Video: Arizona to open investigation of Operation Fast & Furious

posted at 3:00 pm on January 22, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Congress already has two probes of the ATF and Department of Justice over Operation Fast and Furious, looking into whether federal officials broke federal laws and lied to Congress about the loss of almost 2,000 weapons in Mexico. Some of those weapons got used in violent crimes in Arizona, including the murder of a Border Patrol agent, and now lawmakers in Phoenix want to open their own investigation into OF&F. Did federal officials break state laws in Arizona — and if so, could they be charged with crimes in the state?

Speaker Andy Tobin, a Republican, created the program that will be chaired by State Representative David Burnell Smith, also a Republican.

In a news release, the lawmakers stated the committee had three goals: determine the facts, determine the impact on Arizona and, most importantly, determine if the feds broke any state laws.

The committee plans to reveal its findings on March 30.

It’s a good step for Arizona to take to keep pressure on Congress to uncover the scandal of OF&F. It’s also a handy bit of payback. The Obama administration sued Arizona for requiring law enforcement officers to check immigration statuses on detained suspects and succeeded in blocking implementation of the Arizona legislature’s new law. Attorney General Eric Holder argued that the federal government has the sole prerogative in determining how federal law gets enforced, or apparently whether it gets enforced at all, and that the state of Arizona needed to butt out. Now Arizona might just focus on state law to ensnare some of Holder’s associates — and perhaps even Holder himself — for violating state gun regulations in their zeal to paint gun dealers as amoral mercenaries profiting by arming the Mexican drug cartels.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 4:12 PM

I’m getting tired of your dance steps.

Lay out your definition of gun control.

katy on January 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM

TeaPartyNation
Well said. Wish my lib mother and sisters that live in Phx would read such well spoken words. They wont though.

scookam on January 22, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Now Arizona might just focus on state law to ensnare some of Holder’s associates — and perhaps even Holder himself — for violating state gun regulations in their zeal to paint gun dealers as amoral mercenaries profiting by arming the Mexican drug cartels.

Hear, hear!

RJL on January 22, 2012 at 4:17 PM

That argument only makes sense if you think selling guns can amount to aiding and abetting murder.

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 3:48 PM

When you knowing sell guns to murders and criminals, undercover, in order to get death and crime just to prove we need gun control should be a crime.

tinkerthinker on January 22, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Holder could be indicted at the state level for state crimes, but the case would then probably be transferred to federal court upon Holder’s motion, for trial. Happens all the time, see e.g. police officers in King case in CA.
Horace on January 22, 2012 at 4:11 PM

What we unfortunately can’t know at this time is what ‘pressures and intimidations’ are being brought to bear on those persons who would be in the best position to indict and convict Holder.
This would include all prosecuting attorneys involved (and those who work for them) as well as WITNESSES.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2012 at 4:18 PM

What sort of career murderer would drop a perfectly good AR15 or AK47 after just one or two murders? It’s not as though they were worn out after that little use. He’d drop it only if he was ordered to by his boss.

Solaratov on January 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Well, the in the case on our border, it seems that they dropped the guns when they ran because they didn’t want to be caught with the guns if / when they ran into federal agents. I think even in Mexico that is probably the case at certain crime scenes — kill someone, ditch the gun and try to more or less blend in with the crowd to escape. There’s also the possibility that the owner of the gun was injured / killed by police, and thus the gun was “recovered at the scene by authorities.”

I DOUBT the ATF coordinated with Mexico cartel foot soldiers. They wouldn’t have had to. They knew that these weapons would eventually show up somewhere.

Timin203 on January 22, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I’m getting tired of your dance steps.

Lay out your definition of gun control.

limits on the sale or ownership of guns

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 4:23 PM

listens2glenn

True. There are all kinds of thugs beholden to Obama and his minions who could have a little “talk” with the prosecutors:

“Nice house and family you got. Hope you keep them.”

red_herring

So your logic is that imposing strict gun controls contrary to the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens will prevent those in federal offices or federal jobs from engaging in felonious activities?

Got it! Worked really well in Nazi Germany.

