Letter From Fresno Country Sheriff

Guess I'll be looking for a new sheriff next time around. Shame, 'cause until this she was doing a great job.

This is happening all over the country. Louisiana even amended the state Constitution last year to include a phrase that prevents anyone from taking firearms from law abiding citizens. This was in response to tUSA's insistance of being part of the UN's small arms treaty. While that treaty wouldn't call for the taking of arms, it does call for a national registry. Historically registries have been used to confiscate weapons at a later date.

Is it? I thought it was in reference to either Obama's executive orders (which means she mis-used the term legislation) or to potential gun regulation legislation. Either way, it isn't a sheriffs job to determine which laws are constitutional and which are not. If she doesn't think a law is constitutional, she should sue and let the courts handle it.

Bryant wrote:Is it? I thought it was in reference to either Obama's executive orders (which means she mis-used the term legislation) or to potential gun regulation legislation. Either way, it isn't a sheriffs job to determine which laws are constitutional and which are not. If she doesn't think a law is constitutional, she should sue and let the courts handle it.

Sorry, my post was confusing. You sheriff did do this in anticipation of proactive confiscation. This is happening everywhere. It is nothing more than your sheriff trying to comfort those that are thinking confiscation is coming. That usually is the next step.

I just wish that they would not only do this, but write other letters ensuring us that they wouldn't violate out privacy rights, our right to be free of warrantless searches, our right to free speech anywhere, etc. The 2nd is just one. I hate the fact that many pro2nd totally forget the rest. With things like NDAA all seem to be encroached upon.

I kinda like knowing law enforcement is on my side. By the time courts decide, it is usually too late.

Marconius wrote:

Bryant wrote:Is it? I thought it was in reference to either Obama's executive orders (which means she mis-used the term legislation) or to potential gun regulation legislation. Either way, it isn't a sheriffs job to determine which laws are constitutional and which are not. If she doesn't think a law is constitutional, she should sue and let the courts handle it.

Sorry, my post was confusing. You sheriff did do this in anticipation of proactive confiscation. This is happening everywhere. It is nothing more than your sheriff trying to comfort those that are thinking confiscation is coming. That usually is the next step.

I just wish that they would not only do this, but write other letters ensuring us that they wouldn't violate out privacy rights, our right to be free of warrantless searches, our right to free speech anywhere, etc. The 2nd is just one. I hate the fact that many pro2nd totally forget the rest. With things like NDAA all seem to be encroached upon.

I kinda like knowing law enforcement is on my side. By the time courts decide, it is usually too late.

I don't trust law enforcement enough to leave them in charge of interpreting the Constitution. Left to them, I don't think the 4th Amendment would receive any attention. Like I said, if she doesn't agree with the constitutionality of a piece of legislation, she should sue and request that implementation be held until after the final court decision. That is the designed separation of power within our government.

I don't see how confiscation would ever be practical in the United States. The government could try a buy-back or some other consensual surrender program, however any forcible program would end very, very badly.

Bryant wrote:Is it? I thought it was in reference to either Obama's executive orders (which means she mis-used the term legislation) or to potential gun regulation legislation. Either way, it isn't a sheriffs job to determine which laws are constitutional and which are not. If she doesn't think a law is constitutional, she should sue and let the courts handle it.

Absolutely. And we have seen this on other issues as well such as illegal immigration, selling marijuana and gay marriage.

If ya dont like a law, change it. Dont just break it or say you wont enforce it.

Of course, sometimes people vote for a law to be enacted and the courts strike them down anyway.

Is an unConstitutional law really a law???
Do we not have an obligation and duty to disobey an unlawful law???
At what time do we stop saying "well it's the law???"

What if that law was one that said free speech is to be regulated and approved???
What if that law made Buddism illegal in tUSA???
What if the law limited where and when we could peacefully congregate???
What if the law said we had to allow search of property at any given time regardless of warrant???

Think about it for a while.

