, , , ,

sheriff-brad-rogers-refuse-executive-orders-101815-BAn Indiana sheriff has committed to resist any unconstitutional federal gun control measures President Obama might decree, vowing to stymie enforcement by refusing to cooperate.

Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers declared on WNIT’s Politically Speaking that he will “disregard” any executive orders Obama makes that require firearm registration.

“If President Obama today said, ‘I’m creating an executive order that all sheriffs and police chiefs around this nation need to start registering firearms,’ I will disregard it,” he stated.

When Rogers was questioned on how he can hold these unruly views and be reconciled with the oath he took for office. So, he repeated his oath, saying it is to defend the United States Constitution and the Indiana constitution to the best of his ability.

However, it’s not just executive orders concerning firearm registration that Rogers has spoken out against; in 2013, he made similar statements on any possible gun confiscation.

Rogers’ statements are in keeping with what James Madison advocated in response to unconstitutional federal laws or actions  – a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the union.” The Father of the Constitution laid out this blueprint for reining in federal overreach in Federalist #46.

Rogers also stand on solid legal ground. Based on the well-established anti-commandeering doctrine, the Supreme Court has consistently held since 1842 that the federal government cannot require or compel states to assist with enforcement of federal measures.

Rogers joins other sheriffs across the country like Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin. During the height of anti-gun hysteria in 2013 Hanlin sent Vice President Joe Biden a letter threatening to not enforce federal gun control laws. Hanlin has been condemned by the Brady Campaign, which recently lost a lawsuit against the state of Kansas over its strict gun control nullification law.

While we should applaud such men like Rogers and Hanlin for their fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law, it would be imprudent for us to simply hope other sheriffs will do the same, or that these types of men will remain in their particular offices.

We cannot rely only on voluntary anti-commandeering efforts by a select few brave enough to take a stand. Only through 2nd Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) can we ensure that local law enforcement will definitely not aid the feds in enforcing unconstitutional gun control laws. By passing state laws prohibiting state enforcement of federal gun laws, safeguards for our right to keep and bear arms will be permanently erected and remain in place even as those who hold office come and go.

Without the cooperation of the states, any federal gun control law crafted in D.C. will be delivered to the states dead on arrival.

Let us build a foundation for our gun rights, present and future, on solid ground! Contact your local legislator and tell them to introduce SAPA today, then spread the word!



2nd Amendment Preservation Act Tracking and Action Center

State Sovereignty and the Anti-Commandeering Cases

The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine – s3.amazonaws.com

Printz v. United States

Commandeering and Its Alternatives – Duke Law …

Constitutional Law I

Yale Law Journal

the vigor of anti-commandeering doctrine in times of terror

How Can the States Provide Fourth Amendment Protection

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United St

The Captain’s Journal » Guns And State Preemption And …

Supreme Court of the United States

Gun Registration

idea – ShallNot.org

FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun …

Obama Quietly Uses Executive Orders For Two New Gun …

Gun Control by Executive Order?