Ugh! Where did I put that Ibuprofen?

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 4:24 PM

I think my argument has been pretty consistent. In order to make an argument against ff you must implicitly make an argument for gun control.

Once more…

This is absurd. The only implicit argument in being against F&F is that we don’t want our federal officials breaking the law, especially for nefarious purposes. That’s it. That’s all.

implicit in this argument is that gun control laws work if they are followed and would have prevented the deaths. That’s an argument in favor of guns. Control if I’ve ever heard one

No, that is not implicit, explicit, or any other ‘plicit. How effective were these gun control laws? What makes you think more laws would mean that criminals (and now our own gov’t, it seems) would follow them? If even Uncle Sam’s not following them, then why in the hell would you argue that it would make a tinker’s damn to criminals what laws are written?

If guns were completely outlawed, criminals would still have guns — only the criminals.

Your logic is not even circular; it is more like a downward spiral.

hillbillyjim on January 22, 2012 at 4:24 PM

OT but interesting. Apparently, Haley Barbour relied on his attorney general’s office for advice, and Hood has hidden their involvement.

Hood hit in pardon battle

“The attorney general’s office “was smack dab in the middle of getting” pardons then-Gov. Haley Barbour granted former trusties but has hidden its involvement, an attorney for four of the former trusties says.

Tom Fortner, a former Hinds County public defender, filed two motions Friday in Hinds County Circuit Court, requesting not only to disqualify Attorney General Jim Hood from the lawsuit through which he hopes to overturn some of Barbour’s 203 pardons, but also to transfer the case to another judge and for it to be dismissed .

“This entire conflict has been created by the attorney general’s office, not the governor’s office,” Fortner said.

“Now (a judge) is being asked to clean up his mess.”

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20120122/NEWS/201220353/Hood-hit-pardon-battle?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home

kakypat on January 22, 2012 at 4:26 PM

How effective were these gun control laws? What makes you think more laws would mean that criminals (and now our own gov’t, it seems) would follow them?

hillbillyjim on January 22, 2012 at 4:24 PM

You seem shocked that “our government” and “criminals” aren’t that far apart on the spectrum.

CycloneCDB on January 22, 2012 at 4:26 PM

limits on the sale or ownership of guns

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 4:23 PM

…Whats your point with all of this? Just semantics?

I mean I get what you’re saying — yes pro 2nd amendment people are arguing in favor of gun control right now. They believe there are times when the federal government should infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

I just don’t get why you’re saying it.

Timin203 on January 22, 2012 at 4:27 PM

So your logic is that imposing strict gun controls contrary to the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens will prevent those in federal offices or federal jobs from engaging in felonious activities?

Ivebeen arguing AGAINST gun control.just because I’m not on the ff bandwagon people think I’m somehow in favor of it

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 4:27 PM

limits on the sale or ownership of guns

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 4:23 PM

We unfortunately already have that. Get specific. This is too vague. Who decides? What is the criteria? States rights or Federal?

What do you mean?

katy on January 22, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Aren’t federal officials exempt from state and local laws when breaking the laws for the good of the people?

Tommy_G on January 22, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I may be wrong but I don’t think sovereign immunity (the doctrine that protects executive branch official) is in play where deliberate criminal conduct is found to have occurred.

ironbill on January 22, 2012 at 3:07 PM

It’s already happened before.

Consider Lon Horiuchi.

CPL 310 on January 22, 2012 at 4:29 PM

— yes pro 2nd amendment people are arguing in favor of gun control right now. They believe there are times when the federal government should infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

I just don’t get why you’re saying it.

because all this hysteria over ff will hurt conservatives in the long run.. People are so excited to get obaa that they’re losing their principles.

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Ugh! Where did I put that Ibuprofen?

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Horace sounds like you’ll need it with red_herring’s lack of logic.

Bmore on January 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM

kakypat

Just alot of noise coming from politics in Mississippi.

Pardons are a power granted explicitly to the Governor.

Judicial branch has no authority or jurisdiction in this area, even if the Governor acted wrongfully.

Nothing will come of this.