Marconius wrote:Is an unConstitutional law really a law???
Do we not have an obligation and duty to disobey an unlawful law???
At what time do we stop saying "well it's the law???"

What if that law was one that said free speech is to be regulated and approved???
What if that law made Buddism illegal in tUSA???
What if the law limited where and when we could peacefully congregate???
What if the law said we had to allow search of property at any given time regardless of warrant???

Think about it for a while.

That's precisely what I've been thinking about since I posted. So far all I have is that an unconstitutional law is, by definition, a law until struck down by the court. But at what time do we stop saying "well it's the law?"

Our government is designed to function as a hierarchy, with the states below the Federal government. What happens when the states quit recognizing the authority of the Federal government? When they pick-and-choose which laws to follow and which to disregard? Does the system not loose purpose? Where does this leave us as a country?

But what do we do when the states are confronted by a tyrannical law (like the array you provided) that sweeps aside the rights of the people? In an ideal world a lawsuit could be filed before implementation and an injunction would be issued staying the law until the court has a chance to hear it. But what do you do if the court takes the case, but allows the law to go into effect in the interim? What is best done in this scenario? Do you defy the law and risk what I described above? Do you implement something distasteful? If the court refuses to take the case or rules the law constitutional then revolution becomes the reasonable recourse (mind you revolutions don't have to be violent), so at least the best course of action is clear in this scenario.

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:Is an unConstitutional law really a law???
Do we not have an obligation and duty to disobey an unlawful law???
At what time do we stop saying "well it's the law???"

What if that law was one that said free speech is to be regulated and approved???
What if that law made Buddism illegal in tUSA???
What if the law limited where and when we could peacefully congregate???
What if the law said we had to allow search of property at any given time regardless of warrant???

Think about it for a while.

That's precisely what I've been thinking about since I posted. So far all I have is that an unconstitutional law is, by definition, a law until struck down by the court. But at what time do we stop saying "well it's the law?"

Our government is designed to function as a hierarchy, with the states below the Federal government. What happens when the states quit recognizing the authority of the Federal government? When they pick-and-choose which laws to follow and which to disregard? Does the system not loose purpose? Where does this leave us as a country?

But what do we do when the states are confronted by a tyrannical law (like the array you provided) that sweeps aside the rights of the people? In an ideal world a lawsuit could be filed before implementation and an injunction would be issued staying the law until the court has a chance to hear it. But what do you do if the court takes the case, but allows the law to go into effect in the interim? What is best done in this scenario? Do you defy the law and risk what I described above? Do you implement something distasteful? If the court refuses to take the case or rules the law constitutional then revolution becomes the reasonable recourse (mind you revolutions don't have to be violent), so at least the best course of action is clear in this scenario.

Well the feds were not supposed to have large law enforcement agencies like we now see with ATFE and TSA. They were supposed to enlist the aid of the state's law enforcement. That is one reason why Cali gets away with its marijuana laws. The feds simply cannot enforce it due to lack of manpower(short of using military). That is also why the feds had no business making laws against drugs and alcohol. That is why it should be an issue for Individual states. Of course we are not guaranteed the lack of infringement as far as drugs and alcohol are concerned. The right to protect ourselves from our own government cannot be infringed. That is why we have the bill of rights and not the bill of needs. All of the Bill of Rights work hand in hand. None is more Important than the other and all give us a means of empowerment over our government. If these rights are infringed, it will be just like every other law. The feds will try to enlist the aid of state and local law enforcement. Outside of NY, Conn, Ill, and Cali there are very few states that would lend aid in this matter. That is why I am not succombing to the fear and haven't rushed out to stock up. We are not near confiscation yet.

