RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: VA Sheriff Says He’d ‘Deputize Thousands’ Of Citizens To Exclude Them - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

VA Sheriff Says He’d ‘Deputize Thousands’ Of Citizens To Exclude Them Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • ***-----------***
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 52,022
  • Joined: 28-February 03

  Posted 12 December 2019 - 04:43 PM

VA Sheriff Says He’d ‘Deputize Thousands’ Of Citizens To Exclude Them From State Gun Bans

American Military News
Ryan Morgan
December 06, 2019

Excerpt:

Sheriff Scott Jenkins of Culpeper County, Va. proposed a way to exempt citizens from newly proposed Virginia gun laws that might otherwise bar them from owning certain firearms.

In a Wednesday Facebook post, Jenkins warned that some of the gun laws proposed in the Virginia General Assembly would “disarm or handicap our law-abiding in their defense,” and in turn suggested he would confer the label of deputy on thousands of law-abiding citizens to include them in law enforcement carve-outs included in new gun legislation.

“I remain very optimistic that our General Assembly will not pass the proposed bills. Obviously, if passed, there are many of us willing to challenge these laws through the courts,” Jenkins said. “In addition, if necessary, I plan to properly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms.”

Jenkins warned, “Every Sheriff and Commonwealth Attorney in Virginia will see the consequences if our General Assembly passes further unnecessary gun restrictions.”

He also criticized extreme risk protective orders, known as “Red Flag” laws, which authorize police to confiscate firearms from people deemed to show a risk of harm to themselves or others but who have otherwise committed no crime.

The concern about new gun restrictions comes amid Democratic party victories throughout Virginia, granting them control of the Virginia legislature and strengthening Virginia’s Democratic Governor Ralph North (sic), who has suggested support for new gun laws. Lawmakers have already prepared several gun control bills for the 2020 legislature, including one bill that would ban many popular firearms like AR-15s and even shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than seven rounds.

As of Tuesday, a total of 30 Virginia counties and towns had already passed resolutions to become “Second Amendment Sanctuaries.” By Wednesday, the number of sanctuary jurisdictions had grown to 41, according to NBC 10 News.

*snip*

Full Article
0

#2 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,977
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 12 December 2019 - 09:19 PM

:thumbsup:
0

#3 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,936
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 13 December 2019 - 02:05 AM

:popcorn:
0

#4 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,268
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 13 December 2019 - 06:20 AM

It would seem the Dims who managed to gain such a hold in VA either aren't listening to their fellow Virginians, OR, the ones who voted for them outnumber those who wish to maintain the right to protect themselves...
0

#5 User is online   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 32,772
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 13 December 2019 - 09:39 AM

County sheriff's constitutional power authority exceeds all others.

They can lawfully tell the state police, city police even any of the feds what to do or not.

It's just that most sheriffs across this country don't have the guts or know how to try to exercise those powers.

This post has been edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger: 13 December 2019 - 09:40 AM

0

#6 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 22,128
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 13 December 2019 - 07:02 PM

View Postzurg, on 12 December 2019 - 09:19 PM, said:

:thumbsup:


I have heartburn over this.

While I certainly agree with the sentiment, In general I don't like the idea of "sanctuary" anything. Three doors (only), to chose from - Door #1: Follow the law. Door #2: Change the law. Door #3: Disregard the law, at the risk of becoming an "outlaw" with all it's consequences. There is no Door #4.

(On the subject of "Outlaw", yeah I've done illegal things. Two that come to mind are running cigarettes from Tax Free place in NC to high-tax MD back in the day, and technically violating the federal "Mann Act" by transporting an underage runaway hitchhiker across state lines for (what I'd hoped would be) "immoral purposes". It didn't actually turn out that way. Somehow, in between picking her up in South Carolina on I-95 and stopping at a motel in Jacksonville FL, somewhere my inner sense of morality kicked it. OR maybe it was more the fact that "16 will get you 20" can be a real weenie-shrinker. OR maybe the fact that being 19/20 YO and having a 14/15 YO passenger in the car with all the ensuing chit-chat for several hours can ALSO be a real weenie-shrinker LOL. Likely a combination of all three. YES, I've seen a 14/15 YO Naked. NO, I didn't act on it.)


Compare to "Sanctuary Cities" on immigration.

As a "strict constructionist", I believe THREE things: That the founders knew a thing or two. I also believe the founders were reasonably intelligent; they knew what various words meant and chose the EXACT words carefully. AND that (most important) the founders wanted the Federal Government to have ONLY the enumerated powers explicitly granted in the constitution. Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization.". Naturalization = How you become a citizen once you get here. There is NOTHING in the constitution allowing congress to limit Immigration itself, or how they get here in the first place prior to Naturalization.