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM

limits on the sale or ownership of guns

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Who whould be allowed to own them and how would they be chosen? One of those “may issue” if you contribute to my re-election campaign fund thingys?

a capella on January 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM

this is interesting, however, my naive thinking is wondering if federal gov’t officials are immune from state law when acting in their official capacity…. Now, I think this is criminal straight up, but isn’t there some supremacy here for the feds over the state?

small brain at work…

ted c on January 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Consider Lon Horiuchi.

CPL 310 on January 22, 2012 at 4:29 PM

And Waco.

a capella on January 22, 2012 at 4:32 PM

I’m getting tired of your dance steps.

Lay out your definition of gun control.

katy on January 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM

You put the right gun in,
You take the right gun out,
You put the right gun in,
And you shake it all about.

That’s how you do the red herring, not! ;-)

Yoop on January 22, 2012 at 4:34 PM

yet another perfect example of an argument used by leftists for more gun control
red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Wow.

You could try to excuse Fast and Furious as the sort of thing a couple of Harvard sociology majors might think up one night when they’re stoned completely out of their gourds: “Yeah, dude, that’ll, like, totally teach those Fourth Amendment jerks that the federal government should handle all gun control!” … Then, unfortunately, they forgot they sent Eric Holder a copy of their draft term paper before deleting it and starting over. And, of course, the self-professed illiterate would have no way of guessing what he was forwarding to all of his underlings.

But as it turns out, some of these neo-hippies STILL haven’t figured out what an incredibly bad idea the Fast and Furious “argument” was.

logis on January 22, 2012 at 4:35 PM

because all this hysteria over ff will hurt conservatives in the long run.. People are so excited to get obaa that they’re losing their principles.

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I think that if the story had been, “Mexican drug cartels using US straw buyers to smuggle AK-47s across the border,” conservatives wouldn’t be using the “language of liberals” in blaming the deaths on the walking of the guns.

However, the story here is “government sets up, finances, asks stores to waive existing laws, and then encourages people to smuggle weapons to Mexico in order to re-inforce Obamas fact-less statements that most weapons involved in Mexican violence came from the US.”

So if your only argument is, “phrase it in your mind and words as: ‘Mexican DRUG TRAFFICKERS killed people using weapons provided by the US government in a way contrary to our most basic laws against exporting weapons and facilitated the breaking of Mexican law by smuggling them in to that country” instead of “GUNS from F & F killed people,” then fine.

Otherwise, you’re not arguing the same point as everyone you’re arguing with.

Timin203 on January 22, 2012 at 4:35 PM

ironbill on January 22, 2012 at 3:07 PM

It’s already happened before.

Consider Lon Horiuchi.

CPL 310 on January 22, 2012 at 4:29 PM

You are completely deadass wrong. As I explained in great detail above in this thread, “Sovereign Immunity” has no application whatever here or in the Horiuchi matter.

Sovereign Immunity is a common law-derived concept which protects the sovereign, i.e. the State, from being sued by its citizens, unless the sovereign agrees to allow it, as in the Federal Torts Claims Act, a civil, not criminal, statute.

Sovereign Immunity has NOTHING to do with criminal matters.

Sheesh! Not that hard to grasp, I thought.

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 4:35 PM

because all this hysteria over ff will hurt conservatives in the long run.. People are so excited to get obaa that they’re losing their principles.
red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM

One man’s ‘outrage’, is another man’s ‘hysteria’.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2012 at 4:36 PM

And Waco.

a capella on January 22, 2012 at 4:32 PM

The violent acts by Reno and the feds at Waco had NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with the legal concept of “Sovereign Immunity,” accept to the extent that lawsuits were attempted against the feds and went nowhere due to this concept.

But the actions themselves were not immunized in any way by “Sovereign Immunity.”

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Yes…but Hood filed suit against Barbour expressing outrage after his office advised Barbour on the pardons of the five mansion trusties. Now that it’s come out that Hood’s office is neck deep in this stuff, it’s a mess.

“The governor (granted pardons) based on advice and action by the attorney general’s office – that’s what the attorney general never told Judge Green or the press when he was making this big announcement damning the governor,” Fortner said.”

