Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Executive Order or Not, ‘I’m Not Surrendering the Guns’
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... -not-im-not-surrendering-guns/
Published: Dec 19, 2015
Author: Awr Hawkins
Post Date: 2015-12-19 19:56:54 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 2319
Comments: 29
Arpaio talked with Breitbart News about a number of gun-related issues and indicated that an ongoing problem is that guns and gun control have become part of the “political situation.” As a result, Democrats react to the criminal misuse of guns by grandstanding to punish law-abiding citizens with gun control. The same thing happens after a terror attack, such as the one that took place in San Bernardino on December 2. Since then, Democrats have pushed to add the no-fly list to background checks, to expand background checks, to pass an “assault weapons” ban, and to institute and fund a national gun buyback. Now, Jen Psaki, White House communications director, says executive action to go around Congress and expand gun control will be coming in “weeks, not months.” Arpaio addressed this pending executive action, saying, “Obama does know we have the Second Amendment, right?” He added, “I’ve said it before. I’m not surrendering the guns. He can give an executive order saying we’ve got to collect the guns, and I’m not going to do it.” Arpaio said that “there’d be a revolution” if a president ever issued such an order. 
On December 18, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio referenced President Obama’s pending executive action on gun control and said executive order or not, guns will not be surrendered.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
If those on the so called " no fly list " are so dangerous, why have they not been arrested and incarcerated, instead of being allowed to run loose?
Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton
Sheriff Joe is another man we could use a few thousand more of in this country.
Good point. But, even if someone is on this "noflylist," the US government can not deny the right to keep and bear arms unless the "someone" has a felony in their background. Which means, this is a whole bunch of hot aire.
Right now, they seem to be pushing this "no fly list thing. We know if given an inch, they will take several miles, and they will NOT stay within the law, and will go around any constitutional restraints. DO NOT TRUST THEM TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT !! I would also like to know the criteria for putting someone on the list, who maintains the list, and who decides who goes on it? And, then, what is the possibilities that the entire membership of the NRA, GOA, Republican Party, members of conservative sites, etc, etc all are quietly added to the list? Surprise, surprise, surprise. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton
It is a US government secret. It falls under "national security" and the methods are not for publick disclosure.
Most likely, if you are considered an "enemy" of the current administration, you are on the list. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton
Exactly correct. Citizens cannot be deprived of Rights except through due process of law. Being put on the no-fly list is done without any due process -- it's strictly handled within the executive branch with zero involvement of the judical branch. It's been so-far upheld because barring someone from flying on an airline has not been regarded as depriving one a right to travel. The right to bear arms, however, is a right, so extending the no-fly list to include a no-gun list would mean a right would be deprived without due process. For me it's an easy prediction that barring people on the no-fly list from buying a gun will fail any court review. But Obama will try it anyway, because... what the hell, why not? No money out of his pocket.
He called it, "closing a loophole." Can you believe that? The "noflylist" is an administrative consideration; it has no constitutional restraint or mechanism at all; it is just a, "loop hole" in 0bama's world.
Nice interpretation and analysis.
Citizens cannot be deprived of Rights except through due process of law The ex-con's due process in regard to their criminal conviction expires with the completion of their sentence. They served their time, and are no longer convicted criminals. There is no legal justification for infringing upon their right to keep and bear arms. '68 GCA, and the Brady Act are unconstitutional infringements on the RKBA. If they can take the rights of innocent ex-cons, they can take the right of anyone for any excuse, like putting you on a no-fly list, calling you a terrorist, evil doer, PTSD psycho Veteran, or whatever. Either we're all free, or none of us are free. A nice play on words that can justify anything.
And where does the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" have an asterisk that says "unless you committed a felony, then you lose your Constitutional right". Oh. It doesn't. Which means that convicted felons have exactly the same right to keep and bear arms as anybody else. If you don't like that, amend the Constitution, If you can take away their guns because, well, they're DANGEROUS, in spite of the Constitution containing no exception for felons, then by the same logic the government can take away ANYBODY'S guns, because ANYBODY with a gun is "dangerous". The government of the United States has no authority to restrict gun ownership by felons. None. The Constitution explicitly says that a felon has the right to keep and bear arms - because that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. There's no asterisk.
