Constitutional Matters - Sheriff Nullification

The President of the United States cannot tell your Sheriff what to do. they tried to do that when I sued them. The United States Supreme Court said I was right. They can't force us to do anything. This is absolutely the most amazing case. As a four hundred thousand dollar document, you can get them for a dollar.

Sheriff Mack explaining Nullification. He is the Mack in the famous Mack/Printz vs USA case that restored the Tenth Amendment. This applies to all Federal Agents; FDA, EPA, IRS, etc. Call your sheriff! He can protect you.

He also talks about the magic of guns. And are you a David?

Sheriff Mack on Nullification - States can Just Say No

The Victory for State Sovereignty Pamphlet summaries the case in the video.

This is the forward of this booklet.

On February 28, 1994, while serving as sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, I filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court against the federal government (Clinton administration) to stop the gun control and destruction of state sovereignty, associated with the Brady bill. A few weeks later, Sheriff Jay Printz, from Pcavalli County filed a similar lawsuit in Montana. Ultimately, five other sheriffs from Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Vermont and Wyoming, joined this action. Seven sheriffs, out of nearly 3100 nation wide, stood and fought the United States goliath Clinton administration. Why would seven small-town sheriffs do such a thing against their own government? On the other hand, if it was the right thing to do, why were there only seven sheriffs who took such a stand?

To put it succinctly, the Brady bill was more gun control and more federal intervention. Furthermore, the Brady bill was an unfunded and unconstitutional mandate accompanied with a threat to arrest us if we failed to comply. Yes, the U.S. Congress threatened to arrest us if we did not go along! Accordingly, in the first case filed in Federal District Court, I sought and obtained an injunction prohibiting the federal government from arresting me.

So, precisely what did the Brady bill do? It amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 and required all CLEOs (Chief Law Enforcement Officers) to conduct background checks on all citizens purchasing handguns at local gun shops.

Perhaps this entire issue was best described by Federal District Judge John Roll.

"Mack is thus forced to choose between keeping his oath or obeying the act, subjecting himself to possible sanctions."

Imagine that; a federal judge actually addressing the oath all sheriffs (CLEOs) take to uphold and defend the United States Constitution.

Sheriff Printz and I appeared together at the U.S. Supreme Court in December of 1996 and on June 27, 1997, the Brady bill was ruled to be unconstitutional. This booklet is the abridged form of that monumental ruling; perhaps the most powerful and definitive Tenth Amendment decision throughout American history. This ruling proves that the states are sovereign, that the states must keep the federal government in check and that the federal government is not our boss!

Who then, is responsible to determine how far the authority of the federal government extends? Who is responsible to enforce state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment? These questions are answered by the Mack/Printz victory.

What if the State's elected representatives stood strong on the Constitution

If they're coming in here and they're abusing Arizonans. Your AZ elected officials have a responsibility to stand against them. County Commissioner standing with the sheriff to protect you from the crime to the IRS, or from the EPA, from the FDA, from the DEA, from the FBI. I don't care what alphabet soup company it is from Washington. Our elected representatives have a responsibility and a duty and they've sworn in god's name to defend and protect and preserve the Constitution.

If only our state officials followed this guide line.