In response to my May 16th post about the recent movement among Illinois counties to adopt resolutions condemning the ever-worsening attacks on Illinoisans' gun rights, StraightArrow pointed out that for the resolutions to mean much, the sheriffs would have to enforce them.
unless your sheriffs in such counties are willing to arrest and charge any agent of the state who tries to enforce the laws they say they will not tolerate, it means nothing.Perhaps some Wyoming Sheriffs will show their Illinois brethren how to follow SA's advice.
A sheriff can do so. A local judge can then keep them in jail without bail for any number of crimes which they will have committed. But, it matters not if they don't have the balls for it.
If you draw a line in the sand, you must defend it when it is trespassed or surrender.
County sheriffs in Wyoming are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activities in a Wyoming county with the Sheriff's Office. Speaking at a press conference following the recent US District Court decision (case No 2:96-cv-099-J) Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis stated that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval.Four Illinois counties (Pike, Brown, Schuyler, and Hancock) have already adopted resolutions protesting Cook County-style, draconian gun legislation, with others set to consider similar resolutions. That's all well and good, but of rather limited meaning, unless the county sheriffs actively enforce the counties' power. That power exceeds that of both the federal and state governments, but is very rarely asserted.
"If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave or retain them in custody." The court decision came about after Mattis & other members of the Wyoming Sheriffs' Association brought a suit against both the BATF and the IRS in the Wyoming federal court district seeking restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution. The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs, stating that, "Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official."
Constitution loving sheriffs in Illinois, take heed--Wyoming has shown you the way.
EDITED TO ADD: By the way, I realize that the article quoted is from 2000, and that the Wyoming Sheriffs' actions are not new developments--the fact remains that the Sheriff does have the authority to protect his county from unconstitutional edicts from the state and federal governments.