ICE chief: We might not process illegals referred to us by Arizona
posted at 7:50 pm on May 20, 2010 by Allahpundit
From ICE’s homepage: “Formed in 2003 as part of the federal government’s response to the 9/11 attacks, ICE’s mission is to protect the security of the American people and homeland by vigilantly enforcing the nation’s immigration and customs laws.” If he’s not prepared to “vigilantly enforce” federal law because he doesn’t like how certain suspects were identified, the solution is simple: Fire him. He can while away his days wearing a sandwich board and marching around outside Jan Brewer’s office instead of leeching taxpayer money for not doing his job.
Echoing comments by President Barack Obama and others in the administration, Morton said that Arizona’s new law targeting illegal immigration is not “good government.” The law makes it a crime to be in the state illegally and requires police to check suspects for immigration paperwork.
Morton said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials. The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, not a patchwork of state laws, he said.
“I don’t think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution,” Morton said.
I looked for a transcript on the Tribune’s site but can’t find any, so we’re deprived of the logic by which (a) an amnesty bill would actually reduce illegal immigration and (b) bona fide illegals caught by Arizona cops are somehow too tainted or whatever to be processed by ICE. But it’s good to know that America’s de facto secretary of immigration enforcement is squeamish about state cops trying to fill the enforcement void created by his own agency.
Speaking of local solutions, here’s the mayor of Costa Mesa declaring his jurisdiction America’s first “rule of law” city. If the feds can’t handle this issue, fine; just don’t cry when state and local governments decide that they can.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Holy guacamole! I think I’m living in Lewis Carroll land! Can anyone, anyone esplain to me Lucy HOW it is NOT a violation of the oath of office when a FEDERAL OFFICIAL blatently says he WILL NOT enforce the law of the land and the President doesn’t IMMEDIATELY denounce this???? Isn’t that aiding and abetting sedition (or something?)
What part of this am I not getting??
I am increasingly praying that I live long enough to see the end to this regime.
BTW: I’m missing the button-thingys, too. Thus my all caps. Can’t preview either so apologize for any typos or errors.
Chewy the Lab on May 20, 2010 at 8:24 PM
Barry is going to get his ass BURNED on this one!
GarandFan on May 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM
Midas on May 20, 2010 at 8:23 PM
Comrade, don’t waste your valuable time on that commie puke. It doesn’t come here to engage in debate and has nothing to add to any thread. It comes here for vicarious pleasure because it has no life.
Keemo on May 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM
Ah, then you admit that your ‘thought experiment’ was meaningless and invalid, without real comparison to the situation at hand.
Thanks for agreeing with me, but you really shouldn’t ask me to explain why it was stupid, and then immediately admit it.
Midas on May 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM
I want the Democrats who support this travesty to explain this away.
TXMomof3 on May 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM
True, true.
Midas on May 20, 2010 at 8:26 PM
What other laws has Obama instructed his administration to not enforce?
Skandia Recluse on May 20, 2010 at 8:27 PM
They don’t explain it; they just stand and applaud.
Midas on May 20, 2010 at 8:27 PM
Would you support that?
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 8:10 PM
I’d support you getting your head out of your Azz.
heshtesh on May 20, 2010 at 8:27 PM
Megyn Kelly giving up great stuff on this debate on BOR tonight. The federal law is more punitive and problematic than Arizona’s, that they don’t even need probable cause to check for immigration status.
84 percent of the country agrees that U.S. citizens should have to produce proper immigration documentation.
John the Libertarian on May 20, 2010 at 8:27 PM
How do you figure? Their citizen’s federal taxes are spent there. Their citizen’s sons and daughters fight there. And although this isn’t really applicable in Iraq, (but it’s true in many other wars) if the federal government did a bad enough job of executing the war, the enemy army could end up invading the states themselves. I’d say that’s a “direct and pertinent” interest.
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 8:28 PM
In what certainly seems like four score and seven years ago, American voters, deceived by a man of a true nature most foul and his media propaganda ministers, brought forth, upon this Nation, a profoundly warped man, conceived who knows where for certain, who is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created weak and subservient to his every insane will and whim.
