FBI arrests militia member near border, described as "armed vigilante"

originally posted by: Guyfriday

What was Larry Mitchell Hopkins felony conviction?

He apparently has a conviction for impersonating an officer and felony firearm possession.

Even though the guy may indeed be a felon in possession of a firearm, which then means he is violating his last court agreement, since judges will always have a convicted felon agree to never possess a firearm again as part of the agreement/sentencing.

But the calling it Vigilante and splashing that word all over the headlines is PURE PROPAGANDA with only one purpose in mind.

Any here know what I'm referring to? How about you OP?

Also to add, this story is more grandstanding by the fully discredited FBI than it is a desire they have to actually stop crime anywhere.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I find it interesting that people are arguing over felons being able to vote after time served, yet not a mention of the 2a being taken forever.

If we just folllowed the constitution, most of todays problems would have a solution. Diminishing the ilegal entry of millions by calling it "just" a misdemeanor is laughable.

Militias are not vigilantes.

(not saying you expressed that, just responded to the last post)

Don't forget the current trend is to not interfere with illegals. Government is doing the pretend work of enforcement and that is meant to be good enough for the country.

😳
COINTELPRO

If he's a felon, screw him.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Allaroundyou

We are raised and trained to put all our faith into "the authorities" and "law enforcement".

Look where that's gotten us.

Maybe we really do need more vigilantes.

I agree, we sure as hell need something. The official LEO’s in my area seem overwhelmed with the revolving door court system. Our esteemed Mayor would like nothing more than to be a sanctuary city and there are some areas of town even the police will not go unless it’s in force. At least 4 officers answer calls on the east side of town. 3 officers to go in and 1 officer to watch the cars least they have 8 flat tires again.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Don't forget the current trend is to not interfere with illegals. Government is doing the pretend work of enforcement and that is meant to be good enough for the country.

we have a border problem and immigration laws from last century. until those are addressed, the country will not know how or what to enforce.

we have so many loopholes being exploited, so many laws just outright broken; the 'arms wide opened' policy worked a century ago, the laws need to be tweaked to reflect today's society (like others).


otherwise more citizens will want to take the law in their own hands.

..........

but his felony is purely incidental, and arrest is fishy.

otherwise i wonder how would the mayor of NM try to disband this rogue group enforcing the law? technically were they within legality holding up and turning in the trespassers?

i think::
they made national news, the mayor couldn't find a way to make the citizens arrests in this context irrefutably illegal,
mayor heard of the felony, mayor knew they were armed, mayor asked the fbi to make the arrest.

now the topic will move quickly from wether or not they are within their rights to make those arrests, and move to 'an armed felon making vigilante arrests'.

this is the sort of politics that is rampant in our government.

I side with DBCowboy on this one

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed



I think you nailed it.

Seems more than a bit suspicious to me.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Logic says the reason it all seems so convoluted is that most of the government decision makers are taking bribes or lobby money to do what money wants. Corruption is rule, not the exception.

The guy is probably FBI. New Mexico is filthy with them.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I find it interesting that people are arguing over felons being able to vote after time served, yet not a mention of the 2a being taken forever.

If we just folllowed the constitution, most of todays problems would have a solution. Diminishing the ilegal entry of millions by calling it "just" a misdemeanor is laughable.

Militias are not vigilantes.

(not saying you expressed that, just responded to the last post)

Yes indeed, and that item alone, calling for felons to regain voting rights by itself exposes the fraud in intent. The egotistical pompousness of the left already assuming that all the felons with restored voting rights will aid their party and vote for them which is what they care about, not in giving something to someone from the goodness of their hearts.

Hearts of darkness with self serving intent only. Not all democrats feel that way perhaps, but the power centers of this agenda seem to be born on the left.

This has been an ongoing pattern.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Oh well, militias still have a statistically lower rate of crime than any other sample group.

God forbid, someone carrying a firearm. I don't suppose he hurt anyone did he? Sounds like thought police pre-crime to me

No matter, he broke the law he will no doubt pay the price. As he should. Sadly he was singled out when you have so many others breaking the law (actually hurting folks, too) and getting away scott free

a reply to: JBurns


I know it's kind of funny, he was arrested for impersonating an Officer. The group he is with was stopping people from impersonating Americans. The irony isn't lost on me. He should have known better though, but the article really tries (and fails) to paint the group as a whole as being felons. No where in the article does it say what happened to the rest of the group "boarder-hood watching", only that one guy was busted for breaking the terms of his release.

My opinion is that yes that guy should have been taken in to custody, but trying to link his crime to the actions of the others along the boarder seems sad at best, malicious at worst.

I must especially laugh at those who have taken the position of grand arbiter of what is extreme and what is not extreme

Putting down the Iphone, turning off the TV and getting off your lazy posterior and doing something for your country is the opposite of extreme. It is extreme to sit back idly while this BS goes virtually unchecked and watch our ridiculous amount of tax dollars get pissed down the drain. It is extreme to threaten, harass or ridicule Citizens that are donating their time to defend *our* border and *our* nation.

I'll say it again, this is Our country and we're making sure the illegals know it. You want to come here? Do so legally. Otherwise, you will be detected, you will be detained and you will be turned over to the Feds.



This is not acceptable. And I commend each and every patriot who has put their foot down and said "Not one more"

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: odzeandennz

We need more vigilantes.

I love how you used a Spanish word to describe them

He did not had a right to use or possess those fire arms but he thought it would be fine because of being a patriot? Breaking the laws of the country you claim to love and defend is not how you show patriotism, he's no better than the illegals breaking through the border

a reply to: Guyfriday

Ah, yes in that case he should have known better

Looks like they made the right call on this individual, like you I think it is sad they try to paint the entire group with that label

No different than what ACLU and The Guardian did however. They ran their usual BS lines about "fascism" "Nazis" "Bigots" yet offer not one shred of evidence to back it up. Apparently exercising Constitutional rights, civic duties and upholding the law is a net-negative to those people...beats me, trying to understand the logic of emotionally driven knee-jerkers is near impossible

Hopefully this serves a warning to others not to do boneheaded things like impersonate law enforcement, military or anything outside of what is legally permissible. Thanks for the reply & information GuyFriday It is appreciated

a reply to: Malisa

Have to agree here as well

Although the law can't strictly be the arbiter of patriotism either. In our FF case, insurrection and revolution was most certainly unlawful under British law

Of course your point is not lost on me (and I am sure others). It is a serious matter and should be taken seriously by those involved, ensuring the letter of the law is followed has got to be a priority to maintain legitimacy and keep hearts and minds on the side of those upholding the law and protecting our borders

a reply to: Malisa

You're entitled to your opinion.

Same as I.