Hood is using the judicial system to further his own goals.

kakypat on January 22, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Sovereign Immunity has NOTHING to do with criminal matters.

Sheesh! Not that hard to grasp, I thought.

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 4:35 PM

You seem fairly knowledgable on the topic… What forces the DOJ to cooperate with the state of Arizona any moreso than they have been with congress?
In other words, could Holder and everyone involved refuse to testify in front of the committee? And if so, wouldn’t it be nearly impossible for the state to build a criminal case against any specific person in the DOJ, even if they can see that a crime has been commited?

I mean short of labeling the DOJ a criminal organization and going after them with RICO or something, what could the state do against the DOJ as a federal department? And if nothing, how can they compel the department to turn over any documents or any specifics upon which they would then be able to charge individuals with?

Timin203 on January 22, 2012 at 4:41 PM

That argument only makes sense if you think selling guns can amount to aiding and abetting murder.

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 3:48 PM

If you knowingly ensure weapons end up in felons and drug cartels hands subverting federal guns laws, that is not only aiding and abetting, that is a conspiracy.

maddmatt on January 22, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Twana on January 22, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Treason is typically addressed by firing squad…

affenhauer on January 22, 2012 at 4:45 PM

a capella

“Who whould be allowed to own them and how would they be chosen?”

What a silly question.

Our “betters” in D.C. will choose those who can be allowed to own guns based upon their value to HopeandChange Land and upon them having the “correct” political views.

We must allow our superiors to make such decisions. Alot of them went to Harvard, for pete’s sake!

And we will still be allowed our Constitutional rights to choose between watching “Dancing With the Stars” and “Keeping Up with the Kardashians.”

And that will be doubleplusgood. I hear the chocolate ration will be increased, too. DOUBLEdoubleplusgood!

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 4:46 PM

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Gone but not soon forgotten. Whats up with that?

Bmore on January 22, 2012 at 4:54 PM

katy on January 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM

two hands on, proper stance, projectile on target…

affenhauer on January 22, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Timin203

To answer your question quite simply, the state can do none of the things you asked about it doing.

Is a matter of federal jurisdiction when the AG and federal employees are involved. The U.S. attorney’s office in Arizona can prosecute under federal law, or corresponding state laws where case is removed to federal court for trial and do all those things, but the state AG cannot, although the state AG can investigate and prosecute for violating Arizona state laws by non-federal officials.

As to testifying – state can issue order to compel, but likely it will go nowhere. On the other hand, U.S. Attorney in Arizona could compel testimony in federal court and enforce it by contempt.

The real power is Congress. They can compel testimony to a committee and enforce it by contempt. And U.S. Attorney in D.C. could indict Holder with federal Grand Jury.

But, U.S. Attorney in Arizona lacks the guts and Congress lacks the testicles and U.S. Attorney in D.C. is scared to do anything.

So, until someone develops intestinal fortitude, probing and investigating is as far as things will go. Plus, Issa likes the spotlight.

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Timin203

Oh, and I practiced exclusively in federal court in St. Louis for six years.

Tried several RICO cases. RICO doesn’t apply here either. Might be able to establish “a pattern of racketeering activity,” but would be near impossible to make a “criminal enterprise” discrete.

More a question, re Holder and federal officials, of malfeasance in office via criminal acts.

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 5:03 PM

I honestly don’t understand how some people can be so upset about f&f yet maintain that guns don’t kill people, people do.

If you’re upset about f&f, then you must be in favor of some gun control.

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

The DoJ, DoS, DHS worked to circumvent IMEX controls on weapons which are regulated via TREATY when sent to a foreign Nation. This is not just a breach of National law (ensuring weapons end up in the hands of violent criminals) but international law. That latter is very important as when treaties are circumvented to supply arms to criminal agents who are extremely violent and running an anti-government insurgency you get a casus belli.

We DO have treaties for our external arms sales.

