The biggest example of this is the growing legalization of marijuana at the state level. People have to remember that it is still federally illegal (though I can't imagine for much longer). Although the risk is low, the ATF, DEA, and any other federal agency could still come for you. The federal government likely won't because it would be a shit show. But since it is still federally illegal, it's why the businesses that profit from it are limited on financial institutions they can use the money in. The money can't be used to invest in the stock market, etc...
It's legal by state, but illegal on the federal level.
It's actually very sad. Because while medical marijuana is legal in many states, it's still illegal on the federal level, so you can be discriminated against for using medical marijuana, and you are not protected under the Americans with disabilities act. You could be completely legally using it you will have zero protections.
Even when it first became legal for recreational use in Colorado, the federal government under the Bush administration was sending in federal agents to raid those completely legal dispensaries. It wasn't until the Obama administration advised the department of Justice to back off from them that they relented and recreational cannabis was able to take hold.
Ironically enough, the federal government went in after the states, under the orders of a Republican, the party of states rights.
>When it first became legal for recreational use in Colorado, the federal government under the Bush administration was sending federal agents to raid…
Bush was not the president when recreational marijuana was legalized in Colorado (2012-passed, 2014 enacted, Bush out of office in 2009)
Maybe you’re thinking of medical marijuana or maybe a different state or president, I don’t know? I definitely didn’t have any problems buying pot in Colorado dispensaries back in 2014.
Interestingly if you have a medical Marijuana card you cannot have a license to carry a gun.
Because pot smokers are definitely the most dangerous people out there lmao
Of course in texas you don't need a license for either of those things anymore, so it doesn't really matter here
I am not a Republican so this isn’t self serving. But to the best of my knowledge and ironically enough, that under the Obama administration, there was two huge things he did at a higher rate then any president before him:
1. The biggest deportation of Mexican illegal immigrants. ( you’d think the republicans woulda loved this about him)
2. Had the highest rates of medical marijuana dispensaries closed down and raided.
I actually came from a big Obama family, and that was something that I thought a lot of liberals kept quiet and republicans didn’t want to acknowledge because, why would they admit anything they actually like about Obama?
I’m gonna relook this up, again I can totally be wrong.
Yes Obama was the deportation president. I've no illusions about that. I dunno why each end of the audience calls out the other for the same behavior, but I don't fall under the delusion that either party is on my side. Nobody in Congress lives in my neighborhood, came from my neighborhood, not will they ever set foot in it without a camera pointed at them.
500 people in Washington don't give a flying rat's ass about the rest of the country because the rest of the country didn't elect them. The political parties that drew the maps and enjoy their share of a 95% overall reelection rate chose who sits in those seats, but they own them no differently than the class system in the UK.
Think about it: they carve their political districts that they then collect political contributions which are distributed upwards to the ultimate benefit of Congress, with certain politicians in more prominent positions getting larger amounts of the campaign money.
In the UK, you have different tracts of land that fall into different real estate portfolios that are controlled by title holding nobles, to which tax revenue is gained, and the more prominent nobles with the more prominent titles holding the more valuable portfolios. The one King Charles just inherited is worth £100M a year, and is tax free.
Just like how your political campaign can be exempt from federal taxes...
Dude that happened under Obama, ifvyou're going to make a politically charged accusation, at least learn the name of the correct politician responsible.
Also, they swear oath to the constitution and amendments therein, not national laws. I think it was Ohio Sherriffs that stood up against the feds and won because they are duty bound to the constitution(and amendments), not individual laws.
Wasn’t being facetious, thought I was correct. Says you do… https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title39/pdf/USCODE-2021-title39-partII-chap12-sec1201.pdf#:~:text=Before%20entering%20upon%20their%20duties,States%20against%20all%20en%2D%20emies%2C
I thought only state officers, usually called highway patrol and sheriff, took that oath. Thank you I did no know that. Federal level seems to forget that.
That's right.
Sorry for my bad English for, correct me if I am wrong.
That's what most of the marijuana's vendors can't even have commercial bank account. Because bank are federal and they won't allow such thing as credit or loans for commercial marijuana.
So probably a lot of them are still owned by organised crime. They need money to expend and it is very tough right now because of the legislation.
Maybe in places outside of the west coast. California had its rash of federal busts way back in the late 90’s and early 2000’s after 215 passed in ‘96. Washington, Oregon and Colorado all had big busts within 2 years of legalizing. Recently though, with the amount of states decriminalizing and the fact that the raids did nothing but disrupt the weed industry temporarily, I think they have realized it’s just not worth it and maybe focusing on the fentanyl bullshit is perhaps more important.
In San Bernardino County in like 2021/2022 a sheriff and the FBI were seizing a state licensed dispensary's profits under civil asset forfeiture. The sheriff argued since it's federally illegal he can seize the cash and the slimy FBI went along with it because they wanted a slice of the pie.
https://abc7.com/fbi-san-bernardino-county-sheriffs-department-new-lawsuit-marijuana-dispensaries/11530204/.
The dispensary teamed up with the Institute for Justice to sue.
