The duly elected sheriff of a county
is the highest law enforcement official within a county. He
has law enforcement powers that exceed that of any other state
or federal official.
This is settled law that most people
are not aware of.
County sheriffs in Wyoming have
scored a big one for the 10th Amendment and states rights. The
sheriffs slapped a federal intrusion upside the head and are
insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and
personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all
their activity in a Wyoming County with the Sheriff’s Office.
Deja vu for those who remember big Richard Mack in
Arizona.
Bighorn County Sheriff Dave
Mattis spoke at a press conference following a recent U.S.
District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and
announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter
his county without his prior approval ……
“If a sheriff doesn’t want the
Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power
to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in
custody.”
The court decision was the result
of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and
other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. The suit
in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of
the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution
and the Wyoming Constitution.
Guess what? The District Court
ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, 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.” Go back and re-read this quote.
The court confirms and asserts
that “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.”
And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried — not
in Wyoming, not yet.
But it gets even better. Since
the judge stated that the sheriff “has law enforcement powers
EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official,” the
Wyoming sheriffs are flexing their muscles. They are demanding
access to all BATF files. Why? So as to verify that the agency
is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibits the
registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of
firearm owners. This would be wrong.
The sheriffs are also demanding
that federal agencies immediately cease the seizure of private
property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without
regard to due process in Wyoming state courts.
Gosh, it makes one wish that the
sheriffs of the counties relative to Waco, Texas and Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma regarding their jurisdictions were drinking the
same water these Wyoming sheriffs are.
Sheriff Mattis said, “I am
reacting in response to the actions of federal employees who
have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their
privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to
constitutional safeguards. I hope that more sheriffs all
across America will join us in protecting their citizens from
the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any
other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of
constitutional law. Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no
longer welcome in Bighorn County unless they intend to operate
in conformance to constitutional law.” [Amen].
However, the sad reality is that
sheriffs are elected, and that means they are required to be
both law enforcement officials and politicians as well.
Unfortunately, Wyoming sheriffs are the exception rather than
the rule . . . but they shouldn’t be. Sheriffs have enormous
power, if or when they choose to use it. I share the hope of
Sheriff Mattis that “more sheriffs all across America will
join us in protecting their citizens.”
If Wyoming Sheriffs can follow in
the steps of former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack and recognize
both their power and authority, they could become champions
for the memory of Thomas Jefferson who died thinking that he
had won those “states’ rights” debates with Alexander
Hamilton.
This case is not just some
amusing mountain melodrama. This is a BIG deal. This case is
yet further evidence that the 10th Amendment is not yet
totally dead, or in a complete decay in the United States. It
is also significant in that it can, may, and hopefully will be
interpreted to mean that “political subdivisions of a State
are included within the meaning of the amendment, or that the
powers exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common
law powers which the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves to the
People, if they are not granted to the federal government or
specifically prohibited to the States.”
Winston Churchill observed, “If
you will not fight for right when you can easily win without
bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and
not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have
to fights with all the odds against you with only a precarious
chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to
fight when there is not hope of victory at all, because it is
better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Dave Robinson, Brunswick,
Maine
