I like this guy's attitude

H

Hal

New member
http://www.sightings.com/politics2/fedsout.htm
Thank the Almighty they all aren't like Andy Taylor. Opie grew up to make movies and contribute money to a scum bag president's defence fund. Obviously he had a misguided childhood.

------------------
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined;
George Washington Jan 8,1790--There can be no doubt about the Second Amendment.
 
Thanks for the great link.... I'm going to print it off and send it to my county sheriff. He is a good man and may just take them on also.

Richard
 
damn! i like that guy. it's a damn shame that the rest of the sheriffs and other local law officers don't do the same thing. just think what a better country it would be. :)

------------------
fiat justitia

longhaircsa@netscape.net
 
Be careful, these links are part of the "Sightings" web. They are deep into UFOs and such. The photo of a dead Princess Di has been declared to be fake. But check this out!

http://www.sightings.com/ufo2/campssoca.htm

Do any TFLers live in this area? Can we get some common sense folk to investigate this?

Rich,
I know you don't want crackpot junk on TFL, but do you know anything about this? If you want to delete it, I'll understand. But it is scary!
 
Ok, comments and questions.

First, can anyone provide some documentation from a reliable source. I looked some, and could not find any (not that this means much). Also from just looking at some example district court cases the citation is not quite right.

Second, why would this be a good thing? I agree that government agencies are stepping over the line (way over in some cases). But even the fbi does good things (catching kidnappers for example).

If this was the case also don't you thing this would have come up before. In effect this removes the federal governments power to enforce anything, ie no civil rights movement. hypotheticaly [parallel universe and you need to bee on drugs :)] IF a state desided to outlaw private firearms ownership and the Federal government said that the 2nd ammendment prevents that, they could not enforce it against the state by this ruling.

Jason
 
I'm with Jason.

Let's qualify this stuff as critically as we look at the statistics in Sarah Brady's speeches. I don't think we should be so quick to accept everything that seems to be agreeing with our point of view.

Furthermore, like someone said, this is from a "sightings" website...... I'm sure we can have better company than that... can't we?

------------------
-Essayons
 
Dennis...
I check the URL on "concentration camps"...the ones around Valencia/Santa Paula are a County detention camp and a Youth Authority....they have been there all my life. Thats where they send offenders who haven't done anything severe enough to go to San Quentin, Soledad or medium to high security prison.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
First let me address why I believe this is a " good thing".
A county Sheriff is an elected official, not appointed or hired. The people have a direct say in the matter, it isn't left up to a possible political appointment. The Sheriff is elected, the Chief of Police is appointed by a council or mayor. A Law Director is hired, usually by the Mayor. Sheriff Mattis does not ban federal law officials, he simply wants them to come to him, as is his legal guaranteed right under his State Constitution before they take any action in his jurisdiction. To put this in a somewhat different perspective, if UN troops were needed to help out, who should have authority over them? The UN or the Country they operate in? This is much the same scenario. A Federal agency needing to operate within the County jurisdiction should be under the auspice of the County.
http://soswy.state.wy.us/director/county/bighorn.htm
Yes there is a Dave Mattis, he is listed on this site and identified
http://www.valint.net/php/sew/CAN/CAN00010.TXT
Is why Dave Mattis felt it necessary to control the access of outside law enforcement? INS agents operating outside of his control caused his department to be help responsible for their actions.
http://www.valint.net/php/sew/CAN/CAN00002.TXT
Where Dave Mattis may have come up with the idea. This was 2 years before his decision.
http://webcatt.com/2ndAmend_SIG/
A bit over the top at times, but at least there are no "UFO's and Alien Abductions".
Here is the url containing the article http://webcatt.com/2ndAmend_SIG/armed-m/september_97/armedm_0997.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1799/lexington.html#TOC49
The Wyoming Libertarian Party awarded Sheriff Dave Mattis its' Lexington Award in October of 1997, although they don't explain why, the date coincides with Dave Mattis' decision.


------------------
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined;
George Washington Jan 8,1790--There can be no doubt about the Second Amendment.



[This message has been edited by Hal (edited March 13, 1999).]
 
Jason: States DO go against Federal regulations all the time. The most obvious is the Federal Emission law. The Feds have NO legal recourse to enforce this law, the only way they can address these conflicts of interest is to withold Federal funds. The Feds say tailpipe testing must be done to conform to their specs. The State says no. The Feds say, fine, then you get no Federal money to maintain highways.

------------------
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined;
George Washington Jan 8,1790--There can be no doubt about the Second Amendment.
 
This is a sticky one. But I will weigh in with my opinion (for what its worth).

First of all, I usually surf the Sightings web page. I like it. UFOs, conspiracies etc... are entertaining to me, in a odd sort of way. Sort of like watching Jerry Springer. But... to actually believe it, no way. I agree with Rob, we can have a better class of association. After all, one is judged by the company one keeps.

As far as kicking the "FEDS" out etc... Let's be real. Any agency can abuse power, however I don't feel that the GOVT is out to control me.

Do you think that the average fed is any different than you or I? I've only met a couple of them, but they seem to be just like me....

------------------
Dan

Check me out at:
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm
 
It's my understanding that the state contitutions must follow the U.S. Constitution, as far as the U.S. Constitution goes.