Of course I do believe it is past time for a revolution. That is why I have been actively trying to spread the Lib party platform to others who may not know. I personally talked at least a dozen people into voting for Gary Johnson. I wish I coulda got more. We need to get these idiots in Congress out now. POTUS can only do so much. Yeah, he is a great feel good figure, but real change comes from legislature. Even if Johnson woulda won, we woulda saw no real change. Congress woulda never passed or approved of his wishes. We need to stop the bleeding now. Look around. See how the Bill of Rights has been trampled over the past 10 years. Since 9/11 we have warrantless wire taps, strip searches at airports, US citizens being assinated without due process, we have indefinate detention of suspects........the list goes on and on. All for the sake of safety.

It is time we wake up, draw a line in the sand and say "no more". Repeal these actions or we are gonna vote in someone who will. We need a political revolution.

Marconius wrote:
Well the feds were not supposed to have large law enforcement agencies like we now see with ATFE and TSA. They were supposed to enlist the aid of the state's law enforcement. That is one reason why Cali gets away with its marijuana laws. The feds simply cannot enforce it due to lack of manpower(short of using military). That is also why the feds had no business making laws against drugs and alcohol. That is why it should be an issue for Individual states. Of course we are not guaranteed the lack of infringement as far as drugs and alcohol are concerned. The right to protect ourselves from our own government cannot be infringed. That is why we have the bill of rights and not the bill of needs. All of the Bill of Rights work hand in hand. None is more Important than the other and all give us a means of empowerment over our government. If these rights are infringed, it will be just like every other law. The feds will try to enlist the aid of state and local law enforcement. Outside of NY, Conn, Ill, and Cali there are very few states that would lend aid in this matter. That is why I am not succombing to the fear and haven't rushed out to stock up. We are not near confiscation yet.

Of course I do believe it is past time for a revolution. That is why I have been actively trying to spread the Lib party platform to others who may not know. I personally talked at least a dozen people into voting for Gary Johnson. I wish I coulda got more. We need to get these idiots in Congress out now. POTUS can only do so much. Yeah, he is a great feel good figure, but real change comes from legislature. Even if Johnson woulda won, we woulda saw no real change. Congress woulda never passed or approved of his wishes. We need to stop the bleeding now. Look around. See how the Bill of Rights has been trampled over the past 10 years. Since 9/11 we have warrantless wire taps, strip searches at airports, US citizens being assinated without due process, we have indefinate detention of suspects........the list goes on and on. All for the sake of safety.

It is time we wake up, draw a line in the sand and say "no more". Repeal these actions or we are gonna vote in someone who will. We need a political revolution.

My issue with this is the "revolution becomes the reasonable recourse" and "The right to protect ourselves from our own government" parts here. Not in general, but in the specifics of who is it that decides that a law is "tyrannical" and that it's time for a revolution? The political environment these days is so toxic and adversarial that everything that one side does/tries to do is straight away denounced by the other side as the worst thing that's ever happened, ever, and the beginning of the end of democracy. No-one is really attempting a rational conversation/debate with the other side, they're staying in their own little bubbles where everyone agrees with everyone else about how bad the others are, circle-jerking in a negative reinforcement cycle that just serves to whip everyone up into an even bigger frenzy. The talking heads and the media keep feeding this cycle, because hey, the more frightened and pissed off their viewers are, the more they come back to hear more, and ratings are ratings. As a result, you get guys who try to burn down a mosque because the only source of news they listen to is telling them that all muslims are terrorists. Do these people get to decide when things have gone over the edge into tyranny? Even if the other 99.99% of the population think things are fine, or if not fine, then not all that bad? How many people have to support you before you have a "valid" revolution, and what about the "normal" people who don't want a revolution?

I get your point that america needs a political revolution as opposed to a shooting one (I agree, the american political process is fundamentally dysfunctional and broken), but for a lot of people, "The right to protect ourselves from our own government" means grabbing as many guns as they can and heading for the hills before the black helicopters (or the UN) arrive. So, is a very weighted term to be using.....

