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: 2976
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 # 28.
#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.
Citizens cannot be deprived of Rights except through due process of law The ex-con's due process in regard to their criminal conviction expires with the completion of their sentence. They served their time, and are no longer convicted criminals. There is no legal justification for infringing upon their right to keep and bear arms. '68 GCA, and the Brady Act are unconstitutional infringements on the RKBA. If they can take the rights of innocent ex-cons, they can take the right of anyone for any excuse, like putting you on a no-fly list, calling you a terrorist, evil doer, PTSD psycho Veteran, or whatever. Either we're all free, or none of us are free.
You are, of course, referring to felon disenfranchisement. If you have been convicted of a felony, you have forfeited many, many rights and priviledges and it is near impossible to get them back. Is it right? I don't know; I think it should vary with the type of crime such as violent crime. But it is the way it is.
That doesn't mean it is the way it is SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER OUR OWN LAWS,and it doesn't mean we should just accept it and move on.
Take the fourteenth amendment as an example, UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION laws are formulated on the state and federal level. Amendment XIV, section 2., states: So, "disenfranchisement" inhibits voting as a "right" and logically should inhibit other rights as well. I don't know about you but I am not arguing with the content of a 150 year old US Constitutional Amendment. Are you?
#29. To: buckeroo (#28)
WTH? That couldn't be more confusing if it were just a bunch of random words thrown together.
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.
#10. To: Pinguinite, *Bang List*, buckeroo (#7)
(Edited)
the US government can not deny the right to keep and bear arms unless the "someone" has a felony in their background
#19. To: hondo68 (#10)
Either we're all free, or none of us are free.
#25. To: buckeroo (#19)
Is it right? I don't know; I think it should vary with the type of crime such as violent crime. But it is the way it is.
#28. To: sneakypete (#25)
That doesn't mean it is the way it is SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER OUR OWN LAWS,and it doesn't mean we should just accept it and move on.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Replies to Comment # 28. or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 28.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]