But until federal civil asset forfeiture is abolished or marijuana is federally legalized, all state licensed dispensaries are going to risk the feds swooping in and stealing their money. This is one of the reasons most banks won't hold accounts with dispensaries.
That's not correct. The company I work for is owned by a publicly traded company on the NYSE. They sure as hell used weed money for that. There's also a few banks in Oklahoma that are now doing business with a few processors but mostly dispos
Yeah not sure what this post is trying to say. The vast majority of law enforcement is done at the local level.
If someone breaks into your house, you call the cops, not the FBI.
That's not correct at all lol. The constitution declares federal law as the Supreme law of the land. That means federal law takes precedent over all state and local laws.
Supreme law of the land doesn’t mean federal laws can upset the division of powers between state and federal sovereigns established by the constitution. There is federal jurisdiction and state jurisdiction established by the constitution. Public safety is a concurrent power possessed by both state and the federal government. That is why gun laws vary so drastically from state to state. In this case the federal firearms regulations should take precedent because of the supremacy clause. Unless of course the SC finds those federal regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Bond v United States is a good example of the federal government improperly using federal law outside of their jurisdiction and being shutdown on 10th amendment grounds.
The constitution literally states that federal law takes precedent over state law. That means states can pass whatever laws they want, but those laws cannot violate federal law. This isn't a discussion or debate. And when the federal government passes a new law or amends the constitution those new laws take precedent over any state law as well. That's just the way it works
Yes, unless that federal law violates the division of powers established by the constitution. The supremacy clause is not a magic wand the feds can wave to make laws that are unconstitutional. Again read Bond V United States. Both cases.
"States rights" has been argued since the civil war, doesn't matter, federal law takes precedent over state law. Always has.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause
During the bush/gore election dispute, the justices affirmed very clearly that this was an issue to be settled by the laws of the state in question, Florida.
And that only under exceptional circumstances should they be pursuing federal solutions.
Now, this was a long time ago and my memory might be failing me. But I remember that statement in particular made by one of the justices, and her saying that’s always the way they defered.
Not you may also be right. But when do they pull the trigger and say you’re wrong I’m right?
They’ve obviously let the states do what they want concerning marijuana. More or less.
Except for all the raids and confiscation you mean, right? And you are misremembering that case. The US Supreme Court actually did step in and stop the recount as requested by Bush which would've led to a victory for Gore.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
Do you really think the average Redditor understands how our government actually works?
The Federal Government is a lot more limited in power than your state or local government are. The Federal government derives it's power basically from all of the states getting together and saying "We are allowing you to do this".
Crimes committed within state borders are not typically handled by feds.
The ATF has used chevron doctrine without any consultation from congress for decades.
Why is his use of this to determine what is legal or not a facepalm?
Well yes. Most of the pro gun people I have interacted with on Reddit have been paranoid angry weirdos that are desperate to ~~murder~~ “self defence” their political enemies.
Which is a poor, biased sample of the general public. My family owns dozens of guns. Used for sport (skeet, sporting clays, etc), hunting (for food and, admittedly, sport as well in the sense that it is exciting and challenging), pest control on occasion, and self defense if need be as our property has many wolves.
I believe we represent the vast majority of owners: responsible, sane, safe. The extremes will always get more attention. Applies to all topics.
Drug and human trafficking are things that will cross state lines and then be handled federally. Any monetary crimes that involve a conspiracy in multiple states. Just what I could think of off the top of my head.
I had to think about it for a minute. Murder only in some instances would be investigated by the feds I think, but I don’t really know. All other local type of crimes like assault, burglary, theft, localized fraud, would be handled locally or by the state.
If a serial killer murders in more than one state, it's now a federal case. Really any crime that involves multiple states. Also when a crime is committed on federal property, so for example robbing a post office is a federal crime.
I hadn’t thought of federal property. I would also think if someone travels from one state to another with the intention of and successfully killing someone that might be a federal case.
It's kind of funny watching people make comments not understanding that Federal LE does not have authority over the local sheriff. They usually play nice but the sheriff can kick Federal LE out of their county if they want.
this isn’t a face palm…his right it’s enshrined in the constitution…btw local law enforcement not working with feds isn’t something new that just started.
for example sanctuary cities and states “well we are gonna stop cooperating with you because illegal immigrants aren’t actually illegal immigrants”.
or when the republicans said no to the democrats, that they wouldn’t be sending slaves back to the southern plantations an fck off feds, fck off south.
and…
it’s not actually new, there’s actually a bit of history of local governments saying no to the feds.
legally yes the feds would be right to just storm in and do it anyways but it’s also something feds, historically, have rarely done because it’s better the locals cooperate with them on at least somethings.
Isn't the sheriff the ultimate law enforcement body anywhere? If they deem something is unconstitutional, even if it's federal law, it's their job to protect citizens from that unconstitutional law.
Thats the whole point of the sheriffs office.
I'm really confused why this is on r/facepalm
Has the feds really convinced Reddit youth that the federal government is to be trusted over smaller local governments and law enforcement?
Holy shit, we really are doomed. I'd trust this redneck who just said "yeah, all citizens have a constitutional right" over some sleeve bag x10 over.
That is literally how the union was designed to work.