Damn. Just, DAMN. I lay awake at night pondering this. Do individual cities/counties/whatever have a "right" to opt-out of what they feel is "unconstitutional"?. My gut feeling is "NO", but I'm uncomfortable with THAT position as well.
0

#7 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 7,295
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 14 December 2019 - 07:39 AM

:clap:

A "resistance" I can get behind!
0

#8 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 60,326
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 14 December 2019 - 11:43 AM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 13 December 2019 - 07:02 PM, said:

Compare to "Sanctuary Cities" on immigration.


There is no comparison. The overwhelming majority of gun-restrictive laws are in direct violation of the constitutionally-protected right to keep & bear arms. Therefore the "sanctuaries" being discussed in this thread are in support of Americans' rights. The same simply cannot be said of "sanctuaries" for illegal aliens.

B)
0

#9 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 22,128
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 14 December 2019 - 02:40 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 14 December 2019 - 11:43 AM, said:

There is no comparison. The overwhelming majority of gun-restrictive laws are in direct violation of the constitutionally-protected right to keep & bear arms. Therefore the "sanctuaries" being discussed in this thread are in support of Americans' rights. The same simply cannot be said of "sanctuaries" for illegal aliens.

B)


That's why I have heartburn on the issue, because... YES, it can be said.

The constitution nowhere gives the federal government power over "immigration", ONLY "naturalization". And, YES, they are two different things: One deals with letting someone it, the other deals with rules for becoming a citizen once a person IS in. At the time of founding, anybody could come in, and in unlimited number, the only limit was on who could be called a 'citizen'. We *know* that there is a distinction because the federal government itself recognized the distinction: Up until the '03 re-organization and name change there was an INS: Immigration AND Naturalization service, which itself came about from a 1933 consolidation of two bureaus: The Immigration Bureau + The Naturalization Bureau. Two different bureaus because two different topics. PROBLEM IS, one had explicit constitutional authority; the other didn't. A strict constructionist reading of the constitution, and the doctrine of enumerated powers, says that while power over "naturalization" is constitutional, "immigration" instead falls under the 10 Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


The constitution NEVER delegated "immigration" power to congress; it never prohibited the same to the "states". Does that make it a "State's Rights" issue? I'm inclined to say "yes", and I think I could maybe get Sheriff Joe from AZ to agree. As such, these people have a 10A "constitutional right" to be here - the individual state permitting - that's every bit as constitutionally valid as 2A constitutional rights.

BUT... NO. I don't like that. I *Want* the federal government to have power over immigration rather than states, *EVEN IF* it's not "constitutional", mostly because I don't want individual states to be the "gatekeepers" which would bring up other constitutional problems. I don't *want* there to be "sanctuary cities" or even "sanctuary states" on the issue. To me, this is just, dare I say it, "common sense". But I HATE using that term because, for one, I shouldn't have to, and for two the gun-grabbers have co-opted it as wanting "common sense" gun control. (LOL - before autocorrect caught it, I mistyped it at "Conman Sense" gun control.)


See my quandary here? It's opposite sites of the same coin on the whole issue of "federalism"; I can't find a "consistent" position on one without giving ground on the other.
0

#10 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 60,326
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 14 December 2019 - 02:47 PM

Nope, I don't see the quandary. One is in support of specifically spelled out constitutionally-protected rights. The other is not. There simply isn't any honest or logical comparison.

B)
0

#11 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 22,128
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 14 December 2019 - 03:22 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 14 December 2019 - 02:47 PM, said:

Nope, I don't see the quandary. One is in support of specifically spelled out constitutionally-protected rights. The other is not. There simply isn't any honest or logical comparison.

B)


It's why I said "opposite sides of the same coins".

YES, one is "specifically spelled out" as the 2A; the other is specifically LEFT out, making it a 10A issue.

I will admit: I DON'T LIKE my own position on the matter. I'd much rather that the founders would have put into the constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, "Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of [Immigration AND] naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States." But they didn't, and I just can't find a constitutional way around that.
0

#12 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 60,326
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 14 December 2019 - 03:27 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 14 December 2019 - 03:22 PM, said:

It's why I said "opposite sides of the same coins".

YES, one is "specifically spelled out" as the 2A; the other is specifically LEFT out, making it a 10A issue.

I will admit: I DON'T LIKE my own position on the matter. I'd much rather that the founders would have put into the constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, "Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of [Immigration AND] naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States." But they didn't, and I just can't find a constitutional way around that.


Well I still just don't recognize the dilemma. You yourself openly admit and acknowledge that the one is specifically and irrefutably and yes, literally spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and the other is based on constitutionally-based speculation.

So if you "don't like" your position? Simple: Abandon it and accept the real-life difference.

B)
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users