Florida Concealed Carry banner

1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,610 Posts
Feds can be there, just cannot conduct themselves unconstitutionally. It sounds as if some feds may have crossed the line of constitutional conduct, according to reports of the actions of at least some of the feds. 🤔
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,337 Posts
I am going to call BS. FDR did it and so did JFK. When liberal cities won’t handle their crime. The federal government has the right and the obligation to protect US citizens and their businesses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,726 Posts
Well... The Constitution does not grant any authority to the federal government to go into any city or state and enforce its local laws. Of course, they do have the authority to protect federal property, but it's pretty obvious that their actions have gone way beyond just that. There are laws that allow the federal government to assist local law enforcement, when they have been asked to do so. In this case, they have not.

So, I think there is a lot of grey area here. I support Trump's decision to send federal agents into the area, but I think they need to tread EXTREMELY carefully in terms of the actions that they take.

You may feel sorry for the people of Portland, who are the victims of the choice that their elected leaders made when those leaders told the police to stand down. I certainly do. But THEY elected those people. THEY made the choice to put these decisions into the hands of those people. Sometimes you just have to cope with the bad choices that you have made. One hopes that, come the next election, they will have the sense to make better choices!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
I don't know if the actions in Oregon was going beyond what their responsibilities are, but if Trump publishes a proclamation ordering rioters to disperse and they fail to, he can invoke the insurrection act and sent military to handle it if he wants. Or additional federal agents to patrol the streets. Whatever is needed to end what is going on.
That's federal law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,373 Posts
As far as I can find out, the Federal Marshals are protecting the Federal Courthouse from riot, wreck and ruin. They ID people then do a quiet arrest, without violence and a crowd around. The people are arrested, given the Federal ticket and ordered to appear, then released. Geoff Who notes auto weapons fire would be more practical, but out of style when the Democrat-Communist-KKK-Antifa party is in open rebellion against the Federal Government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,292 Posts
Some of these Governors do nothing to stop the terrorists from burning and looting.
Then they want $$$$$ from the federal government to pay for the damage.
Ronnie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,879 Posts
If only this were so easy. The “insurrection act” came from the “Calling forth act” in the 1780s I believe. The Calling forth act came after something referred to as the Shay rebellion. A bunch of folks led by a guy name Shay refused to pay their taxes and generally wreaked havoc locally. Before the Calling forth act could be used some rich guys hired some rent a cops of sorts. They apparently kicked the crap out of everybody and the insurrection was stopped.

The US Army discussed amending the insurrection act in 1971 to give a broader ability to react to domestic issues but that failed. The insurrection act was amended by the “enforcement act“ in 2006 or so as a direct result of the New Orleans/Hurricane Katrina debate when the governor did not want any federal help.

The enforcement act was repealed after so many governors complained. The part they didn’t like was the ability of the feds to send in troops when the governor didn’t want them.

The insurrection act has been used a few times like mentioned above by President Kennedy. It was used basically to enforce federal court orders regarding desegregation and the subsequent race riots.

The Posse Comitatus act prohibits the use of federal troops to enforce local laws. I think that’s what caused Mark Esper our secretary of defense to risk Trump firing him when he took a strong stand that our military should never be used against our own population. That was significant because Esper was known as a yes man and his nickname in government circles was “Mark Yesper“

Judge Napolitano is correct that the actions of the feds in Portland was unconstitutional. There is a pending lawsuit filed by the attorney general of Oregon I believe and it includes a description of what happened to one of the persons seized by the feds. The guy was reported to have been walking home in the wee hours after having demonstrated. He saw guys jump out of a mini van and come running at him in military uniforms, heavily armed. He testified that he didn’t know if they were “right wingers“ or military or law-enforcement since many times they all wear the same outfits.

The guys snatched him up, refused to identify themselves, cuffed him and threw him in the back of the minivan. He continued to ask who they were and they continued to refuse. They read him his Miranda rights and attempted to question him. He refused and asked for a lawyer and was denied and he was held in a cell in the federal courthouse. After a while, they released him with no explanation, no paperwork or any sort of written explanation of what they did or why they had grabbed him.