Where there is no restriction enumerated by the U.S. Constitution the state constitution can apply restrictions and regulations.

From what was posted, if the state can restrict the ownership of firearms through their constitution then they can also restrict free speech and religion, etc.

But, it is my understanding that this is not the case, but that all state constitutions must comply and follow the national constitution if they want to be part of the union.



------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
 
Hal: Just to pick a nit, and not with your 7:45AM post itself: "...withhold Federal funds."

Federal funds? Er, how about "return of their gasoline-tax trust-fund dollars"?

One of the biggest brainwashes extant is the notion that the federal government, in and of itself, has any money AT ALL!

As usual, Art
 
Hal: Just to pick a nit, and not with your 7:45AM post itself: "...withhold Federal funds."

Federal funds? Er, how about "return of their gasoline-tax trust-fund dollars"?

One of the biggest brainwashes extant is the notion that the federal government, in and of itself, has any money AT ALL!

As usual, Art
 
hell, i didn't know it came from a ufo sight.
being as that seems to be the case, i also would like another source for the info. but if it's true, i still like the idea. that's what the War between the States was all about, state sovereignty(sp?). now we have to worry about our nations sovereignty, w/ the UN and all!!

------------------
fiat justitia

longhaircsa@netscape.net
 
DC,
Thanks a bunch for checking on the “concentration camps”. The UFO site is
not an “authority” on which I would like to base my personal credibility and
reputation. OTOH, some German friends of mine said most Germans did
NOT know about the concentration and extermination camps “in the
beginning”. Later, they were afraid to even talk about them because the
Nazis sent German “malcontents” to the ovens with the other “inferiors”. I
go along with George Washington’s quote about government and fire. Also,
didn’t Thomas Jefferson say something along the lines of, “A government,
any government, is at best a necessary evil.”?
In any case, thanks for showing we can’t believe everything we read on the
Internet! (Imagine that!)

Hal,
Wow! Some documentation! I’ve read it with great interest.
On your federal highway money comment: “The power to tax is the power
to destroy.” was never clearer.

Dan,
If you don’t feel the government is out to control you, then you have been
abiding by enough of their rules not to rouse their ire. Even at the county
level, they are enacting truly draconian “laws” about domesticated dogs,
firearms usage, and a host of PC crap.
-- It is against county ordinance to discharge a firearm on less than 10
acres. Based on this, they tried to prevent the building of an indoor
pistol range but relented when faced with lawsuits based on state and
federal law. But the ordinance still stands. It is not without a certain logic,
but other laws already on the books would cover the dangers and nuisance
(noise) as needed. The County Commissioners just wanted to show they
were “doing something”, I guess.
-- Same with dogs. I have my dog chained. If he gets loose, I am subject
to a $500 fine for “letting” a dog run loose - even if he’s trailing a broken
chain! Additionally, he isn’t castrated, so the fine is increased. Oh, yes, the
big oaf is a “dangerous domesticated animal”, in this case a Rottweiler, so
the fine is increased more. Control? I feel “controlled”, threatened, etc.,
etc. Why not just hold me liable under the few hundred laws we currently
have if I let him run loose (which I don’t)? The issue is control - not
dangerous dogs. All that is more than covered tort law.
-- If the federal government applied the Second Amendment the way it is
written, I could drive from Texas to Maine (or anywhere in the contiguous 48
states) with a handgun on my person (concealed or not) or on my car seat
with no fear of legal repercussions. Even though some of the laws are
useful, fair, just, and logical, they are still “control”. The “yoke” may be
comfortable to bear, but it’s still a yoke.
 
Dennis: Thanks. If I might add to your Maine drive comment. I would substitute a Thompson SMG for a handgun. Class III Thompsons, declared prior to the "Hatey 6 Federal" are legal in many States, covered under a Federal Law, and illegal in other States. Here in Ohio, I can legally own one, subject to certain provisions. *sigh* Now if I could only come up with the funds to get one and feed it.
*full auto=empty bank account

------------------
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined;
George Washington Jan 8,1790--There can be no doubt about the Second Amendment.
 
O.K. bring on the flames. Dennis, I can't agree at all. Rules and laws are in place to maintain social order. You may feel that you don't need them, but if they weren't there and enforced, I think you would be complaining "hey there ought to be a law" when your rights get stepped on.

I don't let my Rottweiler run loose, but my neighbor did for a while. That wasn't a safe or fun situation for the neighborhood or the dog. He finally restrained his Rott after the county levied a hefty fine on his a**. This was after I personally approached him on the subject, and even offered to help him build a pen. You see, some people just don't care to show the common courtesies due thier communities, so therefore we have laws to force them to. Yes they are an inconvenience to those of us who do show courtesy to our fellow citizens, but in my experience, negative reinforcement is often times the only way to maintain a modicum of social order. And no, I'm not refering to social order in a fascist sense.

I do agree however, on the point that many laws are passed and enforced to further the aims of a few in office. That is a situation that we as citizens need to constantly remain vigilant of. We are still a government by the people for the people. If you don't like the way the county govt runs things, get off the 'net and get active. It works for me.

Big hugs all around! :)

------------------
Dan

Check me out at:
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top