The laws on sales of weapons without doing background checks and, worse still, is that gun stores reported the violations and BATFE and DoJ told them to go ahead and sell the arms. That is a violation of National law, as well. Yes I disagree with the purely National laws, but that in no way invalidates that breaking the law when you are a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL that it is against your oath of office to uphold the laws and keep weapons out of the hands of criminals foreign and domestic.

So there you have the breaking of multiple National laws, International law regulated via treaty, and, of course, local laws that AZ has on gun sales.

ajacksonian on January 22, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Hood is using the judicial system to further his own goals.

kakypat on January 22, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Of course he is. Just practicing state politics.

If you act like an ass and are perceived as an ass by the public, the raise a big legal fuss to distract attention from your assness.

Probably wants to run for Governor and this is a big bump in his road.

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Very interesting. I don’t know for sure, but I’d assume that federal law enforcement (border patrol or the fbi) secured the crime scene with the recovered AK that was used in the killing of our border agent. So without having any way to really force the DOJ to cooperate, and without federal law enforcment and federal courts getting involved in building a case (against themselves…?), there is really no possible way for this to realistically go anywhere.

So really our only hope is that Congress moves forward on this, which, judging by the success rate of the current congress in regards to pretty much everything, isn’t going to happen.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that this operation was planned, on purpose, to further the gun control ends of this administration. Especially since the Dems probably expected to remain in control of the House. The Obama admin can literally get away with murder, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Timin203 on January 22, 2012 at 5:12 PM

So there you have the breaking of multiple National laws, International law regulated via treaty, and, of course, local laws that AZ has on gun sales.

ajacksonian on January 22, 2012 at 5:06 PM

So what’s your problem? All them laws are for the little people. Those who reign over us are not subject to the same restrictions as the serfs. It would hamper their awesomeness.

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 5:13 PM

The DoJ, DoS, DHS worked to circumvent IMEX controls on weapons which are regulated via TREATY when sent to a foreign Nation. This is not just a breach of National law (ensuring weapons end up in the hands of violent criminals) but international law.

I never thought I’d see the day where a hot air commenter defended international law

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Timin203

You’re exactly right. Congress and the U.S. Attorneys have the jurisdiction and the ability to sink Holder and his minions at any time. And quite a bit of power to make it stick.

But, don’t hold your breath. Jan Brewer and her folks have all but admitted that their “investigation” is to put pressure on Congress to do something, as was Sheriff Joe’s.

U.S. Attorneys won’t lift a finger.

If this was Nixon and Watergate, there would be Congressional hearings 24/7, Articles of Impeachment brought up in Congress and U.S. Attorneys’ offices in Arizona and D.C. hiring lots of new staff as they hummed along. But it ain’t. So, we are on hold.

Plus, Issa gets to hold press conferences and act like the Tribune of the People, while really not doing much of anything.

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 5:18 PM

local laws that AZ has on gun sales.

ajacksonian on January 22, 2012 at 5:06 PM

And the irony being that it was the feds that imposed these laws on the states…that the feds are now above.

Twana on January 22, 2012 at 5:20 PM

red_herring

Yeah, you’re right. Reminds me of when that idiot, T. Jefferson, defended the international Treaties of the Sea. What a fruitcake!

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 5:20 PM

And the irony being that it was the feds that imposed these laws on the states…that the feds are now above.

Twana on January 22, 2012 at 5:20 PM

You’re not going to get an increase in your chocolate ration if you keep making statements like that. And that would be Undoubleplusgood.

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Did federal officials break state laws?

State laws, federal laws, international laws. Just remember, Obama still hasn’t had a scandal.

JavelinaBomb on January 22, 2012 at 5:29 PM

While I do appreciate your expertise

legal concept of “Sovereign Immunity,” accept to the extent that lawsuits were attempted against the feds and went nowhere due to this concept.

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I have to wonder whether your confusion of “accept” for “except”

Oh, and I practiced exclusively in federal court in St. Louis for six years.

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 5:03 PM

might be because you worked on quite a few cases out of East St. Louis perhaps?

Still, keep up the good posts.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 22, 2012 at 5:30 PM

ironbill on January 22, 2012 at 3:07 PM

It’s already happened before.