Good logic. However, define "sentence". I've heard this argument before and used to agree with it, and to an extent still do. Reasonably, once someone has paid their debt, then they should be restored to full rights of citizenship. It would appear though the logic behind denying gun rights to felons for life is based on the idea that that is part of the sentence. The jail time served is also part of it, and just because someone has completed jail time does not mean the other part of the punishment -- no guns -- is complete. Is it a good idea? Arguably not, but if that's the logic in play then it would not apply in depriving no-fly listees the right to a gun.
Everyone convicted of a crime loses Constitutional, natural and statutory rights. That's no news flash. They put you in jail and you lose the following rights: Liberty and pursuit of happiness Show me where the asterisk is for any of these! Then why not deliver some the next time you visit clients in jail? (Obviously a rhetorical question! hehe)
I am aware that convicted felons lose rights. I am also aware that the Constitution never grants the government the power to remove those rights. Government has long - perhaps always - removed those rights, because criminals are a hated minority, and that's the way it is. I merely note that the removal of the rights of felons is unconstitutional. It's a tradition, but there's no authority to do that in the text.
I will further note that in God's constitution for the one state he set up, there is no such thing as permanent loss of rights. Rather, a man, for his crimes, was sentenced to only a few things: death, if the crime called for death. Financial restitution if the crime was financial. Bodily torment - eye for eye, tooth for tooth, stripe for stripe. A period of up to six years of involuntary labor. That was the limit God allowed. The crime is addressed immediately and effectively.
The topic of discussion was whether barring people on the no-fly list from gun possession would pass a Constitutional/legal challenge. What do you think?
It's ridiculous. Nothing in the laws governing the federal no-fly list or the federal terror watchlist or all the federal and state laws governing gun ownership allows the application of the no-fly list or the terror watchlist to gun ownership. Of course, that wouldn't necessarily stop the lawless Obongo cabal from making the attempt, hoping to find some compliant judges to allow it initially and then try to blackmail the Court into rubberstamping it as constitutional. Much as with sodomy marriage and ObamaCare getting rammed through the Court.
You are, of course, referring to felon disenfranchisement. If you have been convicted of a felony, you have forfeited many, many rights and priviledges and it is near impossible to get them back. Is it right? I don't know; I think it should vary with the type of crime such as violent crime. But it is the way it is.
'68 GCA, and the Brady Act are unconstitutional infringements on the RKBA. If they can take the rights of innocent ex-cons, they can take the right of anyone for any excuse, like putting you on a no-fly list, calling you a terrorist, evil doer, PTSD psycho Veteran, or whatever. Either we're all free, or none of us are free. AMEN! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Because the "No Fly List" is nothing but political grandstanding that doesn't mean a thing. It's just a trick to fool the sheeple into thinking the feral government is actually doing something to protect them. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
That's called "circular logic". Or more plainly,BS. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
WRONG. Their Constitutional rights are SUSPENDED WHILE THEY ARE IN PRISON. Suspensions are temporary events. And voting is a right decided by states. In some states people in jail can vote via absentee ballot. Remember Al Sharpton organizing a prison voter drive back when Goober Gore was running for president? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
No,it is NOT traditIonal. Prior to the passage of GCA-68 prisoners would be released from prison and handed their guns back the same day. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
That doesn't mean it is the way it is SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER OUR OWN LAWS,and it doesn't mean we should just accept it and move on. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Yes, I know. But if the assholes pushing it, were asked that question, which they never are, would not be able to give an adequate answer.
Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton
What do you think? I think it depends on whether you look at the Constitution like a Catholic looks at religion, or like a Sola Scriptura Protestant does. If you take the "Catholic" view of the Constitution, then the Constitution was AN original document, written by the Founders who ALREADY had a national government in operation for fourteen years BEFORE the Constitution was ratified, and whose STATE governments had already been around as long as 189 years before the Constitution. So, there was ALREADY a vast tradition of law of government, of business, of crime and of taxation in the United States when the Constitution was written, and there was ALREADY a Common Law. The "Catholic" view would say that all of that law that had been maintained and enforced traditionally from the royal governments and the colonial governments was already THE Law, the Common Law of America, and that the Constitution did not change that. In fact, the Constitution - by not defining new terms and simply using Common Law terms, undefined, ratified the whole skein of American Common Law tradition that pre-existed the Constitution for nearly two centuries. With the Constitution, the existing American national government - the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation, was modified. The acts under the articles were all ratified, the Revolutionary War debts were not treated as a "different government". In essence, the US Constitution is the THIRD Constitution of the United States, and the SECOND written one. The FIRST Constitution was the unwritten ad hoc procedures of the Continental Congress before the Articles of Confederation. The Second was the Articles. The Third was the present Constitution. And, the reasoning would go, although these things are called "Amendments", CERTAIN of the Amendments so radically and fundamentally altered the American tradition of government that, in effect, American is operating under its FOURTH Constitution. The post-Civil War amendments transferred the fundamental power over persons from the states to the national government. This was the result of a civil war in which the Constitution as written was not respected, and after which the process of ratification of the amendments didn't respect the Constitution either. Part of the American tradition of government under the Constitution has been the very powerful role of courts in deciding what the law is, what the Constitution means. Felons have been barred from voting for a long time. Such is a very long tradition. The Constitution nowhere suggests that they can be barred from voting or owning guns, but the power of states to do such things has been exercised for centuries, and always been assumed. If the issue were forced before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would probably (there are never any guarantees) look at the history and at the logic and uphold such laws. And under the Catholic concept of tradition in government, what the Supreme Curia determines the Constitution means is what the Constitution means. In extraordinary circumstances, Presidents and governments have used restrictive powers for reasons of public safety. For example: curfews. Where does the Constitution, Federal or State, say that the government has the power to compel people to go into their houses at 9 PM and stay there, on pain of prosecution (or even of being shot), just because the authorities declare an "emergency"? It doesn't. The power to restrict liberty in an emergency is traditionally ASSUMED to repose in government, because government has always exercised it. Another example: treason is only composed of making war on the US or giving aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime (during peacetime there is no "enemy"). How, then, could spies such as the Rosenbergs be executed, when they gave the bomb secrets to the Soviet Union? The USSR had recently been our ally, and we never declared war on them. It was peacetime, America had no enemy, so giving aid to an adversary nation was NOT, in fact, giving aid and comfort to an enemy in wartime. It should have fallen, from a literalist view, into free speech and gone unpunished. The Catholic view would say that's nonsense, that "war" and "enemy" are concepts in the minds of the people at large, and if the people think and act as though they are at war, they are at war. Given that, to the Catholic interpretive approach, the war on terror is a real war, with tens of thousands of real deaths, against a real, identifiable enemy. The legal niceties of declaring war were not respected, but then, the American tradition is that we don't have to declare war to BE at war, notwithstanding the language of the Constitution. American legal tradition is that for Congress to authorize force has the same force, as far as war fighting goes, as declaring war. So, under the Catholic interpretive approach, there's an enemy, we're at war, we've identified possible or probable agents of the enemy and put them on a list, for the protection of the citizenry, therefore, OF COURSE we can also prohibit those suspected agents from possessing guns. It's a no brainer. The Supreme Court would almost certainly agree. So, that's the "Catholic" approach. The Sola Scripturalist Protestant approach would look at the Constitution as written, and nothing before it or after it. The Constitution is The Bible of American Law and Government to the Sola Scripturalist - it IS the Scripture, so to speak. All it says is "The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Therefore, the fact that somebody is on a no-fly list is irrelevant. The Constitution does not say that the government can make a no-fly list, and therefore, the government CANNOT. And even if the government does anyway, the Second Amendment's language is absolute, so nobody's rights to keep and bear arms can be infringed by laws and regulations. What do I think? I think that in matters of religion, the Catholics are right. But in matters of Constitutional government, the Sola Scripturalists are right. The Constitution SEVERELY LIMITS the power of government, and when read literally, a great number of things that the government does it cannot constitutionally do. Two examples are: (1) restrict guns from people on a no-fly list. (2) have a no-fly list for unarrested, unconvicted citizens. If private carriers wish to carry somebody, they have the right to. Citizens have the right to fly on any plane that will have them, because the government has no power to restrict them in any way. AND here's a third: 3) The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means that government does not have, and never has had, the power to take guns away from anybody - not people on no-fly lists, and not convicted felons either (once they get out of jail). And if that leads to bad things, then the bad things must be allowed to happen until people get disgusted enough to amend the Constitution. That's what I think. Probably 90% of Americans would think that my view is nuts, irresponsible, too legalistic and unworkable, and they may be right. In any case, the actual approach that our government and people take, and have always taken, to law and government is the traditionalist "Catholic" approach, so expecting the nation to go "Sola Scriptura" on the Constitution is a bridge too far. I don't want potential terrorists or ex-felons to have guns, so I don't personally mind restrictions on them. I do recognize that it is unconstitutional. But then, so was slavery and segregation, and so are purity laws regarding language on the radio and TV. The people are outraged and offended does not permit restriction of speech...under the First Amendment as written. As practiced in real life, it certainly does. I suppose somebody could say to me "The letter kills but the spirit gives life", and I'd agree with that when speaking of God. When speaking of government, though, I want government limited to its sphere. But too few people really want that along with me. Also, I think that the government's sphere, as written, is much larger than most grant. Example: I don't think that speech or guns can be regulated, but I do think that promoting the general welfare does in fact authorize the federal government to create Social Security, Food Stamps, etc. As a practical matter, if we put somebody on a no-fly list we should not be letting them buy guns, even though I think that both the list and the prohibition are unconstitutional. Our Constitution is a mess, and our legal and political system are broken down and don't work. We need to reform the government and write a new Constitution, or severely amend the existing Constitution so that it actually is respected and in force. To do that would require an Article V Convention of the States, and I support the movement calling for one.