Now we are engaged in a great battle, testing whether this nation, or any nation so burdened, and so assaulted, can long endure. We are met here on a great internet battlefield, with compatriots at Tea Party Freedom Movement rallies and compatriots on the radio waves, of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of our lives in honor of our forefathers who dedicated their lives that this nation might live vigorous and free. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
It is for us, the living, to be dedicated to the restoration of freedom, liberty, rule of law, progress and sanity which our Founders so nobly brought about. It is for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they so long ago gave the full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that our Founding Fathers shall not have labored in vain; that this nation shall have a rebirth of freedom and responsibility; and that this government will once again be of the people, by the people, for the people, and that we will not allow abominations like Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to cause it, and it’s shinning light, to perish from the Earth.
MB4 on May 20, 2010 at 8:28 PM
Oh, it is stupid. But again, it’s analogous to your view on the AZ immigration law, which is also stupid. So thanks for agreeing that the AZ immigration law is stupid.
: )
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 8:29 PM
I’ve got an idea,rotate and exchange American Border
Officers at all Canadian/American borders,with Arizona
and bring film crews along!!!
canopfor on May 20, 2010 at 8:29 PM
First GWOT & now AZ Immigration Law. White House changes terminology on Immigration: Illegal Immigrant is now “Undocumented Democrat Voter”
bobnox on May 20, 2010 at 8:29 PM
heshtesh on May 20, 2010 at 8:27 PM
Laughing my a** off… :-)
Keemo on May 20, 2010 at 8:29 PM
By all means, do keep illustrating how stupid you are. :)
Midas on May 20, 2010 at 8:29 PM
Anyone know the legal role of a state militia in the event a state is overrun by foreign invaders?
ROCnPhilly on May 20, 2010 at 8:30 PM
Been saying it people…this dude won’t last the whole term. It’s getting really nasty, and trying to put Americans against Americans (what happened a couple of weeks ago that ticked me off) is happening right now in the mainland.
Cooler heads need to prevail; again, I see male governors with WAAAYYYY less cojones that won’t stand up for a colleague. Sarah is backing her up, who else is willing to do so?/
ProudPalinFan on May 20, 2010 at 8:31 PM
I never said that, although I’m sure you wish I did.
My example was ridiculous. But it’s analogous to your position on immigration, which is also ridiculous.
And considering your charges that my thought experiment was “meaningless and invalid, without any real comparison to the situation at hand” you sure have a hard time explaining how it’s not analogous.
In both situations you have states encroaching on an area that is traditionally and constitutionally the role of the federal government. In both situations the states do so because they subjectively believe that the federal government “isn’t doing its job”. And in both situations you have lesser-trained state officers trying to do the job of more highly trained federal agents, and then dumping the results of their labor on the federal government.
Pretty analogous, I’d say.
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 8:33 PM
OBAMA! THE FIRST ANTI-AMERICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENT!
Blake on May 20, 2010 at 8:34 PM
In Emperor Obama’s world everything is insanity. Nothing is what it is because everything is what it isn’t. And contrary-wise; what it is, it isn’t, and what it isn’t, it is. You see?
Cheshire Cat on May 20, 2010 at 8:36 PM
Illegals cost AZ taxpayers billions of dollars every year. You’d have to rack up one helluva lot of court costs to match that.
Illegals are referred to ICE for processing because being in the U.S. without proper authorization is a violation of federal immigration law, dip$shit.
AZCoyote on May 20, 2010 at 8:36 PM
Megan Kelly was just on O’Reilly and she said that federal law would allow a stop without suspicion or intervening criminal activity. Arizona law is weak.
andy85719 on May 20, 2010 at 8:36 PM
Man, I’ve read a lot of ridiculous statements on HA, but that one is a standout.
I guess there are no federal laws about immigration eh tool?
JusDreamin on May 20, 2010 at 8:36 PM
I want the Democrats who support this travesty to explain this away.
TXMomof3 on May 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM
TXMomof3: I find this site to have a lot of good info!:)
=============================================
http://oneoldvet.com/
canopfor on May 20, 2010 at 8:36 PM
As usual, Coyote said it much better than I.