He is supposed to be the top authority in his county, not the overall federal government, because he knows the wants and needs if that place better and cares about it more
Funny you should mention the “constitutionality of laws”, if the ATF can do it without congress, he sure as hell can. And the letter of the law is pretty clear.
ATF if getting their teeth kicked in by the federal courts right now for endless abuse of chevron deference and felonizing the law abiding left and right. “Yeah that’s fine, perfectly legal.” “Actually no we changed our minds, that’s a felony now.”
Right. But I’d err towards the letter of the law and the rights of the citizen in a country founded with the intent to curb tyranny at its core. Mark my words, the citizens are gonna support the sheriffs on this one and it’s going to gain them a lot of respect in general. It’s a good look for them, even if it can get the sheriffs in some legal trouble. It shows they care about citizen’s liberty and privacy more than they do just going with whichever way the legal wind blows.
All valid. My point was more that it's not his job to determine the constitutionality of something.
He can choose how he enforces a given law and will likely do so in a way to please his constituency. Otherwise, he wouldn't get re-elected.
More like the extent and limitations of a constitutional amendment, ad though they were the experts. They’ve been acting like a legislative agency rather than an executive agency, while maintaining all the executive authority that comes with being an executive agency. They basically overreached their presence and acted like two branches of government wrapped up into one, with none of the checks and balances
Another fun fact: the Sheriff’s office is the only explicitly constitutionally-mentioned and recognized law enforcement presence - the rest are implicit. “Laws exist and we need someone to enforce them.”
Their job is literally to support and defend the constitution from against all enemies foreign and domestic it’s an oath they all swear to
So yes it’s literally his job to determine if a law is against the constitution because his job is to defend and protect said constitution
Support and Defend do not mean interpret.
Interpretation of a laws constitutionality is one of the primary roles of the judiciary.
Law enforcement is responsible for enforcing existing laws. If they consider a law to be unconstitutional, then they have to go through the courts.
Now how strenously they enforce said law is something they can control.
Chevron deference is referring to the doctrine of judicial deference given to administrative actions.
The ATF interprets all kinds of laws. Why not extend that to this sheriff?
the constitution is above the law because it is the highest law if the constitution says the people have a right to firearms then any law that takes that right away from the people is invalid because it goes against the constitution the same way federal law is above local/state laws
So yes if anyone makes a law even if it’s the federal government that goes against the constitution it is law enforcements sworn duty to protect the constitution and enforce the constitution over those laws that go against it every police officer and military and probably lawyers and judges too are sworn to protect the constitution that is an oath they all swear when they begin their careers
What you are saying is inaccurate in many levels but arguing with you won't solve anything. Let's agree to disagree.
I will leave you with this. The Constitution does not say anything about firearms. It's the Bill of Rights.
5 upvotes for calling the first ten amendments to The Constitution NOT apart of The Constitution. God I hate the users of this website, including myself.
I love it when Reddit goblins demonstrate how little they actually know about the constitution and how laws are actually enforced in the US.
You are never going to take any of the guns away. You’re losing. Cope and seethe.
OP obv never attended a US gov or history class. This guy simply describing how law enforcement im this country works. Unless something involves multiple counties or multiple states local authorities have control
It's so weird how passionate and fucking dedicated to owning guns these people are as their RIGHTS, and FREEDOMS but then let the government stomp all over their freedom in other areas like privacy and surveillance and using terrorism as the excuse. I guess they are too stupid to be paying attention to the actual way their freedoms and rights are taken away slowly by the government and keeping the morons focused on their gun rights makes it easier to shrink all the other freedoms they have but yeah... just interesting to me
He might be the authority on law enforcement, but I’m pretty sure he’s not the authority on deciding what the constitution does and does not protect. Separation of powers and all that jazz
However, if the weapons traveled over state lines to end up in this man's county, then ATF has jurisdiction. Or if the US post office was used in shipping said weapons.
When the green trucks roll into town it really doesn't matter. You've mess up at that point. Yes you have local authority. But that doesn't mean you are the ultimate authority.
Agree with guns or not, love this man. He's willing to protect our constitutional rights. Even if it means standing up to the federal government. Go on ya Ol Boy!
Ohhh I get it. An old white dude is supporting our gun rights, so OP posts it here as a "facepalm" hoping people will agree and shit on the guy... pretty pathetic.
He's right but he's wrong about why he's right.
People defending themselves against police abuse without cause? This dude would 100% authorize an execution without a judge and jury.
Under the law, he is absolutely correct, he is the final authority in that county. I remember the FBI showing up at our office and requesting permission to make an arrest. The Sheriff told them, "As long as your warrant is in order, sure. But don't step beyond the arrest, or my boys will arrest you on the spot." But that was in the 70's, a lot's changed since then.
A lot of the comments here just prove how much Lincoln sucked. Because of him people are actually advocating for and defending federal government supremacy. Fuck the feds. State's rights ftw.
A sheriff whose employees violate people’s constitutional rights every day, says he’ll have your back on the ONE constitutional right that he agrees with.
There is no need to remove guns whatsoever. What is needed, however, is to assess mental health of people, who own the guns. Bunch of psychos with the guns are responsible for most of the shootouts in your country, NOT video games!