Take the fourteenth amendment as an example, UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION laws are formulated on the state and federal level. Amendment XIV, section 2., states: So, "disenfranchisement" inhibits voting as a "right" and logically should inhibit other rights as well. I don't know about you but I am not arguing with the content of a 150 year old US Constitutional Amendment. Are you?
WTH? That couldn't be more confusing if it were just a bunch of random words thrown together. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#2. To: cranky (#0)
Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Executive Order or Not, ‘I’m Not Surrendering the Guns’
#3. To: Stoner (#1)
If those on the so called " no fly list " are so dangerous, why have they not been arrested and incarcerated, instead of being allowed to run loose?
#4. To: buckeroo, all (#3)
#5. To: Stoner (#4)
I would also like to know the criteria for putting someone on the list, who maintains the list, and who decides who goes on it?
#6. To: buckeroo (#5)
" It is a US government secret. It falls under "national security" and the methods are not for publick disclosure. "
#7. To: buckeroo (#3)
(Edited)
But, even if someone is on this "noflylist," the US government can not deny the right to keep and bear arms unless the "someone" has a felony in their background.
#8. To: Pinguinite (#7)
(Edited)
But Obama will try it anyway, because... what the hell, why not?
#9. To: Pinguinite (#7)
#10. To: Pinguinite, *Bang List*, buckeroo (#7)
(Edited)
the US government can not deny the right to keep and bear arms unless the "someone" has a felony in their background
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#11. To: buckeroo (#8)
He called it, "closing a loophole."
#12. To: Pinguinite (#7)
#13. To: hondo68 (#10)
The ex-con's due process in regard to their criminal conviction expires with the completion of their sentence.
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
And where does the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" have an asterisk that says "unless you committed a felony, then you lose your Constitutional right".
Association (first Amendment)
Bear arms
Freedom from unreasonable searches & seizures.
Voting
Which means that convicted felons have exactly the same right to keep and bear arms as anybody else.
#15. To: Pinguinite (#14)
#16. To: All (#15)
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
#18. To: Pinguinite (#17)
(Edited)
The topic of discussion was whether barring people on the no-fly list from gun possession would pass a Constitutional/legal challenge.
#19. To: hondo68 (#10)
Either we're all free, or none of us are free.
#20. To: hondo68 (#10)
The ex-con's due process in regard to their criminal conviction expires with the completion of their sentence. They served their time, and are no longer convicted criminals. There is no legal justification for infringing upon their right to keep and bear arms.
#21. To: Stoner (#1)
If those on the so called " no fly list " are so dangerous, why have they not been arrested and incarcerated, instead of being allowed to run loose?
#22. To: Pinguinite (#13)
It would appear though the logic behind denying gun rights to felons for life is based on the idea that that is part of the sentence. The jail time served is also part of it, and just because someone has completed jail time does not mean the other part of the punishment -- no guns -- is complete.
#23. To: Pinguinite (#14)
Everyone convicted of a crime loses Constitutional, natural and statutory rights. That's no news flash.
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
I merely note that the removal of the rights of felons is unconstitutional. It's a tradition, but there's no authority to do that in the text.
#25. To: buckeroo (#19)
Is it right? I don't know; I think it should vary with the type of crime such as violent crime. But it is the way it is.
#26. To: sneakypete (#21)
#27. To: Pinguinite (#17)
(Edited)
The topic of discussion was whether barring people on the no-fly list from gun possession would pass a Constitutional/legal challenge.
#28. To: sneakypete (#25)
That doesn't mean it is the way it is SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER OUR OWN LAWS,and it doesn't mean we should just accept it and move on.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
#29. To: buckeroo (#28)
or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]