Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good article and thanks for posting. From the link .
So...the seller is supposed to know the potential buyer is a criminal immigrant? And if a potential seller identifies an illegal, is that person arrested and deported? I find it ironic that a private seller is supposed to identify an illegal, while the local PO doesn't do their job of enforcing immigration laws in the first place.
Once again, legal gun owners are supposed to suffer because our legal system won't address the real problem, criminals.
Ahh, how refreshing ... there is intelligent life down here after all. Well done.
This is the ploy used in many instances when government wants to stop something they have no reason or right to stop. In this case, they get an illegal with a valid drivers license that the law allowed them to get .. send them into the gun show with the money the cops provided .. wait for the seller who doesn't have the means to know the guy is actually illegal, and boom .. you're busted.
This same tactic is used to bust heads at peaceful protests ... dress up a few cops as "anarchists" who go running around setting trash cans on fire and breaking windows ... then they exit, and the rest of the cops are turned loose on the peaceful demonstrators under the guise of quelling the violence.
But ... cops wouldn't do such things ... would they? Well, not honest ones, of which there are many, especially here in Austin TX.
I've had the privilege of speaking with a number of them during my course of servicing ATM machines around town .. several have asked me if I'm "packing". When I say no ... they say why? Are you crazy? I wouldn't do what you are doing without carrying a gun.
My response to them is this ... the law won't allow me to carry openly like you do. So, I can't display a deterrent. Consequently, I must rely on criminals to guess whether I have a concealed weapon ... I want to have a deterrent openly displayed, as I have no desire to actually shoot someone. And the other reason I don't apply for a CCW is that I don't recognize the authority of the government to require such a permit, so I'll not be a hypocrite by asking for one. Since I don't want to go to jail, I don't carry one illegally, even though the law itself is illegal.
Guess what? Not a single cop I've talked to here in Austin disagrees with any of that. Every single one is a staunch advocate of the 2nd amendment ... it's their criminal bosses and politicians that don't belive in observing the law.
It is the responsibility of the police and BATFE to enforce existing law and not to coerse people into abiding what they think the law "should be".
Question: If local police and BATFE feel illegal aliens are illegally purchasing firearms at gunshows why don't they set up a sting with the help of ICE? Why don't they make the appropriate arrests and deportations by actually enforcing current laws?
Answer: Because, it is much more politically correct to shut down a gun show than to enforce existing immigration and firearms laws.
Then, not all "messages" are not sent via the U.S. Postal Service?
the authority for state and local law enforcement officials to enforce immigration law has been construed to be limited to the criminal provisions of the INA; by contrast, the enforcement of the civil provisions, which includes apprehension and removal of deportable aliens, has strictly been viewed as a federal responsibility, with states playing an incidental supporting role.
Quote:
States and localities bear the primary responsibility for defining and prosecuting crimes. But beyond enforcing the laws or ordinances of their state or locality, state and local officials may also have the authority to enforce some federal laws, especially criminal laws. Immigration law provides for both criminal punishments (e.g., alien smuggling, which is prosecuted in the courts) and civil violations (e.g.,lack of legal status, which may lead to removal through a separate administrative
system). The states and localities have traditionally only been permitted to directly enforce the criminal provisions, whereas the enforcement of the civil provisions has been viewed as a federal responsibility with states playing an incidental supporting role.
Quote:
Although there is quite a bit of debate with respect to state and local law enforcement officers’ authority to enforce immigration law (see discussion below), as a matter of practice, it is permissible for state and local law enforcement officers to inquire into the status of an immigrant during the course of their normal duties in enforcing state and local law. This practice allows state and local law enforcement officers to play an indirect role that is incidental to their general criminal enforcement authority.
For example, when state or local officers question the immigration status of someone they have detained for a state or local violation, they may contact an ICE agent at the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC).5 The federal agent may then place a detainer on the suspect, requesting the state official to keep the suspect in custody until a determination can be made as to the suspect’s immigration status. However, the continued detention of such a suspect beyond the needs of local law enforcement, and solely designed to aid in enforcement of federal immigration laws, may be unlawful.
Thanks for clairifying things, it's interesting how convoluted state vs. federal statutes get. Isn't there a program where local LE may be utilized in addressing criminal immigration ? I was under the impression that Apparo (SP) was doing so in AZ.
Thanks for clairifying things, it's interesting how convoluted state vs. federal statutes get. Isn't there a program where local LE may be utilized in addressing criminal immigration ? I was under the impression that Apparo (SP) was doing so in AZ.
You bet your bottom dollar on it. In fact, many people simply don't realize that the authority of a Sheriff is the Supreme law authority with jurisdiction that exceeds all others ... be it State, City, or Federal agents.
The Sheriff has the authority to enforce any law, be it local or federal statute, including the arrest of any other law enforcement agent he deems to be breaking any law.
The Sheriff has ultimate law enforcement power in all matters pertaining to his
specific jurisdiction, superseding even the FBI, DEA, ATF, Homeland Security, or State and Local Police.
Unfortunately, too few exercise their authority, but some like Apparo are the real deal. Sheriff Mack, is another.
Thanks for clairifying things, it's interesting how convoluted state vs. federal statutes get. Isn't there a program where local LE may be utilized in addressing criminal immigration ? I was under the impression that Apparo (SP) was doing so in AZ.
The problem is that there is no clear-cut definition.
The local LEO's can enforce things, but the closer they get to federal statutes, the murkier the waters.
I still can't believe they make the distinction of civil versus criminal.
You bet your bottom dollar on it. In fact, many people simply don't realize that the authority of a Sheriff is the Supreme law authority with jurisdiction that exceeds all others ... be it State, City, or Federal agents.
The Sheriff has the authority to enforce any law, be it local or federal statute, including the arrest of any other law enforcement agent he deems to be breaking any law.
The Sheriff has ultimate law enforcement power in all matters pertaining to his
specific jurisdiction, superseding even the FBI, DEA, ATF, Homeland Security, or State and Local Police.
Unfortunately, too few exercise their authority, but some like Apparo are the real deal. Sheriff Mack, is another.
The Sheriff's power depends on the state. Some Sheriff's can, other cannot.
Regardless of his supposed power, I would love to be watching if and when a county Sheriff tells DHS to leave, or the Secret Service to go away.
Also, theoretically, the Sheriff could be arrested.
(a) In General. - Whoever -
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates,
or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this
title while engaged in or on account of the performance of
official duties; or
(2) forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly
served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the
performance of official duties during such person's term of
service,
shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only
simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than one year, or both, and in all other cases, be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
The Sheriff's power depends on the state. Some Sheriff's can, other cannot.
Regardless of his supposed power, I would love to be watching if and when a county Sheriff tells DHS to leave, or the Secret Service to go away.
You can't stand America, the constitution, and liberty, can you?
You just love the idea of a wide open fascist dictatorship, and have a secret fashion fetish for jack boots, huh?
Oh yes, you most certainly do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