Consider Lon Horiuchi.

CPL 310 on January 22, 2012 at 4:29 PM

You are completely deadass wrong. As I explained in great detail above in this thread, “Sovereign Immunity” has no application whatever here or in the Horiuchi matter.

Sovereign Immunity is a common law-derived concept which protects the sovereign, i.e. the State, from being sued by its citizens, unless the sovereign agrees to allow it, as in the Federal Torts Claims Act, a civil, not criminal, statute.

Sovereign Immunity has NOTHING to do with criminal matters.

Sheesh! Not that hard to grasp, I thought.

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Guess I misread the second guy, since I was thinking supremacy clause the whole time I was writing it – which goes to what Tommy_G said. Editing error on my part.

In 1997, Boundary County, Idaho Prosecutor Denise Woodbury, with the help of special prosecutor Stephen Yagman, charged Horiuchi in state court with involuntary manslaughter over his killing of Vicki Weaver. The U.S. Attorney filed a notice of removal of the case to federal court, which automatically took effect under the statute for removal jurisdiction[10] where the case was dismissed by U.S. District JudgeEdward Lodge on May 14, 1998, who cited the supremacy clause of the Constitution which grants immunity to federal officers acting in the scope of their employment

Sovereign immunity wasn’t discussed at the link.

Tommy_G’s criticism still stands.

CPL 310 on January 22, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Also:
http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2012/01/03/51732/

By law, US Attorney John Doe has the judicial independence to do any of the above, to take on anyone tied to a crime enabled by Operation Fast and Furious, and in this hypothetical case, we’re pretending he or she has the cojones to do it.

Why pretend?

Because in the world of realpolitik, US Attorney John Doe would also know that a letter of termination–composed in the White House, but delivered on stationary bearing DOJ letterhead–would at some point make it onto his or her desk, and that simple, administrative ‘personnel action,’ would most probably preclude or end not only the US Attorney’s career, but also any attempt to prosecute a presidential appointee such as the Attorney General of the United States or other highly placed members of the DOJ/DHS/State ‘team.’

One more time. A US Attorney has the judicial independence to empanel a federal grand jury, investigate using the resources of the FBI, or ICE, or whatever entity seems best equipped for the job, to seek indictments, and then to move forward with the prosecution of any individuals whom the evidence suggests may have violated the law. The US Department of Justice also has the power, if the White House gives the nod, to terminate the employment of a US Attorney for ‘administrative’ reasons it will tell you it is under no obligation to reveal.

CPL 310 on January 22, 2012 at 5:39 PM

I never thought I’d see the day where a hot air commenter defended international law

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 5:13 PM

I defend Law of Nations at every turn.

We have Nations and governments for a reason and that is to bring order amongst societies that have stark differences amongst them. To do OTHERWISE is to invite a reversion to savagery at all levels.

Do YOU have a problem with that?

ajacksonian on January 22, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Why can’t I go down the street to my local hardware store and purchase an AK 47?

oldleprechaun on January 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM

oldleprechaun on January 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM

You can where I live.

Bmore on January 22, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Why can’t I go down the street to my local hardware store and purchase an AK 47?

oldleprechaun on January 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Because full-auto guns were effectively banned when the machine gun registry was closed in 1986, thus causing the prices of the remaining ones to skyrocket, and preventing any new ones from being added to the registry of legal guns.

If you mean an AK47 clone, well, because you have a crappy hardware store. Where I live, the TruValue usually has an AK and an AR or two, usually with acceptable pricing for the area.

CPL 310 on January 22, 2012 at 5:55 PM

CPL 310 on January 22, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Sorry, I didn’t realize oldleprechaun on January 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM was talking full auto. My mistake. Full auto is class 3 license, I think.

Bmore on January 22, 2012 at 5:59 PM

might be because you worked on quite a few cases out of East St. Louis perhaps?

Still, keep up the good posts.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 22, 2012 at 5:30 PM

You’re right – it should have been “except,” not “accept.” Hey, I’m old, I’m confused.

East St. Louis is in Illinois. Any state crimes there would be handled by the Illinois state courts. Any federal matters would be handled by the Federal Court in Illinois.