Miles1 wrote:

My issue with this is the "revolution becomes the reasonable recourse" and "The right to protect ourselves from our own government" parts here. Not in general, but in the specifics of who is it that decides that a law is "tyrannical" and that it's time for a revolution? The political environment these days is so toxic and adversarial that everything that one side does/tries to do is straight away denounced by the other side as the worst thing that's ever happened, ever, and the beginning of the end of democracy. No-one is really attempting a rational conversation/debate with the other side, they're staying in their own little bubbles where everyone agrees with everyone else about how bad the others are, circle-jerking in a negative reinforcement cycle that just serves to whip everyone up into an even bigger frenzy. The talking heads and the media keep feeding this cycle, because hey, the more frightened and pissed off their viewers are, the more they come back to hear more, and ratings are ratings. As a result, you get guys who try to burn down a mosque because the only source of news they listen to is telling them that all muslims are terrorists. Do these people get to decide when things have gone over the edge into tyranny? Even if the other 99.99% of the population think things are fine, or if not fine, then not all that bad? How many people have to support you before you have a "valid" revolution, and what about the "normal" people who don't want a revolution?

I get your point that america needs a political revolution as opposed to a shooting one (I agree, the american political process is fundamentally dysfunctional and broken), but for a lot of people, "The right to protect ourselves from our own government" means grabbing as many guns as they can and heading for the hills before the black helicopters (or the UN) arrive. So, is a very weighted term to be using.....

I would naively say, the US Constitution tells us when our government becomes tyrannical......well tyrannical may be to strong of a word in this instance......let's go with power hungry(cause let's face it, we are not yet on the slide to tyranny, but I do think they have overstepped their bounds).

Anytime we as US citizens see unlimited detention.....that's a no-no and we should have said so.
Anytime our own government assassinates its own citizens(regardless of the scum he may have been)......that's a no-no and we should have said so.
Anytime the government tells us when and where we can assemble in peaceful protest.....that's a no-no and we should have said so.

eh, you get the point, so I will get down off that pulpit.

Problem is, we have let our institutions build the perfect monster. We have two recognized parties that only differ slightly, yet play off one another. One party doesn't seem to give a crap about freedom of religion, assembly, and whatnot while the other doesn't seem to give a crap about due process and firearms. Put both together and you get a crapstorm on people's rights. We don't see it happen much at a time.....it is always little nibbles and always done for the good of society(to keep us safe).

None of it really keeps us safe. In the long run it makes all of us less safe because we loose the tools we have to keep us safe. Make no mistake, free speech, free assembly, due process.........all of them are just as important as what the right is fighting for now(firearms).

But you see, the right bought into what the party was selling. They sold them a bill of goods that basically said some rights are not as important as others. That wouldn't be so bad if the other side, which is supposed to be left but is really right wing as well(any party that gives the political class authority over its own people's welfare is basically right wing in my eyes), wouldn't have sold their constituency a totally different, yet basically the same bill of goods. Only difference is what rights are deemed important.

This results in constant bickering and fighting, sides being draw, hatred towards the other side, and finally that whole slippery slope of what is and what isn't really rights. Pretty soon we start to see what we have been seeing the last 10-15 years(more than that really, but 9/11 really sped things up).

Of course I ain't even getting into the real power behind the politicians......corporate entities.

To try to answer you question, I would say to achieve any real revolution, things have to get even worse. If voting trends stay the same, we would need to see a third party garner at least 18% of the active voters. With less than 50% of voters actually voting, 18% would be enough to drag the other parties down to a level where that third would win. Problem right now is complacency. Most people I talk to hate politics, don't trust politics, don't keep up with politics, and never take part in politics. These people just trust that things will never go bad. They take for granted that things will always stay the way they are now. They leave that to us and trust that we get it right. That means only those of extreme views are the majority of the active voters. They are the only ones who actually take the time to be informed and then take the time to ensure that whatever goal they want is met......many times rule of law be damned.

So in a nutshell:
18% of the active voters if we want a political revolution. 20% of the total population if we want a violent one. Considering that, it would seem a political revolution would be the easier to obtain.