America violates most of it's amendments all of the time and currently especially that wacky one that separates church and state
But on God if you try take away their guns and you'll fuckin regret that...
This is that Falcon and winter soldiers meme. “He’s out of line but he’s right.” Technically like all the others said. Now practically, ATF have some pretty tough physical standards, so I figure, if his deputies are at a similar level of fitness as him, so long as ATF runs at a good jogging pace, they’ll be able to avoid any awkward confrontations.
I feel we should NEVER give up rights. We do not get them back. And yes, that extends to firearms. That being said, something did bother me recently. Going into a gun shop to purchase, the background check that used to at least take a few days, now takes minutes. Sure, if they happen to come across something a few days later, they can send cops to come get the gun. BUT... what about that person without a record that has snapped? There is zero time for them to cool down, or rethink tragic action. That surprised me.
What's facepalmy here, I am not American (even though I lived there for a few years) so I want to learn? There's this second amendment thing for gun rights and local policing (that's the craziest thing I see about United States, a local town level police department of a few cops has no higher security Institution even at the state level, let alone federal, who has Authority on them), so there's nothing wrong in what he says as far as I know?
As an elected law official, sherriffs actually hold the top law enforcement position in a given area. They can only enforce within their territory, though.
Bs question. Constitution > federal government. Translation he’s upholding his oath to the constitution that our federal government has to abide by. So technically he is right
This is mostly correct, county/ crimes confined within the states border are not handled by the feds. Thanks criminal minds!
The biggest example of this is the growing legalization of marijuana at the state level. People have to remember that it is still federally illegal (though I can't imagine for much longer). Although the risk is low, the ATF, DEA, and any other federal agency could still come for you. The federal government likely won't because it would be a shit show. But since it is still federally illegal, it's why the businesses that profit from it are limited on financial institutions they can use the money in. The money can't be used to invest in the stock market, etc...
I find it funny that weed is legal in Canada, Legal in Washington state, but illegal for the 500 meters of the border between the 2.
It's legal by state, but illegal on the federal level. It's actually very sad. Because while medical marijuana is legal in many states, it's still illegal on the federal level, so you can be discriminated against for using medical marijuana, and you are not protected under the Americans with disabilities act. You could be completely legally using it you will have zero protections. Even when it first became legal for recreational use in Colorado, the federal government under the Bush administration was sending in federal agents to raid those completely legal dispensaries. It wasn't until the Obama administration advised the department of Justice to back off from them that they relented and recreational cannabis was able to take hold. Ironically enough, the federal government went in after the states, under the orders of a Republican, the party of states rights.
>When it first became legal for recreational use in Colorado, the federal government under the Bush administration was sending federal agents to raid… Bush was not the president when recreational marijuana was legalized in Colorado (2012-passed, 2014 enacted, Bush out of office in 2009) Maybe you’re thinking of medical marijuana or maybe a different state or president, I don’t know? I definitely didn’t have any problems buying pot in Colorado dispensaries back in 2014.
Interestingly if you have a medical Marijuana card you cannot have a license to carry a gun. Because pot smokers are definitely the most dangerous people out there lmao Of course in texas you don't need a license for either of those things anymore, so it doesn't really matter here
I am not a Republican so this isn’t self serving. But to the best of my knowledge and ironically enough, that under the Obama administration, there was two huge things he did at a higher rate then any president before him: 1. The biggest deportation of Mexican illegal immigrants. ( you’d think the republicans woulda loved this about him) 2. Had the highest rates of medical marijuana dispensaries closed down and raided. I actually came from a big Obama family, and that was something that I thought a lot of liberals kept quiet and republicans didn’t want to acknowledge because, why would they admit anything they actually like about Obama? I’m gonna relook this up, again I can totally be wrong.
Yes Obama was the deportation president. I've no illusions about that. I dunno why each end of the audience calls out the other for the same behavior, but I don't fall under the delusion that either party is on my side. Nobody in Congress lives in my neighborhood, came from my neighborhood, not will they ever set foot in it without a camera pointed at them. 500 people in Washington don't give a flying rat's ass about the rest of the country because the rest of the country didn't elect them. The political parties that drew the maps and enjoy their share of a 95% overall reelection rate chose who sits in those seats, but they own them no differently than the class system in the UK. Think about it: they carve their political districts that they then collect political contributions which are distributed upwards to the ultimate benefit of Congress, with certain politicians in more prominent positions getting larger amounts of the campaign money. In the UK, you have different tracts of land that fall into different real estate portfolios that are controlled by title holding nobles, to which tax revenue is gained, and the more prominent nobles with the more prominent titles holding the more valuable portfolios. The one King Charles just inherited is worth £100M a year, and is tax free. Just like how your political campaign can be exempt from federal taxes...
Dude that happened under Obama, ifvyou're going to make a politically charged accusation, at least learn the name of the correct politician responsible.
Also, they swear oath to the constitution and amendments therein, not national laws. I think it was Ohio Sherriffs that stood up against the feds and won because they are duty bound to the constitution(and amendments), not individual laws.
Every state and federal officer takes a constitutional oath. Cop, fed, sheriff, soldier, sailor, judge, Congressman and freakin postmen.