JusDreamin on May 20, 2010 at 8:38 PM
“You think it’s wise to have individual states pursue their own foreign policies? I (and the Founders) would disagree.
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 8:20 PM ”
(the above manually quoted)
‘k sport…your municipality has laws against people breaking and entering your home. But oddly, each time this has happenened in your neighborhood, the cops have told those whose homes have been broken into, “We’re just not enforcing those laws right now. The laws de jour are, “X, Y, and Z.” The law that was broken was a “K”. Sorry. We just aren’t dealing with this law right now.
The next day, your house is broken into. Your response is????
Chewy the Lab on May 20, 2010 at 8:38 PM
Yeah, no sh*t sherlock. Read the whole exchange.
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 8:39 PM
Sorry, there’s just no viable justification of The Barry Show’s pro-criminal immigration stance.
Christien on May 20, 2010 at 8:40 PM
crr6
Let’s make another analogy since you are so fond of them. A man breaks into your house. You call the cops but they never show up. Weeks later you’re still calling the cops and there is still a strange man living in your house. At what point to you take matters into your own hands to remove that man from your house? Do you haul him down to the local police station? Or more likely in your case, would you just sign the house over to the man and ask him if he minds if you stay?
Just to be sure I haven’t confused you, in this analogy the local cops = the federal government, and your house = Arizona.
Scrappy on May 20, 2010 at 8:40 PM
Meanwhile, yesterday on Long Island, four girls were mowed down while walking to the mall in a hit and run by, you guessed it, an illegal immigrant.
sandspur on May 20, 2010 at 8:42 PM
No, how about you deal with mine, since I said it first.
You can’t of course, which is why Midas has gone hiding and you won’t every substantively respond.
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 8:42 PM
Thanks, Canopfor!
TXMomof3 on May 20, 2010 at 8:44 PM
The Obama administration not deporting illegals handed to them by Arizona. My guess is that Obama would like to see this lead to violence by some citizens of Arizona who are not able to get protection from illegals.
GaltBlvnAtty on May 20, 2010 at 8:44 PM
canopfor on May 20, 2010 at 8:36 PM
=============
Thanks, Canopfor!
TXMomof3 on May 20, 2010 at 8:44 PM
TXMomof3:)
canopfor on May 20, 2010 at 8:45 PM
The shortcommings of your analogy have been pointed out at length, I will not waste my time or more space on this thread to repeat them.
I’m glad you admit you will not respond to mine.
Scrappy on May 20, 2010 at 8:45 PM
MB4 on May 20, 2010 at 8:28 PM
nice work my friend.
ted c on May 20, 2010 at 8:45 PM
You never turned n the homework I ave you. Come back when it’s finished.
katy the mean old lady on May 20, 2010 at 8:46 PM
At length? LOL. One person tried to pick it apart in one post, and I quickly responded and debunked their critique. You know this of course, which is why (as I predicted) you won’t attempt to respond substantively. You can’t.
Your capitulation is noted.
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 8:47 PM
The LAWLESS Obama administration
American Elephant on May 20, 2010 at 8:47 PM
How very articulate of you. We’re so impressed. Did you get your education at Harvard?
Back to the subject at hand… I hope more good people like the man from Costa Mesa step up to the plate and represent the will of their people.
Keemo on May 20, 2010 at 8:49 PM
Allahpundit obviously lacks any sense of journalistic integrity, giving this silly side issue top billing like this. The Chicago Tribune’s layers of editors and fact-checkers apparently agreed with Oscar Avila that this comment by Morton was just a throw-away line, an afterthought.
Avila’s whole story is about the scary “immigration crackdown” coming in the lawless State of Illinois. Why would Allah think that an administration agency chief declaring that he refuses to do his job is any big deal?
Jaibones on May 20, 2010 at 8:52 PM
Whaaaaa! Whaaaa! Whaaaa! You chose Scrappy’s analogy over mine. I demand equal time, I tell you! It’s not fair! (Stamps foot.)
My mother told me everything MUST be fair, equal and utopic! (Chewy holds breath, starts to turn blue waiting for a level playing field.)
…Um, Chewy passes out. When comes to, makes note about valuable lesson about cutting off nose to spite face.