I’m about as pro law-enforcement as they come but that was just wrong. I think it’s very basic and constitutionally guaranteed that you have a right to know who you’re being grabbed by. That’s why police officers wear badges and have badge numbers as well as names on their uniforms. Anonymity breeds additional violence both on the part of the enforcer and rioters or demonstrators.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,610 Posts
^^^^
Agree 100%, Shark! ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,726 Posts
Order needs to be restored. If local law enforcement won’t do it then I’m fine with the feds doing it.
And will you feel the same way when some liberal president decides to send the troops to your neighborhood because he doesn't like something about the way your local police are enforcing the law? Somehow I think not.

We have a Constitution. It needs to be followed. The people of Portland created this problem themselves, when they elected the people that they did.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,610 Posts
Feds shouldn't be performing local police actions, but they absolutely should be deployed where necessary to protect Federal facilities and employees from anarchists (Antifa, violent wings of BLM, etc.). However, the Feds must remain within Constitutional behavior while doing so. Other than that, I agree with letting state and local officials, including their appointees, the state and local electorate put in office catch the heat for the state and local fallout of their decisions. The people of places like Baltimore, Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Fransisco, Washington D.C, etc. made their bed when they elected those politicians, now they get to sleep in it. Only then will they perhaps come to see the lunacy of their electoral decisions. The Pacific Northwest is some beautiful country, but no way would I want to live there and will chuckle when sane people begin to vote with their feet leaving those that brought this schiznit on themselves to suffer the consequences. . . SCROOM!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Denverd0n

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,483 Posts
And will you feel the same way when some liberal president decides to send the troops to your neighborhood because he doesn't like something about the way your local police are enforcing the law? Somehow I think not.

We have a Constitution. It needs to be followed. The people of Portland created this problem themselves, when they elected the people that they did.
Difference being the cops ARE NOT enforcing the law there.
And I will never be out doing what these people are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,726 Posts
Difference being the cops ARE NOT enforcing the law there. And I will never be out doing what these people are.
No offense, but you are missing the point. If we grant the president the authority to send in federal agents to enforce local laws, without extremely strict and clearly spelled-out limitations on when it is allowed, then you invite some future president to send them in when YOU do not believe that it is justified.

Would you really have been happier if Obama had had the authority to send agents into Florida because he decided that our local police forces were not enforcing our gun laws strictly enough? What if Hillary had been elected in 2016? Would you want HER to have that authority? Again, I'm pretty sure the answer would be "no."

The real point being that it is pretty stupid to give power and authority to a president that you trust, that you wouldn't give to a president that you DON'T trust. Because, sooner or later, you're going to have one there that you don't trust.

Frankly, this is the problem that the liberals have right now. Their basic political philosophy is that Donald Trump does not have enough power, authority, and control. They want the federal government to have more of that, but they stupidly never thought about the plain, inescapable fact that eventually someone would be elected president that they didn't trust with all that power. So for the last 3+ years their heads have been exploding. And the fact is that some day a president will be elected that the liberals think is much, MUCH worse than Trump. They will be longing for the days when all they had to worry about was Trump. Will they be smart enough in the next few decades to realize that when THAT guy comes along, they want his power and authority to be strictly limited? Probably not.

Likewise, a president will eventually come along who will make the conservatives wish that Barak Obama was all they had to worry about; that will make Obama look like a very moderate centrist. How much authority do you want THAT guy to have? My answer is, precious damned little!

Hence the restriction on federal agents being used to enforce local laws. A very good restriction, that exists for a very good reason, and that we should all be very happy about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,879 Posts
DenverdOn

You are wise beyond your years. That was an excellent discussion on the checks and balances of executive power. I’m not sure the liberals want Trump to have more power, I think the position is that he tries to exceed the power he actually has.

Your example regarding enforcement of Florida’s gun laws is spot on. If we loosen the reins too much, you potentially allow a despot to do things because they think it’s politically a good move. They may think it’s good for their reelection campaign and disregard what’s good for the country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,989 Posts
Perhaps napalm? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,931 Posts
he real point being that it is pretty stupid to give power and authority to a president that you trust, that you wouldn't give to a president that you DON'T trust. Because, sooner or later, you're going to have one there that you don't trust.
1000X this^^^
 
  • Like
Reactions: Timbal

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,610 Posts
The real point being that it is pretty stupid to give power and authority to a president that you trust, that you wouldn't give to a president that you DON'T trust. Because, sooner or later, you're going to have one there that you don't trust.
This precisely!
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top