I think that the sheriff departments can tell the Feds to go suck an egg if they want to investigate in their county. Anybody upto date on this idea?Couldn't Wyoming cease all cooperation with them and refuse to enforce any of their rulings?
In July 2005, ATF said it would notify federally licensed firearms dealers that concealed weapons permits from Wyoming were invalid unless the state changed its law.
BATF has no statuary authority to either validate or invalidate state CCW permits. I do believe that this is about the time that BATF determined that some states' CCW permits would no longer be allowed to substitute for a NICS check.
Oh man that's a hoot!It is interesting to note that in many states the Sheriff is the SOLE law enforcement authority of a county or parish(Louisiana) and he or she can keep the feds from operating there with out the sheriff's permission.
More legal comedy from another person who obviously has absolutely no knowledge of how the legal system really works.The ATF only has jurisdiction on Federal territory - or any ground where the State of Wyoming has ceded it - partially or otherwise.
Completely correct. The local and state agencies are not required to assist fed agencies in enforcing federal laws.Saying that, it makes sense that the local LEOs need not assist the Feds in any way shape or form. Sound correct?
This is a silly dance. If the Federal government actually had the legal power - the jurisdiction - to do so, they could have merely made the 55 limit a "federal law" that applied nationwide. The fact is, they do not have the jurisdiction to do so, and such a "law" would have been undoubtably challenged on that ground.The federal government cannot force state and local governments to enforce a particular law, or to enact certain laws, such as the 55mph speed limit
"The Congress shall have Power to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District [of Columbia] as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."
"According to Adams v. United States (1943), 319 U.S. 312, 314, 63 S.Ct. 1122, 1123, 87 L.Ed. 1421, 1423, Section 255, Title 40, U.S.Code "created a definite method of acceptance of jurisdiction [by the United States] so that all persons could know whether the [federal] government had obtained ‘no jurisdiction at all, or partial jurisdiction, or exclusive jurisdiction.’ " Section 255 states:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the obtaining of exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over lands or interests therein which have been or shall hereafter be acquired by it shall not be required; but the head or other authorized officer of any department or independent establishment or agency of the Government may, in such cases and at such times as he may deem desirable, accept or secure from the State in which any lands or interests therein under his immediate jurisdiction, custody, or control are situated, consent to or cession of such jurisdiction, exclusive or partial, not theretofore obtained, over any such lands or interests as he may deem desirable and indicate acceptance of such jurisdiction on behalf of the United States by filing a notice of such acceptance with the Governor of such State or in such other manner as may be prescribed by the laws of the State where such lands are situated. Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted ." (Emphasis added.)"
I was a law enforcement specialist at Wright-Patterson AFB in the late 1970s - we did in fact exercize concurrent jurisdiction on State Highway 444 with OSP but not exclusively at that time.In 1952 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 1877, the Attorney General analyzed the jurisdiction over the highway passing through the Wright Field Military Reservation and the Patterson Field Military Reservation. He stated that the 1945 letter "gave notice of the acceptance by the United States of ‘exclusive jurisdiction over all lands acquired by it for military purposes within the State of Ohio, title to which has heretofore vested in the United States.’ " The Attorney General, without any hesitancy, stated that the letter of acceptance, "set out in full in Opinion No. 649," led him to conclude that the United States acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the disputed highway in 1945.
Mr., your sentences here, one and three, contradict each other.You are talking about exclusive federal jurisdiction in those examples. In areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction the state has ceded ALL jurisdiction to the federal government, rather than having concurrent jurisdiction. The issue of exclusive federal jurisdiction is a far cry from the state needing to cede ANY jurisdiction to the federal government.
In United States vs. Adams the issue was whether the Federal gov had any jurisdiction to try the case.The portion of the Constitution, and the case(s) you just cited, are about whether or not the federal government has exclusive jurisidiction over the property.
RE: Sentence number one.In areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction the state has no jurisdiction. fNeither, says the state must cede jurisdiction in areas where the federal government does not have, or the state has not ceded, EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction
Lets get Ron Paul elected, and work to change things.October 20, 1997
Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats!
Proves that while faces, parties change, Congress stays the same By US Representative Ron Paul
A cursory reading of the Constitution makes it clear that there was never meant to be a federal police force. The Constitution, the highest law of the land, explicitly defines the role of federal government and correctly reserves the authority, power and responsibility for police activities to local government. Why? Because it is at that level where potential abuses can be minimized by a watchful citizenry.
Even an "FBI" style of federal agency, limited only to being a resource for investigations, was not accepted until this century. Yet today, fueled by the federal government's misdirected and misapplied war on drugs, the hysteria surrounding radical environmentalism, and the aggressive dictates of the nanny state, we have witnessed the massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators prowling the states. This buildup is the direct result of the sacrifice of individual responsibility and the concept of local control by many Americans.
The enforcement of the interventionist, welfare-warfare state requires a growing army of thriving bureaucrats. With special interests demanding favors, federal office-holders can only meet those demands by abusing the rights of those who produce wealth and cherish liberty. The resentment of those being abused is then directed at the government agents who come to collect, even though those agents are merely the front-men for the special interests and their elected puppets. As resentment toward these agents increases and becomes more hostile, the natural consequence has been for the bureaucrats - the intruders upon liberty - to arm themselves as protection against the angry victims of government abuse.