Chewy the Lab on May 20, 2010 at 8:53 PM
Yes, at length. There have been several posts and you’ve admitted yourself the ridiculousness of it. Go back and reread with your incredibly short attention span.
Now on to your refusal to respond to my analogy, which of course you can’t.
Nice dodge. To bad everyone here see through you. As usual, you fail.
Scrappy on May 20, 2010 at 8:54 PM
There are lots of things which would be news to you. That’s called profound ignorance.
Jaibones on May 20, 2010 at 8:55 PM
You really have an ego problem.
I suspect you have a dog in the immigration fight. Is it you? Are you the dog?
CWforFreedom on May 20, 2010 at 8:56 PM
Are there any attorneys here, or relatives of attorneys? Constitutional attorneys needed here, BADLY.
ProudPalinFan on May 20, 2010 at 8:56 PM
Truly- GROW UP
CWforFreedom on May 20, 2010 at 8:57 PM
Great. Quote, “several” of them. Should be easy, right?
I admitted the idea itself is ridiculous (that’s the whole point….to point out the ridiculousness of your position), but the analogy to the AZ situation is sound. Again, I’m sure you know that but you’re “flailing”.
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 8:57 PM
Please don’t feed the trolls, folks.
Christien on May 20, 2010 at 8:58 PM
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052010/content/01125106.guest.html
Very good read for any of those who missed this today…
Keemo on May 20, 2010 at 8:58 PM
Saw it, and she was spot on!
As to those who are whining for amnesty then control the borders, I think we were told that once before:
That worked out well, didn’t it?
IrishEyes on May 20, 2010 at 8:59 PM
Still can’t respond to anything directed at you…. it really is a simple analogy, way is it so hard for you?
Scrappy on May 20, 2010 at 8:59 PM
She is a real ego problem and almost to the point of being insane.
CWforFreedom on May 20, 2010 at 9:01 PM
Wow. Irony alert.
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 9:01 PM
“I Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States.”
Is the Destroyer fulfilling his oath of office?
PappyD61 on May 20, 2010 at 9:02 PM
Obama Administration and Dems on Hill who gave a standing O to Calderon are Pro-Crime, Anti-Law Enforcement, plain and simple, and the sooner the debate is framed this way the better.
txmomof6 on May 20, 2010 at 9:03 PM
You’re so enlightening and smart. Your intellectualism is sure something. Something to behold. /
What a joke.
CWforFreedom on May 20, 2010 at 9:05 PM
Fine. The Feds are in open rebellion against their duties. Then the States need to write the necessary laws to enable them to toss miscreants back across the border themselves.
The Federal Government is the agent of the States, not the other way around. This Mother-May-I sh*t has to stop.
Maquis on May 20, 2010 at 9:05 PM
I don’t recall there being such outrage when OK passed their immigration law in 2007. I wonder, is this ICE chief going to refuse to pick up illegals in OK also?
GrannySunni on May 20, 2010 at 9:06 PM
Ab.so.lutely.
More Crime. Less Enforcement. Vote Democrat!
Christien on May 20, 2010 at 9:09 PM
Is sovereignty unto a state now under the auspices of the nation’s foreign policy?
anuts on May 20, 2010 at 9:10 PM
Square that circle my friends.
Onus on May 20, 2010 at 9:10 PM
Love it, would be an awesome bumper sticker!
txmomof6 on May 20, 2010 at 9:12 PM
Interesting that we have a government official stating they will not do their job and the likes of CRR are not upset in the least. Dupes, lapdogs , and idiots all. This is insanity and the nuts are in charge.
CWforFreedom on May 20, 2010 at 9:12 PM
I expect a mandamus action by the State of Arizona if this happens.
vnjagvet on May 20, 2010 at 9:12 PM
Hey, crr, remind us how SCOTUS is going to rule on the Citizens United case?
Now tell us why anyone should give a **** whether or not you think Arizona’s law is constitutional or not?
Good Solid B-Plus on May 20, 2010 at 9:13 PM
Talk’s cheap, it takes money to buy whiskey. Meaning what do we do about it. Surely there is a court test, prosecute the President for failing his oath?
