Secret Service Framework Being Set Up To Arrest Sheriffs Refusing to Enforce Unconst. Gun Laws

page: 3
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I doubt if there ever has been a gun ban that did not lead to tyranny. I do not believe that it is possible that a gun ban could be anything other than tyranny. In the end, in the final analysis, disarming the population can only mean an attack on the power of the people to enforce their own sovereignty.

An armed world is not an ideal world. The ideal world is one where no one is armed---and there is no need of a State. But, since this is not the world we are living in I would say that a broad distribution of arms is what is called for an not a concentration in the hands of any one institution.

The same I would say for wealth and power, by the way, which is a parallel that conservatives and libertarians do not see.




posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   
If they pass this law, will they have to arrest the INS people who refuse to arrest illegal aliens?

Read what the quote from the article says about arresting those who fail to do their job.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I think it's great the federal govt can arrest anyone who doesn't do what they say but no one ever arrests anyone in the federal govt & their cronies who break the law. Attorney General Eric Holder tells us all the time Big Banks are to big to jail so they're allowed to launder money for terrorists & Mexican cartel criminals while insider trading is totally cool if you're a senator. Hell, no one was ever held responsible for letting 9/11 to happen or the false war in Iraq, Fast & Furious, amongst many many many other things.

But I'll be damned, if state, people elected, law enforcement Sheriffs don't do what their told by the feds they'll be arrested. Colorado better watch out since they now legalized marijuana cuz we all know the feds don't like that one bit.

F Washington DC!
edit on 5-4-2013 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   
This is how Nazi Germany started. It is not a long path to go from being liberal to socialist to facist to all out dictator. This is a scary turn of events. I would hope both states fight back if this happens. I know Texas will, but I doubt Colorado will. I live in Colorado, and the issue here is the split in polotics in the state. Everyone in Denver is liberal, everyone outside of Denver are conservative. The fighting between these two parties in Colorado is worse than the congress against the senate. The election was an embarrasment to evryone in Colorado. All the individauls running for office used horrifying tv commercials. Propaganda to the max. So if things were going to turn the wrong way, it will be in Colorado before Texas.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
The answer would be to set them up with what looks like easy pickings and ambush them with about 30 sharpshooters and take them out to the last man.

It will cause the enemy to be overly cautious and dedicate too many personnel on subsequent attacks. If they can be ambushed too, the attrition rate will definitely give them pause.

Sure they will retaliate heavily, but the answer is too be prepared with overwhelming force.... their own tactics.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by akalepos
 


I like how you think..


If some federal employees really believe they can usurp the constitution and begin arresting Sheriffs for the reason of not enforcing illegal or unconstitutional laws,and if they start hunting down our duly elected Sheriffs, then these fed traitors should be ambushed, bushwacked, hogtied, and shot on sight as a SERVICE to America.. It is not my real wish to see anyone getting killed, only that people be taught to respect the constitution, ESPECIALLY THE FEDS...

What would really be earth shattering, is if President Obama could go for an entire day without BREAKING the constitution in one form or another..
I knew he was seriously bad news before he even became president, and nothing he has done, and is trying to do surprises me at all.. But it is really maddening and sad at the same time to see a president who hates Americans, and America the way he does.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
These being ATS of course no one has bothered to read the bill.
And that includes YOU.

A Federal Security Technician may use deadly force when property is threatened during an “emergency”.

And, arrest without a warrant, because s/he "believes" that a misdemeanor has been committed (not just within their presence - read it!)

If a local Sheriff believes a State-law violates the US Constitution or the State-Constitution and refrains from enforcing it, the Federal Agent can enforce it instead.

Specifically, Senate Bill 13-013 states:

"Federal secret service agents, Special Agent, Physical Security Technician, … in any jurisdiction within the State of Colorado, is a peace officer

* effecting an arrest or providing assistance as part of a bona fide task force or

* responding to an emergency situation in which he or she has probable cause to believe that a non-federal misdemeanor involving threat to property has been committed and immediate action is required to prevent destruction of property.