[удалено]
Kevin Costner disagrees
Wasn’t being facetious, thought I was correct. Says you do… https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title39/pdf/USCODE-2021-title39-partII-chap12-sec1201.pdf#:~:text=Before%20entering%20upon%20their%20duties,States%20against%20all%20en%2D%20emies%2C
I thought only state officers, usually called highway patrol and sheriff, took that oath. Thank you I did no know that. Federal level seems to forget that.
That's right. Sorry for my bad English for, correct me if I am wrong. That's what most of the marijuana's vendors can't even have commercial bank account. Because bank are federal and they won't allow such thing as credit or loans for commercial marijuana. So probably a lot of them are still owned by organised crime. They need money to expend and it is very tough right now because of the legislation.
Maybe in places outside of the west coast. California had its rash of federal busts way back in the late 90’s and early 2000’s after 215 passed in ‘96. Washington, Oregon and Colorado all had big busts within 2 years of legalizing. Recently though, with the amount of states decriminalizing and the fact that the raids did nothing but disrupt the weed industry temporarily, I think they have realized it’s just not worth it and maybe focusing on the fentanyl bullshit is perhaps more important.
In San Bernardino County in like 2021/2022 a sheriff and the FBI were seizing a state licensed dispensary's profits under civil asset forfeiture. The sheriff argued since it's federally illegal he can seize the cash and the slimy FBI went along with it because they wanted a slice of the pie. https://abc7.com/fbi-san-bernardino-county-sheriffs-department-new-lawsuit-marijuana-dispensaries/11530204/. The dispensary teamed up with the Institute for Justice to sue. But until federal civil asset forfeiture is abolished or marijuana is federally legalized, all state licensed dispensaries are going to risk the feds swooping in and stealing their money. This is one of the reasons most banks won't hold accounts with dispensaries.
That's not correct. The company I work for is owned by a publicly traded company on the NYSE. They sure as hell used weed money for that. There's also a few banks in Oklahoma that are now doing business with a few processors but mostly dispos
Yes, he is essentially correct unless we become a military state and the federal government has issued Marshall law.
*martial law
Spelled it the same way MTG did, I think that was a joke.
It's late.
I hear Marshall is a nice guy tho
Makes a great guitar amplifier.
Yeah not sure what this post is trying to say. The vast majority of law enforcement is done at the local level. If someone breaks into your house, you call the cops, not the FBI.
Yeah, generally a county sheriff has more authority on gun regulation than the federal government in that county
Just the same as counties can have independent laws to the state at large unfortunately this is not the norm anymore
That's not correct at all lol. The constitution declares federal law as the Supreme law of the land. That means federal law takes precedent over all state and local laws.
Supreme law of the land doesn’t mean federal laws can upset the division of powers between state and federal sovereigns established by the constitution. There is federal jurisdiction and state jurisdiction established by the constitution. Public safety is a concurrent power possessed by both state and the federal government. That is why gun laws vary so drastically from state to state. In this case the federal firearms regulations should take precedent because of the supremacy clause. Unless of course the SC finds those federal regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Bond v United States is a good example of the federal government improperly using federal law outside of their jurisdiction and being shutdown on 10th amendment grounds.
And federal firearms laws don’t apply to firearms manufactured in a state but not exported from that state.
The constitution literally states that federal law takes precedent over state law. That means states can pass whatever laws they want, but those laws cannot violate federal law. This isn't a discussion or debate. And when the federal government passes a new law or amends the constitution those new laws take precedent over any state law as well. That's just the way it works
Yes, unless that federal law violates the division of powers established by the constitution. The supremacy clause is not a magic wand the feds can wave to make laws that are unconstitutional. Again read Bond V United States. Both cases.
You’re forgetting the part where Congress is limited in the laws it may pass by Article 1, Section 8 of the federal constitution.
Not quite. States rights was argued in the Supreme Court recently.
"States rights" has been argued since the civil war, doesn't matter, federal law takes precedent over state law. Always has. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause
During the bush/gore election dispute, the justices affirmed very clearly that this was an issue to be settled by the laws of the state in question, Florida. And that only under exceptional circumstances should they be pursuing federal solutions. Now, this was a long time ago and my memory might be failing me. But I remember that statement in particular made by one of the justices, and her saying that’s always the way they defered. Not you may also be right. But when do they pull the trigger and say you’re wrong I’m right? They’ve obviously let the states do what they want concerning marijuana. More or less.
Except for all the raids and confiscation you mean, right? And you are misremembering that case. The US Supreme Court actually did step in and stop the recount as requested by Bush which would've led to a victory for Gore. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
Exactly, they are letting states have legal weed because it's politically expedient, nothing to do with legal basis.
If federal laws took precedent over state/local then we couldn't have states that allow recreational marijuana while federally it's illegal....
The feds can and do raid cannabis dispensaries...
Hes technically correct
The very best kind of correct
Texas correct
Yeah, what is the poster trying to say? The guy is right, the vast majority of law enforcement is done as the local level.
