Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE
[color=#9bd060]If you read the bill and your Secret Service FAQ carefully, you will see that the FAQ addresses violations of federal law, and the bill
addresses violations of nonfederal law.
Yes, I read the FAQ, carefully. You
, however, did not.
Maybe this will clarify.
In the aforementioned FAQ it states:
Make arrests without warrants for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, [color=#9caff7]or for any felony recognizable
under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed such felony.
Felony under the laws of the United States covers:
Murder, aggravated assault, and other
"serious offenses which are punishable by either death or prison sentences longer than one year"
, the exact crimes occuring in the hypothetical scenerio posited by the OP to which I was responding.
since the Colorado bill [color=#ffeb90]only [color=#ffe15b]empowers [color=#ffeb90]the USSS to make arrests for nonfederal
crimes (they already have arrest authority for Federal crimes and Colorado has no authority to make Federal law), and requires the arrested
persons to be surrendered to Colorado (since they're being arrested for state crimes, and the Federal government couldn't care less about them).
[color=#ffeb90]>>> They can already do this.
e.g. see for instance [color=#ffe15b]Federal LEO Arrest Powers
Typically, the protocol would be as follows:
- A Federal LEO witnesses, or has reasonable suspicion of, someone committing a felony or misdemeanor.
- They arrest the person.
- Transfer custody of the suspect to local or state authorities, essentially (federally) “unarresting” the suspect at that time.
The bill is actually nothing to get worked up about (there are other, bigger 2A battles going on), since it merely states explicitly what they already
can do. Various other states have enacted legislation over the years doing the same thing.
Basically, the bill doesn't actually change anything
I am not
saying that it is not
a legislative jab at the Sheriffs of Colorado. It very well could be perceived that way by the local
LEOs of the state.
Intra-state politics it seems like, to me.
There's a case to be made that it is an attempt at subtly undermining their authority, saying:
"If you all do not follow our tyrannical orders which you (rightly!) believe further undermine the already battered Constitution, then we'll just
go over you heads."
It's looking more and more like 1857-1860 all over again, where if you pay attention, you can already see the lines being drawn:
[color=#77acda] Urban vs. Rural
[color=#77acda] Statist vs. Patriot
[color=#77acda]U.N. vs. U.S.
edit on 6-4-2013 by 3mperorConstantinE because: (no reason given)