- Messages
- 2,538
- Reactions
- 632
fd15k changed one very important word in that cited paragraph. He changed "shall" to "may". In the context of a federal statute, "shall" is a REQUIREMENT. "May" is an option.
Oh noes, you uncovered yet another conspiracy! How about that opening "When the Secretary determines that assistance is necessary" ? Does it have any bearing on whether they "may", "can", "shall" ?
The BLM is REQUIRED to contract with local officials when assistance is needed to enforce federal law. And by law, no local official has ANY law enforcement powers without the consent of the county sheriff. The county sheriff is the highest constitutional law enforcement authority in any county. The county sheriff can deputize federal officials to enforce state law within his county, and he may REVOKE that authority. It has been done in CA and in OR.
Basically your assertion is BLM rangers have no authority to enforce any laws anywhere, until they receive consent of the Sheriff ?
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013...ith-feds-likely-over-residents-carrying-guns/
The article mentions that the US Forest Service officers will still be enforcing federal laws, but that is contrary to what 43 USC 1733 requires. It requires that the US Forest Service contract with the sheriff to enforce those laws.
In a letter to the US Forest Service, Sheriff Palmer questioned the USFS's authority to engage in law enforcement within Grant county, declaring:"your jurisdiction as I see it is limited to the Federal Building in John Day" [the county seat]; and that the presence of USFS "Law Enforcement" violates Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
"Within the confines of Grant County, Oregon, the duties and responsibility of law enforcement will rest with the County Sheriff and his designees," he wrote.
Palmer's letter was apparently prompted by Forest Service attempts to pressure him into signing a "co-operative policing agreement" that would allow the agency to engage in law enforcement activities inside the lines of Grant County. [If the federal officers already had such authority why would they be pressuring the sheriff for such an agreement?]
Palmer said that in the near future, he'll be raising other issues about USFS's activities in Grant County, including its recent treatment of the local citizenry, illegal road closures, grazing, logging and other concerns that he and his community have. He also expressed concern about the way Forest Service LEOs had treated "treated citizens of this county in Oct. and Nov., 2010," but deferred giving details until a later time.
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news260.htm
Another interesting article:
http://www.arizonadailyindependent....fficers-cracking-down-on-cracked-windshields/
Thanks for the links and some background information. If you also can give me a simple answer to whether BLM rangers are authorized to enforce bubblegum without Sheriff's consent, that would be a great baseline.