Saturday, August 04, 2007
We're the Only Ones Authorizing Journalists Enough
And it's funny how the "authorized journalists" are all of a sudden vitally interested in learning the name of an offending "Only One" when they're the victims.
Rule 6
Kimberly Grosset was visiting her boyfriend, Robert White when their time together took a bad turn. Calcasieu Parish Sheriff Tony Mancuso says, "White and Grosset were engaged in consensual sexual behavior involving a firearm when the firearm was discharged, resulting in his death."
Keep your...uh...whatever off the trigger until you're ready to...uh...whatever.
And to think it was just yesterday that we added Rule 5.
Stop the NRA?
Why would you want to stop someone who's on your side? Isn't that a bit like the Germans saying "Stop the Vichy French?"
Oh, and those 1.4 million prohibited persons you say your prior restraint edict stopped? Back when I almost got arrested for asking Sarah Brady and Jane Harman about that, it was only touted as 100,000. Anyway, each attempt by a prohibited person to buy a firearm is a violation of federal law, so if you guys really knew what you were talking about instead of grabbing numbers out of your...uh...the air and lying to everyone, we'd see that many arrests and prosecutions, right?
The California Caliphate
Police are testing guns recovered from raids in which authorities arrested seven members of an Oakland Black Muslim splinter group who investigators suspect were involved in the killing of a journalist and two others.Oakland?
Isn't that the city Jerry Brown mismanaged? And he went on to be elected California Attorney General because all those police groups said he was such a hotshot crime fighter? Like, you, Dave Kozicki? Great job you're doing there in Oakland, buddy. Bet all those .50 cals that can go through two police cruisers are hell to face every day.
Get ready to see it spread, Californians. Your "public servant" are primarily interested in their benefits and pensions--that and getting raises in percentages you in the private sector who pay for everything can only dream about.
But take heart in one thing: they're working 'round the clock to make sure you don't have any guns. After all, the policy of the AG's office is you have no individual right, and that's backed up by rulings from both the California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit.
That'll show those "splinter groups".
Insha'Allah.
UPDATE: And let's not forget the role that self-promoting "conservative talk show host" Michael Savage played in bringing Brown more political power.
What ARE the Powers of a Sheriff vs the Feds?
I've read elsewhere, and even heard it suggested in comments here at WarOnGuns, that the sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer in his county--and that federal agents may not conduct investigations without his cognizance. One of the reasons generally given is that because he is elected, he represents the highest actual authority--the people.
Generally cited to back up these claims is the case of Castaneda v US. The story goes something like INS targeted a family in Wyoming with an Hispanic surname as illegal aliens and recruited the local sheriff to assist in the bust. It turns out they were citizens, and in the resulting legal settlement, the ruling was made acknowledging the doctrine of "Sheriff Supremacy."
Thing is, I can find no such ruling from any court. I found sites that say there was a private and undisclosed settlement, and even sites that quote the court as saying this, and one (but not an "official" one) with a docket showing the case was dismissed. I found sites that say precedent was established and sheriffs can now wield this power if they only knew--if they only would. I found sites claiming the whole thing is a hoax. And a general conclusion among the "naysayers" is that any sheriff who tried to interfere with a federal investigation would soon find himself behind bars and facing charges.
This latter part is believable, regardless of any purported stare decisis, only because my experience has been that the largest, most vicious gang controls the turf. And my sense is that such a doctrine would run afoul of the Constitution being "the supreme law of the land"--and as doors swing both ways, it could allow sheriffs to enforce all kinds of infringements on civil liberties.
My point in all this being, I was going to write an open letter to the sheriff in Twin Falls about the persecution of Red's Trading Post, with the assumption that he has some sort of say in what goes down in his county. But when I started doing my basic fact-checking, I quickly realized I could not back that assumption up.
Feel free to chime in with comments and educate me. I'm not trying to slam the door shut on this. But this is a legal area where I freely admit ignorance, and I need more than unsubstantiated opinions and wishful thinking.
Generally cited to back up these claims is the case of Castaneda v US. The story goes something like INS targeted a family in Wyoming with an Hispanic surname as illegal aliens and recruited the local sheriff to assist in the bust. It turns out they were citizens, and in the resulting legal settlement, the ruling was made acknowledging the doctrine of "Sheriff Supremacy."
Thing is, I can find no such ruling from any court. I found sites that say there was a private and undisclosed settlement, and even sites that quote the court as saying this, and one (but not an "official" one) with a docket showing the case was dismissed. I found sites that say precedent was established and sheriffs can now wield this power if they only knew--if they only would. I found sites claiming the whole thing is a hoax. And a general conclusion among the "naysayers" is that any sheriff who tried to interfere with a federal investigation would soon find himself behind bars and facing charges.
This latter part is believable, regardless of any purported stare decisis, only because my experience has been that the largest, most vicious gang controls the turf. And my sense is that such a doctrine would run afoul of the Constitution being "the supreme law of the land"--and as doors swing both ways, it could allow sheriffs to enforce all kinds of infringements on civil liberties.
My point in all this being, I was going to write an open letter to the sheriff in Twin Falls about the persecution of Red's Trading Post, with the assumption that he has some sort of say in what goes down in his county. But when I started doing my basic fact-checking, I quickly realized I could not back that assumption up.
Feel free to chime in with comments and educate me. I'm not trying to slam the door shut on this. But this is a legal area where I freely admit ignorance, and I need more than unsubstantiated opinions and wishful thinking.
Three Developments from Red's
US DOJ visits us 33 times at...9:30am
[More about Red's Trading Post from WarOnGuns]
As of 9:30am this morning the US Department of Justice (which the ATF is under) has already visited our web site 33 times and is our number one visitor.Red's Trading Post is getting Nifonged by the ATF
Nifonged describes the railroading or harming of a person with no justifiable cause, except for one's own gain.Another ATF Casualty
It appears that we will be buying the inventory of another gun shop that the ATF shut down here in Idaho.
[More about Red's Trading Post from WarOnGuns]
This Day in History: August 4
On August 4, 1777, the main body of Lt. Colonel St. Leger's force reached Fort Stanwix. Colonel Peter Gansevoort had been in command of the fort since his arrival with 550 New York Continentals in April 1777. They had made significant improvements to the fort's defenses. Just prior to St. Leger's arrival, 200 reinforcements joined Gansevoort, bringing the garrison's number up to 750 men. St. Leger had now outdated intelligence on the strength and condition of the fort. He attempted to bluff the Americans by staging a review within sight of Fort Stanwix, but the Americans knew of the Indians in his force and did not expect any quarter or protection from the savages.