The secret service agent acts in accordance with the regulations of the united states government [- not the State of Colorado – is] empowered to effect an arrest without a warrant, and authorized to use deadly force."



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by sprtpilot
People who will stand with the Constitution-guarding sheriffs: MILLIONS of well armed citizens.
People who will stand with a gun-grabbing Government: ...........................................




So in other words you have not bothered to read the bill either. Because if you did you would know that this has nothing to do with Sheriffs other than the fact they can request assistance from a SS agent if they are in the area where before the SS could not help. It also says if you are being beaten to death in the front of SS agent that they would have the power to arrest your attacker and turn them over to local law enforcement instead of now where they would they could only call the cops and wait. Do you people really just buy anything without the slighest idea that maybe you should see if its true before you run with it?
edit on 5-4-2013 by MrSpad because: (no reason given)
curious question or two.
first, why would there be such a large SS presence in CO ?
and enough to provide opportunity for such acts of cooperation ?

and, since you said previously that the SS agent was restricted from assisting ... any chance you could source that opinion ?

from my recollection, there is nothing stopping them from detaining any presumed criminal anywhere, ever.
{yes, i've been visited by the SS, have you ?}
edit on 6-4-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by tnhiker



SECTION 2. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds, 18 determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate 19 preservation of the public peace, health, and safety


The Bill

They find it necessary to allow federal agents to assume the role of peace officers while in their state? Necessary?

well geez, thanks for pointing out that detail

guess that pretty much explains the recent deaths, don't ya think ?



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


my son bought a sign with that slogan on it for his room.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by akalepos
 



I don't know anyone in my area that doesn't own a scoped rifle. If they don't, I have a couple extra 30.06 i will loan them.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Kind of interesting that Colorado is a new home to the CIA. Also, there were threads, or articles and I apologize because I can't find them right now about Denver being the Western Sector capital of the NWO. Could this be some Democratic move for that reason? The problem is the unintended consequences laws like this could have on the balance of power in the state. Citizens should be up in arms protesting to get the governor to not sign this law. Another swipe at freedom and the constitution of a free people, IMHO.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE
 

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.

This story is absurd and whoever wrote it either didn't read the bill or has an agenda, or both. If the Federal Government wants to arrest someone for Federal gun crimes in Colorado, they'll have the local ATF agents do it. That's what they're for. They won't wait for Colorado to pass a state law giving the Secret Service peace officer status then send the anti-counterfeiting squad to arrest gun owners, or sheriffs, or whatever fantasy is being entertained. Especially since the Colorado bill only empowers 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).



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Contact your constitutional sheriff and volenteer to back him up. The sheriff can create a legal organized militia to protect his county. We have the numbers, we only need organization to restore the constitutional government and republic. It is time



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

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"

id est, 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:

  1. A Federal LEO witnesses, or has reasonable suspicion of, someone committing a felony or misdemeanor.
  2. They arrest the person.
  3. 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:


[align=center][color=#77acda] Federal vs. State
[color=#77acda] Urban vs. Rural
[color=#77acda] Statist vs. Patriot
[color=#77acda]U.N. vs. U.S.[/align]

Peace>

~E.C.
edit on 6-4-2013 by 3mperorConstantinE because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE
 


Felony under the laws of the United States covers
yes, and 7yr olds shooting BB guns too apparently.

can't have 'normal' behavior being mistaken as a 'felony' can we ?
remember the father who drove through school parking lot fence ?
or the Sunday school teacher parked in a parking lot ?
or the father who assaulted the officer who HIT his child ?

all of their behaviors were 'perceived' as felonies



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Don't forget felonious possession of Hello Kitty Bubble Guns. They're up next.
Whatever would we do without these laws?

/sarc

Preaching to the choir, bro–

~E.C.
edit on 6-4-2013 by 3mperorConstantinE because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by akalepos
 



I don't know anyone in my area that doesn't own a scoped rifle. If they don't, I have a couple extra 30.06 i will loan them.


The best bet IS to hit them from a distance. Takes them enough time for you to get away before they reach where you WERE.

Then whoever that main target of theirs was, better take off.





top topics
 
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join