This guy has been flipping us the bird since November 2009. And what have we done about it.
eaglesdontflock on May 20, 2010 at 9:14 PM
Wonder if any Judiciary Committee members will ask Kagan questions along these lines?
txmomof6 on May 20, 2010 at 9:15 PM
I wouldn’t put it past this group of scumbags to surreptitiously slip in an amendment to the immigration laws.
eaglesdontflock on May 20, 2010 at 9:16 PM
Bingo!
I’ve been screaming about this. Missouri’s law (which was drafted–partially–by former (EVIL) Attorney General John Ashcroft was passed about the same time. Ashcroft was also consulted about the OK and the AZ law in the drafting stage…I sent a tip to HA to cover why there are other states that have very similar laws, but no outrage, and no coverage. I’ve heard…crickets! I’m only hoping that they are taking time doing research and will launch a mortar attack in 5…4…3…
Chewy the Lab on May 20, 2010 at 9:19 PM
I don’t think I ever posted anything predicting the outcome of that case here on HA. But I do remember thinking the laws at issue would likely be struck down as unconstitutional, given the current make-up of the court.
So, yeah. Nice try.
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 9:21 PM
If the Federal Government refuses to play ball, how about Arizona refuse to abide by the gun laws, specifically the 1986 Machine Gun Ban.
Holger on May 20, 2010 at 9:26 PM
Prior to the ruling, did you not express the opinion that McCain-Feingold was Constitutional?
Good Solid B-Plus on May 20, 2010 at 9:29 PM
Has anyone ever seen Proud Rino and crr6 post in the same thread at the same time? Either Proud Rino and crr6 are one and the same, one time posting from the work computer and then from the home computer or Proud Rino is that judge crr6 is clerking for. Same comment. Same arrogance. Same idiocy.
Vince on May 20, 2010 at 9:34 PM
Not that I recall, no. And even if I did, how would that be at all relevant? 4 SCOTUS justices and a majority of Americans would agree with me.
Do you believe abortion is a constitutional right? If no, then does that de-legitimize all of your (and Antonin Scalia’s, for that matter) legal opinions and views?
See how your logic works?
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 9:38 PM
First. There is undisputed precedent of state and local law enforcement agencies enforcing federal law.
Second. Iraq is out side of any and all of the individual states.
Third. There is no evidence of a discriminatory and arbitrary procedure, in the Arizona law.
Fourth. There is no evidence that state and local police are less trained than ICE agents.
Which leads to the conclusion that your post could be use as evidence against you in a competence hearing.
Slowburn on May 20, 2010 at 9:42 PM
Are you drunk? – of course you did.
The last I read whether the vote is 9-0 or 5-4 it does not change the strength of the ruling. McFein is unconstitutional and you are wrong.
CWforFreedom on May 20, 2010 at 9:45 PM
Crr why are you not more upset that a government official is saying he will not do his job? You’re sick . Lapdog.
CWforFreedom on May 20, 2010 at 9:46 PM
…when the federal law explicitly carvesout a role for them.
How is that relevant? As I pointed out above, the war still had a profound effect on them.
Well it hasn’t been enacted yet. But even proponents have admitted there’s a huge potential for racial profiling.
In enforcing immigration law? That’s just common sense.
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 9:52 PM
I should say, it hasn’t taken effect yet.
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 9:52 PM
Sadly, no.
When?
Technically no, it doesn’t. But there’s a reason Brown v. Board was a 9-0 vote.
“Wrong”? I predicted the outcome.
More importantly, how do you feel about Roe v. Wade?
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 9:54 PM
Big whoop. The don’t process NY’s either. The state (city?) just lost a court battle with two illegal immigrants who were detained longer than the two days time that ICE is supposed to pick take them. Now we just dump them back on the street after two days.
Arizona’s lucky, they can at least drive the illegals from Mexico right to the border and dump them.
Dusty on May 20, 2010 at 9:54 PM
Illegals aren’t being processed now. That’s why there is an Arizona law in the first place.
jimmy2shoes on May 20, 2010 at 9:54 PM
It wouldn’t; a point made repeatedly hereinabove.
