While the Obama administration and some Democrat lawmakers plot ever more extreme assaults on the Second Amendment, state and local officials across the country are working just as hard to find ways to protect the gun rights of law-abiding citizens in their jurisdictions. One local Pennsylvania police chief is helping to lead the way, asking officials in his borough to pass an ordinance or resolution nullifying any unconstitutional attacks on the unalienable rights of residents.
Meet Gilberton Borough Police Chief Mark Kessler. After watching anti-Constitution politicians in Washington, D.C., try to exploit a tragedy to trample on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, he decided enough was enough. Now, he is speaking out, and asking lawmakers in his small borough of around 1,000 people to pass a nullification measure. He is also promoting the idea nationwide, most recently appearing on the popular Alex Jones radio show heard all across the country.
In a phone interview with The New American, Chief Kessler detailed his proposed “Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance,” which would prevent any federal or state infringements on the right to keep and bear firearms, accessories, or ammunition within the jurisdiction. If approved, the resolution, citing the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions, would nullify any unconstitutional acts purporting to restrict gun rights.
Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution reads: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” Virtually all other state constitutions contain similar protections. The U.S. Constitution, meanwhile, states explicitly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” For Chief Kessler, like for countless Americans, the constitutional language is clear, and any pretended acts of legislation contradicting those simple guarantees should be viewed as null and void.
Read more.
I stated this in 2008 when I ran for sheriff of Venango County, and I am stating it again. Printz v US (1997) was the US Supreme Court Case which reinforced that the sheriff was the chief law enforcement officer within the county. All federal agencies need the sheriffs permission to operate within a counties boundaries. The Printz SCOTUS ruling further stated that all other law enforcement agencies were under his (Sheriff) authority; be it the state police or local police. As for “Gun Control” the sheriff can refuse to enforce any federal government statutes that take away a constitutional right. Also see ex post facto laws, you will get what you vote for. People are worried and are crying to their legislature, when the solution is local. And for the record, the sheriff my still conduct investigations, have Sheriff Foy debate me with you as the moderator I will prove it!
To build upon what I stated earlier; in previous court cases such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme Court has declined to put police and other public authorities under any general duty to protect individuals from crime. This means the police have no obligation to protect you, that is your job to protect yourself. It makes perfect sense if you think. Police Departments are corporations (Yes) if they had an obligation to protect you and they failed. Then you as a private citizen could sue for damages, or for the police not doing their jobs. Not a slight on police officers, it is just they only have powers that a coperate entity may bestow upon them, unlike the Sheriff who has common law powers through the constitution (Please feel free to look everything up). It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers. Sappv. Tallahasse, 348 So. 2nd 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F. Supp. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247…..Lastly codes and statutes are from roman civil law and Admiralty Law Jurisdiction. Whereas, Constitutional Law is founded on Common Law. Codes and statutes are legal codes, not law. Get a law book and look up the differense between legal v lawful (Blacks Law Dictionary 3rd or 6th Edition, Bouviers Law Dictionary or even Blackstones writings on law, as well as Latin Legal Maixms. Than there is the whole hierarchy of law which I could post)…..A lawyer will never tell you this……