An individual or group of individuals commits domestic terrorism if the individual or group of individuals are not affiliated with a local, state or federal lawenforcement entity and associate with another individual or group of individuals as an organization, group, corporation or company for the purpose of patrolling to detect alleged illegal activity or to individually patrol for the purpose of detecting alleged illegal activity and if the individual or group of individuals is armed with a firearm or other weapon.

In just this one section alone this woman is attempting to eliminate the people’s rights to free assembly; free association, protection of life, liberty, and property; the right to keep and bear arms; and the right to protect the sovereign borders of the US by use of the constitutionally protected ‘unregulated militia’.

She is also trying to stop the public from assisting the police in preventing any crime, including the ability of the people to assist in detecting, reporting, and preventing any and all illegal activities. This means that someone could not, for example, stop another person from kidnapping a child, prevent a rape in progress, prevent an illegal entry into property, etc.

This woman is, in effect, telling the people that they should not be allowed to prevent ANY crimes and may be, if any such attempt is made, be held accountable and tried as a terrorist!

WFT is she thinking?

“I’m against vigilantes in the United States of America”

George W. Bush on the Minutemen
Waco, TX
March 23, 2005

Didn’t you follow the link to Dan’s post?

Yes, I did – and saw that Dan’s post was merely a link to mine.

I didn’t realize you were being sarcastic, Allah. I honestly thought it was another dig at us border security types. Sorry ’bout that.

Now she wants the Minutemen prosecuted as “terrorists” if they’re caught with weapons, notwithstanding the fact that concealed-carry permits are perfectly lawful and easily obtained in Arizona.

You will see the vast majority citizens on the border exercising open-carry. We are a wear’em if ya got’em state.

We do have conceal and carry statutes, however, this has reduced the right to a privilege. I think these statutes should be abolished. How law-abiding folks arm themselves is their own business.

The reason is obvious, Allahpundit: because the illegal aliens are not similarly constrained.

For god’s sake, I was being sarcastic. Didn’t you follow the link to Dan’s post?

The Minutemen’s SOP requires that they “do not verbally contact, physically gesture to or have any form of communications with suspected Illegal Aliens,”…So her larger point is worth considering: why would the Mexican border’s neighborhood watch need firearms?

The reason is obvious, Allahpundit: because the illegal aliens are not similarly constrained. I know that you don’t know this, because you’ve not been there and do not believe the reports coming from the border: it is a godforsaken WARZONE.

Ask anyone who has been to the border – they’ll tell you it’s not even America down there anymore. The stuff that goes down on the border is unreported by the major media and is stuff you only hear about in Third World banana republics.

The coyotes, drug smugglers, and terrorists flowing across our border would not think twice about popping off a couple of Minutemen. The weapons are needed for self-defense. Even the people who LIVE on the border are armed, day and night. Their lives depend on it.

Here is the link with the map mentioned.

In my previous, this should be quoted

So her larger point is worth considering: why would the Mexican border’s neighborhood watch need firearms?

and this

Homeland Security issues along the international border may effect the quality of a persons hunt.

This is not bad law just because it makes the actions of neighborhood watches, security guards, etc., illegal or more difficult. To maintain this argument suggests there is reasonableness of intent and perhaps some word smithing should occur to make it more palatable.

This is bad law on first appearance because it clearly infringes on the inalienable rights of American citizens.

———

Regarding

So her larger point is worth considering: why would the Mexican border’s neighborhood watch need firearms?

My response – Simply, because it is an inalienable right for free men to carry arms.

From a pragmatic position on the need for arms, take a look at the map on page 12 here. Note the fat black dotted line outlining a perimiter on the southern border. Then read the note in the legend.

Homeland Security issues along the international border may effect the quality of a persons hunt.

What could effect your hunt? Possibly coming across drug runners, border crossers or armed incursions from the Mexican government. They are armed or extremely desperate and a situation that poses a self preservation issue can arise quickly.

The other branch of this insidious legislation proposal opposes the inalienable right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly.

But this is pretty damned insane. I mean, like, out of town on a rail insane.

Some people get so buried in their “philosophy” that no avalanche of facts can dislodge them. I think this woman probably also holds to the rest of the list of far-left positions, and literally nothing will change her mind.

What is left is only the most undesireable means for opposing illegal immigration, an outright revolution. Go ahead, keep pushing.

This Gal is proof that the road to ruin is paved with good intention.

I’m sure she means well but “means well” is nowhere in our Constitution and for good reason.
Any law that decreases liberty is wrong.

Leave your emotions out of our laws lady.

Therefore, every military armed security agent would be in direct violation of ths law. Brilliant.

Such as Charlie Rangel’s draft bill.

I don’t see why I should waste any time or attention on this crap. Other Dems are not so stupid as to go along with this, and other than this idiocy, this woman would be just another obscure politician. Let’s push her back into obscurity.

I’m not for the minutemen project as it is currently – one, they never shed the vigilante label stuck on their backs

And they never got the public sympathy by exposing the terrible conditions that some illegals were undergoing to cross the border you just had photos a big strong men on horses watching small poor people try to run through the desert.

these images were used against them – its not the minutemens fault these people were running the border but instead of rendering the basic virtues of judeo/christian kindness they opted for citizens arrest or reporting them without rendering aid to the authorities.

They need to change their tactics while maintaining their mission – shifting gears while doing what they feel is their civic duty.

Why does Kyrsten have to be so smokin’ hot? Seriously. That just ain’t fair. Her proposed bill is horrible. But she looks so…fine.

EFG on January 21, 2007 at 1:16 AM

Yeah, EFG, been there, done that (not her) but similar looks and thinking…… wonderful soul, good sense of humor, nice person…….. until it came to who was the actual enemy of this country.

Myself, choosing to carry a badge, a gun, an oath, and take a post, turned out horrific to her.

After 9/11, I got a call……… “I’m sorry” was the message…….. I didn’t return the call.