My speciality in federal court was securities law and litigation. I didn’t do any criminal law practice during those six years. Civil RICO was still around then and we used it in securities cases. Made the defendants go nuts when we called them “racketeers” in our pleadings!

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 6:19 PM

But, U.S. Attorney in Arizona lacks the guts and Congress lacks the testicles and U.S. Attorney in D.C. is scared to do anything.

So, until someone develops intestinal fortitude, probing and investigating is as far as things will go. Plus, Issa likes the spotlight.

Horace on January 22, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Then we are done. As I said before, you are seeing a power struggle enacted head to head between the Executive and Legislative branches here. If Congress allows Holder to hold onto power for another 8 months, Congress will effectively be DONE. DoJ will destroy whats left of the Constitution, arms it ranks, and deploy its many new laws against it political enemies.

orbitalair on January 22, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Read Tommy_G’s post again….It kinda went over your head

Conservative4Ever on January 22, 2012 at 3:34 PM

No, it didn’t go over my head, I live in California, you know, the same state Dirty Harry was from. Gun control is a slippery slope, one gun control regulation always leads to another, and they all violate the Second Amendment.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Look up the definition of “Infringe”.

in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
[Latin nfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.]
in·fringer n.

Dirty Harry’s statement, “If there is a gun in the room, I want to be in control of it” is as authoritarian as they come, and the US Constitution leaves no room what so ever for such bull$hit.

SWalker on January 22, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Do you really think he wanted criminals to be armed?

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/no-freeman-shall-be-debarred-use-arms-quotation

In any case, that draft of the Virginia Constitution wasn’t adopted. Maybe he changed his mind?

zmdavid on January 22, 2012 at 3:56 PM

What I think is the Jefferson meant exactly what he said, since the other founding father also expressed similar sentiments I believe that what he said was not a accident, and that like the other founding fathers he believed that once an individual was released form any form of imprisonment that they were to be returned their right to own and posses such firearms as were required to protect themselves and to serve in a militia if the need arose.

SWalker on January 22, 2012 at 7:07 PM

All The President’s Men, did.

The dam is cracked and bleeding how long before it gives way?

Or should we say the gate breaks fast and furious.

Speakup on January 22, 2012 at 7:34 PM

You seem fairly knowledgable on the topic… What forces the DOJ to cooperate with the state of Arizona any moreso than they have been with congress?
In other words, could Holder and everyone involved refuse to testify in front of the committee? And if so, wouldn’t it be nearly impossible for the state to build a criminal case against any specific person in the DOJ, even if they can see that a crime has been commited?

I mean short of labeling the DOJ a criminal organization and going after them with RICO or something, what could the state do against the DOJ as a federal department? And if nothing, how can they compel the department to turn over any documents or any specifics upon which they would then be able to charge individuals with?

Timin203 on January 22, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Arizona can refuse to cooperate with ANY federal officials unless and until prior authorization is granted. Some Sheriff’s offices in some states are already starting to vet federal officials. Worst that could happen in the end is that state block grants dry up.

gryphon202 on January 22, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Please, please, please indite 0bama, Holder, and any other leftist crony you can fit in that county bus.

Wolfmoon on January 22, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Sovereign immunity. It might not apply here, but that will be the tactic: federal actions are not subject to state law.

GWB on January 22, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Did federal officials break state laws?

YES, but even more importantly, they violated the TRUST of the American public by using tactics INTENDED on letting criminals obtain working firearms.

MORONS!

TX-96 on January 22, 2012 at 9:25 PM

YES, but even more importantly, they violated the TRUST of the American public by using tactics INTENDED on letting criminals obtain working firearms.

MORONS!

TX-96 on January 22, 2012 at 9:25 PM

It appears stupidity was not in play here. This seems to be a cold blooded calculation in death to support gun control.

maddmatt on January 22, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Sorry I wasn’t clear earlier. When I said “AK 47″, I meant the full auto model with that wicked serrated bayonet, and as many 30 round magazines as I can afford to load. The ones I do believe were Chinese manufactured. The type we used to pick up in Viet-Nam. You know, the ones that you could find half buried in mud that could be rinsed out in a rice paddy and still fire? I’m not a felon. Not only have I never been convicted of a felony, I’ve never been charged or even suspected. Probably because it never crossed my mind to actually commit a felony. So, since I’m not a criminal, why should MY rights be taken away?

Can’t recall where I read it (Hot Air?), but it seems that recently a lot of people have taken a sudden interest in reading, REALLY READING, the Constitution of the United States of America. Perhaps the God/King IS having a positive affect on this nation.

oldleprechaun on January 22, 2012 at 10:13 PM

because all this hysteria over ff will hurt conservatives in the long run.. People are so excited to get obaa that they’re losing their principles.

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I understand where this commenter is trying to go, but the analogy isn’t between the Mexican drug cartel terrorists and American citizens. What the Obama administration did in Fast and Furious would be analogous to selling guns to the Japanese on their way to Nanking.

The Obama administration sold guns to our nation’s enemies.

It’s not that those individual drug cartel members don’t have the inalienable right to protect themselves when they are attacked unlawfully, but that’s not the scenario they’re most likely to be involved in, is it? More likely, they’re going to be hunting down Mexican or U.S. law enforcement officials, reporters, or bloggers who say uncharitable things about them.

Nom de Boom on January 22, 2012 at 10:53 PM

More smoke and mirrors. They will never do a damned thing about this, and neither will our spineless congress.

dogsoldier on January 23, 2012 at 5:53 AM

I honestly don’t understand how some people can be so upset about f&f yet maintain that guns don’t kill people, people do.

If you’re upset about f&f, then you must be in favor of some gun control.

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Article III Section 3 Clause 1 Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

No. We just want the law of the land to be applied to them the same as it would be to us. Supplying weapons to known criminals, enemies of the U.S., to kill Mexican citizens (Mexico is an ally) and U.S. citizens (border patrol agents) is treason.

dominigan on January 23, 2012 at 7:10 AM

The “natives” are getting restless, we want charges brought forward soon, no matter how high they go. The Obama administration is responsible for the illegal program that went deadly.

Amazingoly on January 23, 2012 at 7:46 AM

Horace, Horace, Horace …
Too bad you’re not being paid by the keystroke for schooling the masses.
I was going to paste this ‘n that re: your posts because I knew that you knew … And then I read that you practiced in Federal Court.
As one who was covered by “judicial immunity” for many years, kudos.
There’s “immunity” and then there’s “immunity” from criminal negligence – which doesn’t exist. That’s a huge hill to climb in this case, and as you pointed out, futile on the State level.
However, it will draw attention to this blatantly sleazy “operation”.
More attention may hopefully be the figurative d—h knell for ØbahØlder. BUT, given the fact that ChicagØbama just threw Hillary under the bus, he’ll do the same with Eric the Molder.
I give my home State of Arizona a lot of credit.
“Don’t mess with Texas”, eh? Got news for you Texans.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 23, 2012 at 10:28 AM

If you’re upset about f&f, then you must be in favor of some gun control.

red_herring on January 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Wow, what kind of warped mind could think in this way? Fast and Furious is about treason.

We are in favor of prosecuting corrupt, vile disgusting members of our government who betrayed the American people. Their plot failed and now is exposed.

Zero and Holder are responsible for the deaths of Border Patrol Agent Terry and several hundred Mexicans.

dogsoldier on January 23, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Good, put on the squeeze to that US attorney who signed the authorizations. He is going to plead the fifth in his next appearance in congress. Indict the guy in Az, make him talk.

jake49 on January 23, 2012 at 11:19 AM

What I think is the Jefferson meant exactly what he said, since the other founding father also expressed similar sentiments I believe that what he said was not a accident, and that like the other founding fathers he believed that once an individual was released form any form of imprisonment that they were to be returned their right to own and posses such firearms as were required to protect themselves and to serve in a militia if the need arose.

SWalker on January 22, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Jefferson spoke in days when murderers were hanged not too long after conviction…

PXCharon on January 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2