Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Texas Dem to push bill to remove Tx sheriffs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Texas Dem to push bill to remove Tx sheriffs

    Hundreds of sheriffs across the country have banded together and vowed not to enforce any new state or federal gun control legislation because they feel such laws would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution — the document they took an oath to uphold.

    Glenn Beck recently hosted a number of these sheriffs on TheBlaze TV to discuss proposed gun legislation and why they are taking a stand.

    Now, at least one lawmaker in Texas, state Rep. Yvonne Davis (D-Dallas), is proposing legislation that would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal law. Keep in mind, sheriffs are elected by the people, not appointed by bureaucrats. In other words, the proposed bill would remove elected officials from office unless they enforce laws they feel violate the Constitution.

    If found “guilty,” a court shall remove the person from office and disqualify them from public office for a period of 10 years.

    Here’s the text of the bill (H.B. No. 2167):

    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) wilfully 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 an 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.

    “Beware because once something like this is introduced in one state, it will be followed very quickly in several other states,” unnamed gun lobbyist told Washington Secrets.

    Now, perhaps Yvonne Davis is just really passionate about all laws being enforced, however, the timing of the proposed bill is suspicious. The bill does not specifically mention gun control laws.

    Four of the sheriffs refusing to enforce new gun control laws joined Beck on TheBlaze TV last month to explain why they are risking their careers to defend Americans’ gun rights on. Watch:

    One interesting point to remember: If such a law were passed in Texas or in other states, it would also apply to members law enforcement who don’t enforce federal immigration law as well as any other federal laws.

    TheBlaze will continue investigating to see if similar laws have been proposed in other states.



    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

  • #2
    She sounds like she needs to be "tuned up"

    Comment


    • #3
      Dallas. Need more be said?

      Comment


      • #4
        So, I get confused on some of these things. It's state and federal law.

        I'd ASSUME they are already having to enforce state laws, or can they literally pick and choose what they enforce - and legally get away with it? (assuming audits...etc, not just on the down low)

        Assuming I'm not too far off base, adding in the federal thing is dictating to the states what their Sheriffs will do - which is no surprise - even with as disgusting as it actually is at this point.
        Originally posted by MR EDD
        U defend him who use's racial slurs like hes drinking water.

        Comment


        • #5
          So they will have to arrest ALL Illegal Immigrants also!!!!!!!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Yvonne Davis, that was where i stopped reading.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JGmonster View Post
              Dallas. Need more be said?
              Add Democrat and you've pretty well summed up why she has no credibility.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ceyko View Post
                So, I get confused on some of these things. It's state and federal law.

                I'd ASSUME they are already having to enforce state laws, or can they literally pick and choose what they enforce - and legally get away with it? (assuming audits...etc, not just on the down low)

                Assuming I'm not too far off base, adding in the federal thing is dictating to the states what their Sheriffs will do - which is no surprise - even with as disgusting as it actually is at this point.
                Officer discretion and they are bound to their oath to the US and state constitutions both of which state we have a right to our firearms. They'd be in breach of both oaths if they enforced gun control
                I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Dacotua View Post
                  So they will have to arrest ALL Illegal Immigrants also!!!!!!!!
                  Good point, they should have been doing this all along.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I got a response:

                    Hello:



                    I thank you for taking the time to express your opposition to House Bill 2167 which relates to the removal of a state or local officer for refusing or directing others to refuse to enforce a state or federal law that is before the 83rd Legislature.



                    The State of Texas is subject to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, just as all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and territories of the United States of America (USA). All the laws and treaties of the USA are made in pursuance of the U.S. Constitution; any state constitutional provisions or state laws that are contrary to the U.S. Constitution are invalid and unconstitutional. As such, House Bill 2167 creates a removal action against any state or local person holding an elected or appointed office of the State of Texas for their failure to enforce a state or federal law. Since a state or local officer takes an oath to uphold both the laws of Texas and the USA, House Bill 2167 guarantees that Texans are safe from wayward state or local officers.



                    Specifically, House Bill 2167 provides that an elected or appointed state or local officer is subject to removal from their office when the person: 1) willfully fails to enforce a state or federal law in the course of their official duties; 2) directs others subject to their 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. However, House Bill 2167 provides exceptions for a state or local officer that is subject to removal from their office when the federal or state law is: 1) held invalid by a court with authority over the officer's area; or 2) the law's validity is being challenged in a court with authority over the officer's area. Therefore, House Bill 2167 is a sound and timely bill that protects Texans from illegal governmental action.



                    Given the potential for devastating effects to Texans posed by rogue state or local officers, I filed House Bill 2167 to protect the rights of Texans. Having always strongly supported Texans, you can be certain that I will defend against any threats.



                    Again, I thank you for your concern, but I will always serve the needs of Texans. As always feel free to contact my office should you have any further questions or concerns.



                    Sincerely,



                    Yvonne Davis

                    State Representative

                    District 111
                    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                      I got a response:
                      I apologize, Jim. I thought you were a twisty som'bitch. Yvonne Davis contradicts herself in her vary own response. At it's done in multiple responses when you do it. The mind reels at how someone can justify something like what she said there.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hey, she's just trying to protect Texans. She is an idiot elected by idiots.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X