards in work places...rights of well, anybody not part of the posse?
Pap.
BTW, county sheriffs in WV have a long history of holding highly central and long, corrupt reigns since they constitutionally collect all local taxes and enforce the laws (as we normal folks think of it). Eventually, there was a voter rebellion, and no sheriff could hold the office for more than one four year term. We lightened up a little bit and let them succeed themselves once. Since then the sheriffs association has put up amendments to eliminate these term limits repeatedly. It has been turned down, I think, twice in recent years. And the votes were not even close.
Back on topic:
Pap.

Ali
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 17 January 2013, 11:59 PM
crescent crescent is offline
 
 
Join Date: 13 August 2008
Location: Right here
Posts: 2,518
Default

I think that they think that by not allowing enforcement, the sheriff's can block enforcement; they can prevent Federal or State officers from implementing laws the sheriff disagrees with. As previously stated, that is a key component of the "Freeman on the Land" conspiracy movement.

Slightly more mainstream:

Several State Legislators Say No to Federal Gun Control Laws

Quote:
Named the "Firearms Protection Act," the bill would make "any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state's boundaries" and most notably "anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal."
Quote:
proposal would make the president's Executive Order or any federal law banning semi-automatic weapons not already on the books "unenforceable" and the bill notably, like in Texas, would "make it a crime for any officer, government agent, or employee from enforcing a law or order declared unenforceable," effectively making it a crime for the feds to enforce the bill in the state.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 18 January 2013, 12:29 AM
firefighter_raven's Avatar
firefighter_raven firefighter_raven is offline
 
Join Date: 27 September 2008
Location: Bend, OR
Posts: 2,994
Default

My question is how would that play out on Federal land within these areas? At least two of the Oregon Sheriffs that stated they would not only fail to enforce the law but prevent federal officers from doing the same have sizable National Forests in their counties.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 18 January 2013, 12:31 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is online now
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,461
Default

States could, I suppose, pass such a law. But Congress could pass a law saying that no state or local authorities may interfere with enforcement of the federal laws (if there isn't already such a law), and by operation of the Supremacy Clause, the state law would be unenforceable.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Franklin quotation on questioning authority atlatl Questionable Quotes 1 02 February 2010 01:00 PM
The Ultimate Inboxer Rebellion Julie0917 Inboxer Rebellion 5 04 November 2008 03:55 PM
Stanley Milgram -- Obedience to Authority lee13773 Science 0 21 January 2008 01:48 PM
The Ultimate Quarter Toss cdav1313 Fauxtography 4 02 September 2007 10:27 PM
Snopes.com foremost authority on rumors and 'urban legends' snopes Snopes Spotting 1 12 March 2007 10:00 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.