Good info, brownie. Thanks for sharing!
Section 10. All officers of such institutions, before entering upon the performance of their official duties, shall take and subscribe the following oaths:–''I, A.B., do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the commonwealth of Massachusetts, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me, God.'' ''I, A.B., do solemnly swear that I will obey the lawful orders of all my superior officers. So help me, God.'' ''I, A.B., do solemnly swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent on me in the office to which I have been appointed according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the requirements of the constitution, the laws of the commonwealth, and the rules provided in accordance with law for the government of the correctional institutions of the commonwealth. So help me, God.'' The oath may be administered by any officer authorized by law to administer oaths, and a record thereof shall be in the possession of the principal officer of the appropriate institution.
"obey the constitution of the state; laws of the commonwealth; obey the lawful orders of all my superiors; rules governing correctional institutions."
Not one word in the above mentions an oath to the US Constitution, not one.
There's been a lot of discussion on this in recent threads, that leo's aren't upholding their oath to uphold the US Constitution. Nowhere in the above oath, is that true.
Maryland State police oath of office:
I do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America and to the State of Maryland; that I will serve honestly and faithfully to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and to the State of Maryland; that I will enforce the laws of the State of Maryland; and that I will obey the orders of the Governor and the Officers appointed over me according to the rules and regulations of the Maryland State Police.
We see that one can't possibly swear an oath to both defend the US doc and at the same time uphold the constitution of the state of Maryland. We see that they swear to enforce the laws of the state of Maryland when there's conflict between the two constitutions. One can't possibly swear an oath to uphold both docs when they directly conflict one another.
We also see that they swear to "enforce the laws of the state of Maryland". So if they are given an order to enforce their states laws, they are obligated to obey that order, whether that order is in direct conflict with the federal Doc. When they are enforcing their states laws, they are NOT violating their oath of office, per se.
Texas oath of an leo
IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God.
So when a Texas police officer obeys a lawful order to enforce a state law that conflicts with his oath to defend the federal Doc, he's automatically put into a no win situation as he can't enforce nor defend both at the same time when they conflict. I would suspect, most states have a similar oath of office covering both oaths to defend the Doc and uphold/enforce their states laws.
It's archaic to have a person swear two oaths to two different documents/rules instantly in conflict with themselves. Now some who have disdain and don't trust leo's in general will badger others they weren't upholding their oath, in some attempt to suggest they should be charged or fired for not doing so. While others plainly see one can't defend/uphold both when they conflict but also understand they are sworn to uphold lawful orders and their states laws.
If a law is passed that's in direct conflict with the Doc, it's still a state law they have oath'd to uphold. If a superior tells one of them to go serve this red flag warrant, and red flag laws have been passed in that state, the leo is mandated to uphold lawful orders from superiors and the laws of that state. Constitutionality is not for them to decide, they may and likely do have a personal opinion on any one law they enforce but they discharge their duties dispassionately. Until such time as something like these red flag laws are challenged and over turned as unconstitutional, they are the law, the law the leo's oath'd to uphold.
Leo's don't decide constitutionality of any law nor do they get to choose, based on personal opinion, what laws they will and will not enforce.
Good info, brownie. Thanks for sharing!
Member: Florida Carry, COTEP 766, SAF, GOA, NRA Endowment Life
FFL 03, NRA CRSO & CI: P-R-S-PPITH
Former USAF NCO 1980-1984, DoD 1987-Present
Please consider joining NRA at www.nra.org and Florida Carry at www.floridacarry.org
“The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.”
-- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States
"Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are commuting violence on their behalf."
-- George Orwell
"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."
-- Herbert Spencer
And then there’s something else.....when or if the crazy left gets to restrict, outlaw, ban carbines, semi auto anything, and the officers of the county or state say “not in my state, community or county”, as our sheriff has stated, he will not enforce any US laws for confiscating firearms from the general public..........its a definite problem on both sides
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." ---George Orwell
NRA certified pistol & RSO
NRA Life member
I used to think that those attracted to the law enforcement profession were motivated by their desire to help people, but I'm not sure I believe that anymore. I'm now inclined to believe that police officers are more likely to hurt people (even if they are "bad" people) in the daily performance of their duties than they are to actually help someone. We all know that multiple court decisions have rendered the whole "serve and protect" thing as nothing more than a quaint meaningless slogan; the police have no affirmative duty to protect any of us.
So I have to ask myself, what kind of person is motivated to become a police officer these days and take that oath? Are individuals that willfully place themselves in a position to apply force, up to and including deadly force, to enforce laws that they personally find unjust against people who they may not even believe have done anything wrong really worthy of respect? I'm not so sure anymore. And pointing out that they're just following orders is not a persuasive argument.
"It's Fumbles...it was always Fumbles."
Dr. Calvin "Fumbles" Killshot
I really think a rare few would uphold the constitution, most are worried about their pensions.