Florida Sheriff: ‘Get a concealed firearms license and carry it’ (VIDEO)

Get a concealed firearms license and carry it. aka, Get Permission from daddy gov and Pay for your Constitutional Rights, so we can make money building a Registry of Gun Owners with your Money, even tho I am Sheriff that Swore a Oath to Up hold your Rights and the Constitution,
Davis v. Wechsler , 263 US 22, 24.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can
be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be
converted into a crime.”

Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of
this exercise of constitutional rights.”

Sherer v. Cullen , 481 F 946.
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision,
however, the Constitution itself answers our question
Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the
American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in
Article Six of the U.S. Constitution: Miranda
v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603 “Where
rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
‘rule making’ or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Norton v. Shelby County , 118 U.S. 425 p. 442

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is
in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been
passed.”

Sherar v. Cullen , 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of
his exercise of

constitutional rights.”

Simmons v. United States , 390 U.S. 377 (1968)

“The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be
converted into a

crime”… “a denial of them would be a denial of due
process of law”.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S.
1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)

Note: Any judge who does not comply
with his oath to the Constitution of the

United States wars against that
Constitution and engages in acts in violation

of the supreme law of the land. The
judge is engaged in acts of treason.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated
that “no state legislator or executive or

judicial officer can war against
the Constitution without violating his undertaking

to support
it”. See also In Re Sawyer,
124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S.

200, 216,
101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia,

19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.
Ed 257 (1821).

Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417
“The courts are not bound by an officer’s interpretation
of the law under which he presumes to act.”

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137,
180 (1803)

“… the particular phraseology of the constitution of the
United States confirms

and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all
written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is
void, and that courts,as well as other departments, are bound by that
instrument.” “In declaring what shall be the supreme
law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not
the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall
be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank”. “All
law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are
VOID”. Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states “NO
State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the
United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law, … or equal protection under the law”,
this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,
94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)

Note: By law,
a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but
as a private individual (in his person). When
a judge acts as a trespasser of the law,
when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter
jurisdiction and the judges’ orders are not voidable, but VOID, and
of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that “when
a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the
Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior
authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of
his official or representative character and is subjected in his
person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has
no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the
supreme authority of the United States.”