I would like to add that since partisan Presidents appoint SCOTUS, then by default SCOTUS can be bias towards the ends of whatever party they are affiliated with. In fact we have seen it in the past. I never liked the "serve for life" part of SCOTUS.

Bryant wrote:

That's precisely what I've been thinking about since I posted. So far all I have is that an unconstitutional law is, by definition, a law until struck down by the court. But at what time do we stop saying "well it's the law?"

Our government is designed to function as a hierarchy, with the states below the Federal government. What happens when the states quit recognizing the authority of the Federal government? When they pick-and-choose which laws to follow and which to disregard? Does the system not loose purpose? Where does this leave us as a country?

But what do we do when the states are confronted by a tyrannical law (like the array you provided) that sweeps aside the rights of the people? In an ideal world a lawsuit could be filed before implementation and an injunction would be issued staying the law until the court has a chance to hear it. But what do you do if the court takes the case, but allows the law to go into effect in the interim? What is best done in this scenario? Do you defy the law and risk what I described above? Do you implement something distasteful? If the court refuses to take the case or rules the law constitutional then revolution becomes the reasonable recourse (mind you revolutions don't have to be violent), so at least the best course of action is clear in this scenario.

Those are excellent questions. I'm not one that would propose taking up arms agaisnt the Fed govt because really its a no-win situation. Ruby Rudge, Wounded Knee and WACO all proved that you just cannot win a war against the Feds. There's too much technology and money and power at the hands of our govt. The only thing taking up arms will get you is needless bloodshed and (if you actually manage to survive) prison time for treason.

However, thankfully our system of govt was set up by the Founding Fathers to make such a step really unecessary. We can petition to have laws overturned. Our recourse is political discourse. Something the Irish know better than anyone. We have to persuade the rest of the nation to whatever our pov is. We vote for our state senators and congress people. If they truly wish to hold onto their jobs, they'd be wise to listen tot he voice of their constituents.

So because of this states like Texas and Alabama might put pressure on our Congress people to vote against any sort of gun ban. (and likely we will!).

Now we come to the question, well, what if the rest of the country wants their congress people to vote the other way? What we are really asking is...what happens if we dont get our way?

The answer is...tough. We got outvoted. The nation is agaisnt us. The problem comes in when states go ahead and defy the Fed govt's laws anyway, completely disregarding the will of the people of a nation. This is what is happening now with gay marriage. This is what is happening with legalizing pot. Its not good for this to happen.

What if Alabama just said, to h*ll with the emancipation proclamation, we're gonna enslave black people again...screw the rest of you"?

You just cant do that. So what is the answer.

You have to change policy by getting your message out and convincing the rest of the nation to go along with you on whatever law you like or dislike. When California or New York or some other state's people decide to go along with you on, say lifting gun regulation or whatever, the will of the people wins the day.

(Again, unless the Fed courts get involved and screw up the way law is supposed to work. At this point, maybe its time for the people to raise their voices and impeach these activist judges).

Dennis324 wrote:We vote for our state senators and congress people. If they truly wish to hold onto their jobs, they'd be wise to listen tot he voice of their constituents.

But they seem to be actively moving to remove that particular stumbling block, look at Virginia passing that new gerrymandering redistricting bill this week. How many senate/congress seats are still actually in competitive races come election time nowadays, as opposed to districts that have been redrawn to make sure that the incumbent is always safe no matter what? So, if your congresscritter is in a safely (if sometimes bizarrely) redrawn district that ensures he can never really be beaten, why should he listen to anything you say?

And speaking of gerrymandering, what do y'all think of the republican's attempts to rig the next presidential election? If you can't beat 'em, cheat 'em?

I saw that report on allocating electoral votes by congressional district the other night on the news. I wish I could say it wasnt an attempt to rig an election, but it seems like it is. A bad idea from what I can tell. And it is further proof (imo) of what is wrong with the GOP right now.

