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: 2644
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 24.
#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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are no replies to Comment # 24. End Trace Mode for Comment # 24.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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?
#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.
#12. To: Pinguinite (#7)
#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)
#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.
Replies to Comment # 24.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]