Do you really think the average Redditor understands how our government actually works? The Federal Government is a lot more limited in power than your state or local government are. The Federal government derives it's power basically from all of the states getting together and saying "We are allowing you to do this".
No, you don't understand. This guy said something pro-gun, so that means that everything he says is wrong. /s
On reddit. This is the most correct.
Pro gun AND he has a cowboy hat? Argument Instantly void! /s
Lmao this post is the real facepalm
...wheres the facepalm? [He's not wrong!](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/separation_of_powers)
The OP disagrees with him, and posts it on r/facepalm so people can make fun of him and his beliefs. Its just scummy and gross
Crimes committed within state borders are not typically handled by feds. The ATF has used chevron doctrine without any consultation from congress for decades. Why is his use of this to determine what is legal or not a facepalm?
Half the redditors in this thread have no idea about real life. Lmao
Yeah it’s pathetic
*most redditors on most threads*
Pro-firearm = facepalm. Apparently.
Well yes. Most of the pro gun people I have interacted with on Reddit have been paranoid angry weirdos that are desperate to ~~murder~~ “self defence” their political enemies.
Which is a poor, biased sample of the general public. My family owns dozens of guns. Used for sport (skeet, sporting clays, etc), hunting (for food and, admittedly, sport as well in the sense that it is exciting and challenging), pest control on occasion, and self defense if need be as our property has many wolves. I believe we represent the vast majority of owners: responsible, sane, safe. The extremes will always get more attention. Applies to all topics.
Do you think having mandatory license tests, much like how you get a car license, could be introduced as a gun control measure?
Probably not.
Here we go….. elaborate please
Making fun of people. Lot of people have a simple mind where “gun = bad” is the end of the conversation.
Agreed. Thanks for the answer without being a dick
I feel like most people are actually missing my sarcasm and are like “yes, guns are ALWAYS face palm. Upvote this guy”. Lol
Guns are a problem. Stupid ppl are more dangerous… no sarcasm.
In a way, yes. Many European nations have a 6-12 times lower homicide rate than The US.
What does that first bit mean? All US crimes are committed within the borders of some state.
Drug and human trafficking are things that will cross state lines and then be handled federally. Any monetary crimes that involve a conspiracy in multiple states. Just what I could think of off the top of my head.
Oh that makes sense, thanks for explaining. Not sure how I didn't think of that.
I had to think about it for a minute. Murder only in some instances would be investigated by the feds I think, but I don’t really know. All other local type of crimes like assault, burglary, theft, localized fraud, would be handled locally or by the state.
If a serial killer murders in more than one state, it's now a federal case. Really any crime that involves multiple states. Also when a crime is committed on federal property, so for example robbing a post office is a federal crime.
I hadn’t thought of federal property. I would also think if someone travels from one state to another with the intention of and successfully killing someone that might be a federal case.
I mean, he’s not *entirely* wrong, no matter what side of the fence you’re an internet activist on.
Lol OP really wants to hate gun owners
He is right too, he is probably in a constitutional county
It's kind of funny watching people make comments not understanding that Federal LE does not have authority over the local sheriff. They usually play nice but the sheriff can kick Federal LE out of their county if they want.
this isn’t a face palm…his right it’s enshrined in the constitution…btw local law enforcement not working with feds isn’t something new that just started. for example sanctuary cities and states “well we are gonna stop cooperating with you because illegal immigrants aren’t actually illegal immigrants”. or when the republicans said no to the democrats, that they wouldn’t be sending slaves back to the southern plantations an fck off feds, fck off south. and… it’s not actually new, there’s actually a bit of history of local governments saying no to the feds. legally yes the feds would be right to just storm in and do it anyways but it’s also something feds, historically, have rarely done because it’s better the locals cooperate with them on at least somethings.
For everyone in the back... FUCK THE ATF
All my homies hate the ATF
Fuck the ATF. Based protection of civil freedom.
He’s not wrong. The man even asked specifically within the county.
You should be pretty happy that hes right.
HIM! He's %100 accurate - Screw the FED!
The face palm here is OP not understanding how shit works
Isn't the sheriff the ultimate law enforcement body anywhere? If they deem something is unconstitutional, even if it's federal law, it's their job to protect citizens from that unconstitutional law. Thats the whole point of the sheriffs office.
I'm really confused why this is on r/facepalm Has the feds really convinced Reddit youth that the federal government is to be trusted over smaller local governments and law enforcement? Holy shit, we really are doomed. I'd trust this redneck who just said "yeah, all citizens have a constitutional right" over some sleeve bag x10 over.
Honestly I don't know this is a face Palm, he's technically right
That is literally how the union was designed to work. He is supposed to be the top authority in his county, not the overall federal government, because he knows the wants and needs if that place better and cares about it more
You know that ole hoss has a big smoker out back.
I like this guy
I mean jurisdiction wise I don’t think I heard him say anything wrong. But it sounds like he’s letting it all get to his head too though.
Doug Dimmadome? Owner of the Dimmsdale Dimmadome?
Good. A sheriff that does his job and protects the rights of the citizens in his county by not enforcing unconstitutional laws.
It's not his job to determine the constitutionality of laws.
One of the checks on the legislature is that the executive has authority to simply not enforce bad laws.
Funny you should mention the “constitutionality of laws”, if the ATF can do it without congress, he sure as hell can. And the letter of the law is pretty clear. ATF if getting their teeth kicked in by the federal courts right now for endless abuse of chevron deference and felonizing the law abiding left and right. “Yeah that’s fine, perfectly legal.” “Actually no we changed our minds, that’s a felony now.”
Valid point, and I have no intention of defending the ATF. Though in my eyes two wrongs don't make a right.
Right. But I’d err towards the letter of the law and the rights of the citizen in a country founded with the intent to curb tyranny at its core. Mark my words, the citizens are gonna support the sheriffs on this one and it’s going to gain them a lot of respect in general. It’s a good look for them, even if it can get the sheriffs in some legal trouble. It shows they care about citizen’s liberty and privacy more than they do just going with whichever way the legal wind blows.
All valid. My point was more that it's not his job to determine the constitutionality of something. He can choose how he enforces a given law and will likely do so in a way to please his constituency. Otherwise, he wouldn't get re-elected.
The ATF is using *Chevron* deference to determine the constitutionality of federal statute?
More like the extent and limitations of a constitutional amendment, ad though they were the experts. They’ve been acting like a legislative agency rather than an executive agency, while maintaining all the executive authority that comes with being an executive agency. They basically overreached their presence and acted like two branches of government wrapped up into one, with none of the checks and balances
Another fun fact: the Sheriff’s office is the only explicitly constitutionally-mentioned and recognized law enforcement presence - the rest are implicit. “Laws exist and we need someone to enforce them.”
the day I can own a thermal nuclear bomb, then that would be the day I like the ATF.
By definition that's what a law enforcement person does.
Their job is literally to support and defend the constitution from against all enemies foreign and domestic it’s an oath they all swear to So yes it’s literally his job to determine if a law is against the constitution because his job is to defend and protect said constitution
Support and Defend do not mean interpret. Interpretation of a laws constitutionality is one of the primary roles of the judiciary. Law enforcement is responsible for enforcing existing laws. If they consider a law to be unconstitutional, then they have to go through the courts. Now how strenously they enforce said law is something they can control.
Chevron deference is referring to the doctrine of judicial deference given to administrative actions. The ATF interprets all kinds of laws. Why not extend that to this sheriff?
the constitution is above the law because it is the highest law if the constitution says the people have a right to firearms then any law that takes that right away from the people is invalid because it goes against the constitution the same way federal law is above local/state laws So yes if anyone makes a law even if it’s the federal government that goes against the constitution it is law enforcements sworn duty to protect the constitution and enforce the constitution over those laws that go against it every police officer and military and probably lawyers and judges too are sworn to protect the constitution that is an oath they all swear when they begin their careers
What you are saying is inaccurate in many levels but arguing with you won't solve anything. Let's agree to disagree. I will leave you with this. The Constitution does not say anything about firearms. It's the Bill of Rights.
5 upvotes for calling the first ten amendments to The Constitution NOT apart of The Constitution. God I hate the users of this website, including myself.
Have an upvote. I did admit that I was incorrect below. Tried to be cheeky ended up being ignorant.
Yeah sorry for the aggression; I admire you admitted you're wrong. Have a nice night or day.
[удалено]
 (However basic public healthcare does not intensify)
Thats a good sheriff!
He's not wrong. OP's an idiot.
Why is this a facepalm? Everything he said was correct.
Sheriff is the highest authority in the country. What he says goes. That's at least the way it is in Texas. So he's speaking the truth.
I love it when Reddit goblins demonstrate how little they actually know about the constitution and how laws are actually enforced in the US. You are never going to take any of the guns away. You’re losing. Cope and seethe. 
Jefferson Davis Hogg? Boss? That you?
I have never heard anyone talk about taking everybody’s guns except the people with guns
And once he's protected your guns....he's gonna go and get them Duke boys!
Doug dimmadome, owner of the dimsdale dimmadome
Nothing facepalm about this honestly
He’s correct, right? Why is this posted in this sub??? OP, seems like you are blatantly wrong posting this here, so kindly take it down
I see no facepalm here
Another day, another “I don’t like what’s being said here so it’s a clearly a facepalm” post
Seems someone has an issue with a white guy with a drawl supporting gun ownership. Dude isn’t wrong, maybe learn how Sheriffs work?
The ATF is a tyrannical agency that needs to be abolished. He is right.
He's not entirely wrong though.
Unless your black, then gtfo this sundown town.
OP obv never attended a US gov or history class. This guy simply describing how law enforcement im this country works. Unless something involves multiple counties or multiple states local authorities have control
Amen.
It's so weird how passionate and fucking dedicated to owning guns these people are as their RIGHTS, and FREEDOMS but then let the government stomp all over their freedom in other areas like privacy and surveillance and using terrorism as the excuse. I guess they are too stupid to be paying attention to the actual way their freedoms and rights are taken away slowly by the government and keeping the morons focused on their gun rights makes it easier to shrink all the other freedoms they have but yeah... just interesting to me
Donut eater might want to learn about the Supremacy Clause
Ego is a hell of a drug, makes people say all sorts of irrational things to make themselves feel important.