Rather than work to attract more people to the GOP, the leadership of the party appears to be trying to 'game the system'.



But I was very very pleased when I saw Sen Marco Rubio discussing his plan for immigration reform the other night. Exit polls after last November's presidential election showed that Latino and other minorities overwhelmingly voted for Obama. According to a Pew Project report, Hispanic voters will account for 40 percent of the growth in the U.S. electorate between now and 2030. So the GOP is insane if it thinks it can survive without embracing this group.

Rubio’s “compassionate and responsible” plan includes two phases. The first phase includes deporting all illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes. In the event that no crime is committed, he calls for the immigrants to come forward peacefully, be fingerprinted for national security, and pay back taxes and certain fines.

The second phase comes into play after the individual has remained in the U.S. for a significant period of time without committing any crimes and the border and workplace is secure. Then the now legal immigrant will be granted the opportunity to apply for the existing legal immigration system.

Personally I dont think that making these immigrants pay back taxes will encourage them to come forward. So Rubio might wish to tinker with his plan a bit. But securing the border is do-able. Thats the 1st thing that must be done. Congress has already approved this but hasnt allocated any money for it. (Thank Harry Reid for not submitting a budget for ...5 years now).

Rubio has said that (rather than kicking in doors in the middle of the night) he supports going after businesses who knowingly hire illegals. That is more than fair imo.

But I think that our govt ought to streamline the process for citizenship in this country. I think we also ought to fast track any immigrant who serves in our military. (If youare willing to put your life on the line for our nation, you more than deserve to be a citizen).

It is my understanding that Sens. Chuck Schumer and John McCain as well as Rep Paul Ryan are trying to put together a new immigration reform plan. I hope so because the GOP needs to get out front on this rather than waiting on the Dems and reacting to their plan. The GOP needs to lead rather than react.

Marconius wrote:
To try to answer you question, I would say to achieve any real revolution, things have to get even worse. If voting trends stay the same, we would need to see a third party garner at least 18% of the active voters. With less than 50% of voters actually voting, 18% would be enough to drag the other parties down to a level where that third would win. Problem right now is complacency. Most people I talk to hate politics, don't trust politics, don't keep up with politics, and never take part in politics. These people just trust that things will never go bad. They take for granted that things will always stay the way they are now. They leave that to us and trust that we get it right. That means only those of extreme views are the majority of the active voters. They are the only ones who actually take the time to be informed and then take the time to ensure that whatever goal they want is met......many times rule of law be damned.

So in a nutshell:
18% of the active voters if we want a political revolution. 20% of the total population if we want a violent one. Considering that, it would seem a political revolution would be the easier to obtain.

That was a very eloquent post. The one observation I wish to make is that a third party doesn't need to claim a majority to break the power of the two other parties, it simply has to break the majority of the larger parties and force a coalition. While a third party could wield far more power as a majority, it doesn't have to do so to garner considerable political power.

Bryant wrote:

That was a very eloquent post. The one observation I wish to make is that a third party doesn't need to claim a majority to break the power of the two other parties, it simply has to break the majority of the larger parties and force a coalition. While a third party could wield far more power as a majority, it doesn't have to do so to garner considerable political power.

Good point.

BTW-Anonymous thinks the time is now:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/26/tech/anonymous-threat/index.html

What is y'alls opinion of that group???

Marconius wrote:

Bryant wrote:

That was a very eloquent post. The one observation I wish to make is that a third party doesn't need to claim a majority to break the power of the two other parties, it simply has to break the majority of the larger parties and force a coalition. While a third party could wield far more power as a majority, it doesn't have to do so to garner considerable political power.

Good point.

BTW-Anonymous thinks the time is now:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/26/tech/anonymous-threat/index.html

What is y'alls opinion of that group???

I have a generally positive view of Anonymous. They are generally fighting for the good of the public. That said, their stunt with Sony did annoy me.