Posted By LambChop
As a response to the growing number of sheriff’s nationwide who have expressed that they are unlikely to enforce a federal mandate that contradicts the Second Amendment and the citizen’s rights to bear arms, legislation is being proposed in Texas to remove and punish these sheriffs.
Both Texas (and apparently Colorado) have moonbat Democratic legislators attempting to create federal framework of “supreme” authority that will enable agents of the U.S. Secret Service (including uniformed division officers, physical security technicians and specialists, and other ‘special officers’) to arrest and remove any elected sheriff for refusing to enforce the law, or anyone breaking the law. The bill being introduced defines law as including any rule, regulation, executive order, court order, statute or constitutional provision. Meanwhile, the Texas House of Representatives is considering legislation to prevent state law enforcement to enforce federal gun control measures.
The seemingly intended consequences are disturbing and set a stage for a state’s rights conflict with the latest round of overreaching federal legislation:
Establishes federal police powers in Texas, initiating law enforcement arm
reporting directly to the sitting president.
Enables the president and executive branch to theoretically override the actions and preventative measures that are now being taken by many States throughout the country who are trying to preserve 2nd Amendment gun rights and who are prohibiting the enforcement of unconstitutional law passed by Congress or pushed by executive order.
Enables a consequence that the officer (sheriff) removed is disqualified from public office for a period of 10 years.
Here is the legislation being proposed:
Sec. 66.004. FAILURE TO ENFORCE STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. (a) For purposes of Section 66.001, a person holding an elective or appointive office of this state or of a political subdivision of this state does an act that causes the forfeiture of the person’s office if the person:
(1) Willfully fails to enforce a state or federal law in the course of the person’s official duties;
(2) Directs others subject to the person’s supervision or control as a public official not to enforce a state or federal law; or (3) states orally or in writing that the person does not intend to enforce a state or federal law in the course of the person’s official duties.
(b) For purposes of this section, “law” includes any rule, regulation, executive order, court order, statute, or constitutional provision.
(c) This section does not apply to a law:
(1) That has been held to be invalid by a court with jurisdiction over the territory served by the officer; or
(2) The validity of which is currently being challenged in a court with jurisdiction over the territory served by the officer.
(d) The attorney general or appropriate county or district attorney shall file a petition under Section 66.002 against an officer to which Subsection (a) applies if presented with evidence, including evidence of a statement by the officer, establishing probable cause that the officer engaged in conduct described by Subsection (a). The court in which the petition is filed shall give precedence to proceedings relating to the petition in the same manner as provided for an election contest under Section 23.101, Government Code.
(e) If the person against whom information is filed based on conduct described by Subsection (a) is found guilty as charged, the court shall enter judgment removing the person from office and disqualifying the person from public office for a period of 10 years.
Comments