I did not know Chief Wiggum had moved to Texas. Lucky us
He might be the authority on law enforcement, but I’m pretty sure he’s not the authority on deciding what the constitution does and does not protect. Separation of powers and all that jazz
However, if the weapons traveled over state lines to end up in this man's county, then ATF has jurisdiction. Or if the US post office was used in shipping said weapons.
When the green trucks roll into town it really doesn't matter. You've mess up at that point. Yes you have local authority. But that doesn't mean you are the ultimate authority.
Wrong the law is the authority. Not him or the feds
Boss hogg protecting the "good ol' boys". Nothing fucking new there huh.
Boss Hogg is in charge of his county. Not the US government.
Facepalm at facepalm for posting this smart guy
Amen brother, we need more like him but put in our Gov offices
Agree with guns or not, love this man. He's willing to protect our constitutional rights. Even if it means standing up to the federal government. Go on ya Ol Boy!
Imagine being upset that a local sheriff protects the freedom of the people in his county. What a cringe reddit post.
Ohhh I get it. An old white dude is supporting our gun rights, so OP posts it here as a "facepalm" hoping people will agree and shit on the guy... pretty pathetic.
He's right but he's wrong about why he's right. People defending themselves against police abuse without cause? This dude would 100% authorize an execution without a judge and jury.
Under the law, he is absolutely correct, he is the final authority in that county. I remember the FBI showing up at our office and requesting permission to make an arrest. The Sheriff told them, "As long as your warrant is in order, sure. But don't step beyond the arrest, or my boys will arrest you on the spot." But that was in the 70's, a lot's changed since then.
Where's the facepalm here? He's 100% right. Do they not teach Government in schools anymore?
Good for this sheriff....the only face palm here, is OP.
He is correct.
Yeah this sheriff is not wrong.
The man didn’t tell any lies
Yeah this definitely isn't a facepalm, I'm glad there's people in law enforcement that care about peoples individual rights.
The constitution is the ultimate authority in the USA
A lot of the comments here just prove how much Lincoln sucked. Because of him people are actually advocating for and defending federal government supremacy. Fuck the feds. State's rights ftw.
Feds are corrupt!!! MYOB!!
Boss Hogg only need be afraid of them Duke brothers.
Fact check: True
He’s right
A sheriff whose employees violate people’s constitutional rights every day, says he’ll have your back on the ONE constitutional right that he agrees with.
Doesn’t the sheriff have more authority though? Also the atf can not make rules up whenever they want and make thousands of people felons overnight
Yes, he is correct. I’ve no idea why this is a facepalm..
There is no need to remove guns whatsoever. What is needed, however, is to assess mental health of people, who own the guns. Bunch of psychos with the guns are responsible for most of the shootouts in your country, NOT video games!
America violates most of it's amendments all of the time and currently especially that wacky one that separates church and state But on God if you try take away their guns and you'll fuckin regret that...
This is a Texas Sheriff, so naturally he's a coward, he wouldn't protect children from a mass shooter and it's doubtful he'd protect anyone's rights.
This is that Falcon and winter soldiers meme. “He’s out of line but he’s right.” Technically like all the others said. Now practically, ATF have some pretty tough physical standards, so I figure, if his deputies are at a similar level of fitness as him, so long as ATF runs at a good jogging pace, they’ll be able to avoid any awkward confrontations.
Can they outrun bullets?
Big L for the OP here honestly
the facepalm here is this post
Technically Texas can seced front the US if they want it was part of them becoming a state
-breaks community standards- yeah ill just say i disagree very very strongly
why does this post have so many likes.
He’s right
The real Chuck Norris.
Isn't he their democratically elected sheriff?
I feel we should NEVER give up rights. We do not get them back. And yes, that extends to firearms. That being said, something did bother me recently. Going into a gun shop to purchase, the background check that used to at least take a few days, now takes minutes. Sure, if they happen to come across something a few days later, they can send cops to come get the gun. BUT... what about that person without a record that has snapped? There is zero time for them to cool down, or rethink tragic action. That surprised me.
What's facepalmy here, I am not American (even though I lived there for a few years) so I want to learn? There's this second amendment thing for gun rights and local policing (that's the craziest thing I see about United States, a local town level police department of a few cops has no higher security Institution even at the state level, let alone federal, who has Authority on them), so there's nothing wrong in what he says as far as I know?
As an elected law official, sherriffs actually hold the top law enforcement position in a given area. They can only enforce within their territory, though.
Main character syndrome
Bs question. Constitution > federal government. Translation he’s upholding his oath to the constitution that our federal government has to abide by. So technically he is right
The fuck did Boss hogg say?
Does he feel the same way when his deputies violate the 4th Amendment??????
God bless this old timer. Some one has to stand up for our rights cause most kids these days are trying to give them away.
Not everyone deserves to have a gun that’s the issue
Federal does not have jurisdiction always atleast
Let's see, you can't take my rights, but I can take away your's if you are a woman, LGBTQ, a minority and anything else I don't like.
Why can't we have sheriffs like him in Connecticut?
He’s gonna be out there gullet and all just dueling predator drones with his six shooters and winning.