Barnestormer on May 20, 2010 at 9:56 PM
re: crr6′s not much thought experiment
In addition to
1) Liberals would never send troops anywhere, unless you meant “troupes” to perform anti-military morality plays or “YMCA”.
2) The liberal troops have never had authority or police power in Iraq. Arizona police are surely empowered to legally stop and detain individuals suspected of unlawful activity in AZ.
ROCnPhilly on May 20, 2010 at 9:57 PM
Doesn’t this law mirror a existing federal law? Can he uphold that law? This man should be fired for abdication of duty.
Sounder on May 20, 2010 at 9:59 PM
Treason.
johnnyU on May 20, 2010 at 10:02 PM
“As do I, really. You think it’s wise to have individual states pursue their own foreign policies? I (and the Founders) would disagree.”
Well, put simply, if the US Government won’t “Provide for the security” then the sovereign State must. The founders WOULD agree.
docjohn52 on May 20, 2010 at 10:02 PM
crr6, I wonder how your position would change if the tables were turned and we had a radical conservative POTUS accompanied by a radical conservative congress just deciding on a whim what laws they want to enforce and which ones they would rather just ignore? I wonder if the word dictator or totaltarian or impeach would leak from your ignorant, hipocritical, slimy lips?
Zetterson on May 20, 2010 at 10:08 PM
Pfft…..One only has to cast an eyeball in the direction of Illinois state senator obama’s 13th District. Large swarths of that area continue to make many third world hell holes look downright prosperous. Might this ICE “mission” be an attempt to turn areas of this country into the same kind of ghettos? Why? O.T. – illegal immigrants in Chi Town are often not Mexican. This santuary city has world wide criminals who are always committing various vicious crimes. What a dump of a city where the Outfit rules. Daley is completely cuckoo nuts and guess why he wanted the messiah elected pres? Get out of jail cards don’t come cheap. Crickey!
MayorDaley on May 20, 2010 at 10:09 PM
ICE chief: We might not process illegals referred to us by Arizona.
No surprise. I just knew the feds would find a way to disregard the Arizona law.
GFW on May 20, 2010 at 10:09 PM
No, definitely not. I never used those words when Bush was Pres. and I mocked people who did.
Don’t project your shortcomings on me.
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 10:10 PM
Yes, but I think it must violate the Do Not Process clause of the Mexican Constitution.
*eagerly awaits clarification from a wise Latina*
*returns to The ICE Man Shunneth*
Barnestormer on May 20, 2010 at 10:18 PM
Haul his ass before Congress. Yeah, that’ll do it.
hillbillyjim on May 20, 2010 at 10:20 PM
bush was the furthest thing from a radical conservative. But let me get this straight. If a radical right wing potus just decided on his own to “crack down” on all doctors who performed abortions for any reason against the will of the American electorate and contrary to the established law of the land you’d be perfectly cool with that? You wouldn’t view that as a dictatorial act and a constitutional abomination? All we are talking about is our laws and our elected official’s sworn obligation to uphold them. Your cool with Obama ignoring the law and you don’t see that as a anti-constitutional act. So am I safe to assume mr no abortion ever potus would be ok with you too?
Zetterson on May 20, 2010 at 10:21 PM
One day you’ll realize that Obama is the furthest thing from a “radical liberal”. You’re all worked up into a tizzy now, but in a few year you’ll look back at your comments here with embarrassment.
Well how is Obama “ignoring the law”? You can start with that.
crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 10:27 PM
Too bad the Arizona law doesn’t allow, uhm, can I say it?
SouthernGent on May 20, 2010 at 10:31 PM
Hey, here’s a thought experiment:
The libs make it against federal law in the U.S. to have in your possession a fully automatic high powered rifle. Now, it’s not specifically against AZ law to have one in your possession. You get collared for suspected public drunkenness by a local sheriff’s deputy while carrying your loaded, trusty AK-47.
That is when you’ll be thankful AZ cops can’t arrest you for carrying because they are not properly trained to enforce weapons violations. Besides, Dick Cheney is now head of ATF and probably won’t process the charges, anyway.
Hey, thought experiments are fun!
ROCnPhilly on May 20, 2010 at 10:35 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »