Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

KNOX GUN-RIGHTS REPORT: Police state we're almost there
WND.com ^ | September 27, 2012 | Jeff Knox

Posted on 09/28/2012 7:53:53 AM PDT by Perseverando

Jeff Knox: There's no constitutional justification for 150,000 federal cops

During this heated election season, the politicians and the pundits banter back and forth about the economy, jobs and important social issues, with back-to-back TV commercials making claims and accusations followed immediately by the opposition’s counter-claims and counter-accusations. But in the midst of all of this political wrangling, the Obama administration’s war on gun owners – in the name of the war on crime, the war on drugs, the war on gun trafficking to Mexico and what used to be called the war on terror – rages on.

When I first wrote about the outrageous assault on the Reese family gun shop in Deming, N.M., I expressed concern that the case was apparently headed up by the Department of Homeland Security rather than the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. My concern about this shift in policing has grown since that report as Homeland Security Investigations has become more and more prominent in reports of federal police actions.

Homeland Security Investigations, or HSI, has quickly become one of the highest-profile federal police organizations in the U.S., competing with the FBI, DEA and ATF for attention and tax dollars. That statement is particularly disconcerting when you realize that there is no provision in the Constitution for any federal police force. The idea of federal police pursuing criminals and violently executing warrants upon the general citizenry would have been abhorrent to the framers. The fact that these agencies blatantly instigate and engage in all manner of illegal activities – such as money laundering, drug smuggling and weapons trafficking – as an “investigative technique” to try and catch criminals higher up in the criminal food chain, would be unthinkable to them.

There are currently more than 70 different federal law enforcement agencies

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2012; banglist; bloodoftyrants; brownshirts; cnsf; cw2; democrats; dhs; donttreadonme; gestapo; govtabuse; liberalfascism; policestate; possecomitatus; rapeofliberty; tyranny

1 posted on 09/28/2012 7:54:01 AM PDT by Perseverando
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

martial law before the election...


2 posted on 09/28/2012 8:12:35 AM PDT by TurkeyLurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurkeyLurkey

They wouldn’t dare...at least not until they begin rounding up those of us known to own quantities firearms.


3 posted on 09/28/2012 8:22:40 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Durus

There will be a crisis created.

(I really hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think this fella and his comrads are going to give up their offices.)


4 posted on 09/28/2012 8:44:35 AM PDT by TurkeyLurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

Federal Marshalls have been around for a long time. How do they fit into this meme?? Certainly I agree that all the alphabet soup agencies should NOT have armed enforcement branches, but I thought that the FM’s were supposed to fulfill that function for all the agencies (i.e. if they needed a warrant enforced, they called in the FM’s).


5 posted on 09/28/2012 8:51:23 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

***There’s no constitutional justification for 150,000 federal cops ***

Back in the late 1960s and early ‘70s there was a fear that the US was being set up by the news media to sstart a “Federal Police Force.”

Has it now happened?


6 posted on 09/28/2012 8:54:09 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

As far as federal police go, a simple act of congress could solve most of our problems.

Start with the disarming of non-police agencies in the USG. Then consolidate the 70+ agencies into about half a dozen.

“You used to be an armed officer of the Department of Education? Now you work for the FBI, and are *attached* to Education. Your boss is in the FBI, and you answer to him. If Education needs you, they ask your boss.”

Most of Homeland Security is either busted up or put into ICE and the Border Patrol.

Airport security will be handled by the airports, and by act of congress, they may use profiling as part of their security operations, and be immune from lawsuits for doing so.


7 posted on 09/28/2012 9:29:48 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurkeyLurkey

If Obama was ineligible to be POTUS, and holds the office illegally, will he abide by the law of the land and leave it if not legally reelected? If Obama deems the Constitution as just another bump on his road forward, what is he and his fellow marxists prepared to do to continue the revolution?


8 posted on 09/28/2012 9:57:16 AM PDT by Perseverando (Gun control? It's the OBOTS who are filling up prisons for violent crimes, not the Tea Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Or you could learn the law and your constitutional rights.

Start here:

IMMUNITY
I am sure you have heard ELECTED and APPOINTED officials say, they have immunity from prosecution for any thing they have done wrong. Prosecutors and police officers are notorious for that statement. There is a U.S. Supreme Court case that says they are liable.
George D Owen V. City of Independence, Missouri.
Decided April 16, 1980.
When you look this up scroll down to 25 See, e.g., Globe 365 (remarks of Rep. Arthur) (For Owen v Independence Click (HERE)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?court=US&CiBookMark=S-2e5e420-25379-b&CiBookmarkSkipCount=-10&CiRestriction=Immunit

George M. WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
David HAYSE, in his Official Capacity as Judge in Fayette
District Court, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 93-5382.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 6, 1993.
E.D.Ky., No. 92-00510; Forester, J.
E.D.Ky.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Before: GUY and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER
George M. Wallace, a pro se Kentucky prisoner, appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d), his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Wallace’s suit was filed against Fayette County District Court Judge David Hayse. Judge Hayse was sued in his official capacity, and Wallace sought injunctive and declaratory relief. The magistrate judge’s report determined that Judge Hayse was absolutely immune from suit because the allegations of Wallace’s complaint indicated that Judge Hayse was acting in his judicial capacity. Over Wallace’s objections, the district judge determined that when a judge is performing an adjudicative function, he is absolutely immune from all suits brought pursuant to Sec. 1983. On appeal, Wallace argues that judicial immunity does not extend to Sec. 1983 suits which request injunctive and declaratory relief.

In Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984), the court concluded “that judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in her judicial capacity.” See also Berger v. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass’n, 983 F.2d 718, 721 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2416 (1993); Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 269 (6th Cir.1984). Therefore, we conclude that the district court committed error when it dismissed Wallace’s suit based upon the determination that Judge Hayse enjoyed absolute immunity against Sec. 1983 suits which request injunctive and declaratory relief.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
1 F.3d 1243, Wallace v. Hayse, (C.A.6 (Ky.) 1993


9 posted on 09/28/2012 10:03:59 AM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TurkeyLurkey

I don’t care what crisis they create and neither do a whole lot of other people.


10 posted on 09/28/2012 10:27:22 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TurkeyLurkey

1,400,000,000 rounds of ammo divided by 150,000 federal cops = 9,333 rounds per fed. Somebody check my math. It’s a good thing they’re on our side. (/sarc)


11 posted on 09/28/2012 10:32:58 AM PDT by Perseverando (Gun control? It's the OBOTS who are filling up prisons for violent crimes, not the Tea Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: phockthis

This may just extend the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment to municipalities. However, airports are under dual federal and state jurisdiction, so a federal law authorizing profiling would possibly stand.

If there was any problem, the congress could designate all security gates in airports as under US Customs authority, but only insofar as permitting airport security to conduct inspections that anywhere else in the US would be unlawful.


12 posted on 09/28/2012 11:32:48 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Perseverando

He’s managed to cloud the ineligible issue for 4 years with the help of MSM; he’ll continue to operate in total disregard of our Constitution and secretly build his arsenal and army until the opportune time. I just think the time might be before Nov. 4. If we have martial law the election will be suspended.


13 posted on 09/28/2012 2:06:12 PM PDT by TurkeyLurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson