Arizona 1070

[_Kevin Graham]

Actually, Kevin,

It is a big deal.

If I am carrying a concealed weapon and do not have my CCW in my possession, I will be arrested. My permit will be revoked and I will pay a fine.

Period.

But your're saying it isn't a big deal to make it lawful for people to carry ID with them 24/7. Not ID that grants them privileges to drive of carry a weapon, but ID that grants them the right to "be." Comparing this to your CCW ID is ridiculous, and you can choose to leave your weapon at home, whereas Hispanic Americans cannot choose "not to appear illegal."

[_Inconceivable]

So what the hell is wrong with carrying something that shows you're legal?

Do you really want to live in a "papers, please" society?

I have a CCW (Concealed Weapons Permit). You can't have one if you're undocumented and law enforcement knows exactly who you are before you even pull it out.

You don't see a difference between requiring someone to carry ID because they're carrying a concealed weapon and carrying ID because they live in this country?

I live in a "papers, please" society. Try driving, voting, cashing a check, purchasing anything over $1,000, applying for a hunting, fishing, contractors license, filing my taxes etc..

Where do you live off the grid?

Illegals carry concealed weapons. The difference is that law enforcement is aware of my commitment to be a law abiding citizen. I've already had an extensive background check and have no outstanding warrants. They also know that I am aware of the laws governing firearm possession. You think illegals even have a clue?

Who would be stupid enough to enter another country without proper ID? Would you go to Mexico without your ID? You don't want to do that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nba8VPO0LQw&feature=related

[_Darth J]

I live in a "papers, please" society. Try driving, voting, cashing a check, purchasing anything over $1,000, applying for a hunting, fishing, contractors license, filing my taxes etc..

Where do you live off the grid?

Okay, that's true. A better way to say it might be, "do you want to make it even worse?"

Illegals carry concealed weapons. The difference is that law enforcement is aware of my commitment to be a law abiding citizen. I've already had an extensive background check and have no outstanding warrants. They also know that I am aware of the laws governing firearm possession. You think illegals even have a clue?

No, I meant that having to have your carry permit on you when you're carrying is much different than having to have your national ID card or something similar just because you're walking down the street.

Who would be stupid enough to enter another country without proper ID? Would you go to Mexico without your ID? You don't want to do that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nba8VPO0LQw&feature=related

Actually, the way things are going right now, I wouldn't go to Mexico WITH my ID, either.

(Not a slam on Mexico---that's a comment about drug-related violence.)

[_bcspace]

I am pleased to report that a federal judge has enjoined Arizona's immigration law.

Why? It's a clear-cut case of judicial activism and no oversight. Judge Bolton confounded the notion of law with enforcement. The 1070 itself made considerable reference to federal law but Bolton (along with the ACLU and the current administration who are all in bed together) thinks that if the Feds don't enforce the law, neither should the states, and that was the basis of her ruling.

So now, according to Bolton's logic, states cannot, for example, make laws regarding the sale and use of drugs because the Federal government won't enforce it's own. This corruption of the rule of law is exactly what you would expect from a Clinton (or an Obama) appointee.

[_Darth J]

whereas Hispanic Americans cannot choose "not to appear illegal."

Here is Cameron Diaz. Her father is Cuban:



She does not appear to be illegal to me, although I would like to do illegal things with her.

Although I do understand Kevin's point. Most of the talk about Hispanics regarding the Arizona law and similar laws proposed in other states (such as Utah) is not just about Hispanic heritage, but about a certain stereotype of Hispanic heritage. This quickly creates the perfect storm of retarded actual racism based on certain assumptions about what it means to be "Hispanic," and retarded accusations of racism by people who are ironically perpetuating the stereotypes they claim to be fighting against.

For a dazzlingly stupid example of the latter, here is an article about claims that Star Wars, Episode II: Attack of the Clones was racist because it showed cloned soldiers being made from a "Hispanic" bounty hunter named Jango Fett.

http://www.screamingpickle.com/members/ ... ode_II.htm

Jango Fett, as well as all of the adult clonetroopers, were played by Temuera Morrison, who is a Maori from New Zealand. Perhaps the anti-racist panel in Detroit didn't notice that all of the clonetroopers have an obvious Kiwi accent, which Mexicans are not typically stereotyped to have.

[_Inconceivable]

Actually, the way things are going right now, I wouldn't go to Mexico WITH my ID, either.

(Not a slam on Mexico---that's a comment about drug-related violence.)

I have no problem with a national ID card. If you're a US citizen you pop right up on every goverment computer anyways. Think about it.

The only clowns worried about Nat ID are the Evangelicals that take a few crazy halucinations from the Bible seriously (666 etc).

I'll slam Mexico. It's not a safe place.

[_Darth J]

I am pleased to report that a federal judge has enjoined Arizona's immigration law.

Why? It's a clear-cut case of judicial activism and no oversight. Judge Bolton confounded the notion of law with enforcement. The 1070 itself made considerable reference to federal law but Bolton (along with the ACLU and the current administration who are all in bed together) thinks that if the Feds don't enforce the law, neither should the states, and that was the basis of her ruling.

So now, according to Bolton's logic, states cannot, for example, make laws regarding the sale and use of drugs because the Federal government won't enforce it's own. This corruption of the rule of law is exactly what you would expect from a Clinton (or an Obama) appointee.

Would someone mind giving bcspace a link to Article I of the Constitution and the supremacy clause? I'm too tired to do it right now. Maybe someone could also give him a link to a very basic primer on the concept of separation of powers, with respect to his claims of judicial activism and "no oversight" (regarding the latter, apparently bcspace is not aware of the existence of federal circuit courts or the Supreme Court of the United States).

I guess how I could mention that a desire to follow basic principles of federalism does not equate to support for the Obama administration, but that might be too subtle.

[_Joseph]

Bring back Operation Wetback from the very Republican Eisenhower administration. It worked very well and kept thing in check for more than a decade.

Armed troop on the border. Sand traps and pits to stop entry. Mine the damn thing if that is what is needed in major drug areas.

[_Darth J]

I have no problem with a national ID card. If you're a US citizen you pop right up on every goverment computer anyways. Think about it.

That's still not the same as requiring citizens to carry national ID, which I fail to find support for in the Constitution. You would agree with me that the whole premise of the Constitution is a government with limited, specified powers, wouldn't you? I'm going to assume you're pro-Second Amendment since you have a carry permit. You can see the difference between having a permit if you want to carry a concealed weapon and having a national registry for owning a firearm at all, right?

The only clowns worried about Nat ID are the Evangelicals that take a few crazy halucinations from the Bible seriously (666 etc).

I'm not worried, because Glenn Beck is here to defend our freedom!

[_bcspace]

Why? It's a clear-cut case of judicial activism and no oversight. Judge Bolton confounded the notion of law with enforcement. The 1070 itself made considerable reference to federal law but Bolton (along with the ACLU and the current administration who are all in bed together) thinks that if the Feds don't enforce the law, neither should the states, and that was the basis of her ruling.

So now, according to Bolton's logic, states cannot, for example, make laws regarding the sale and use of drugs because the Federal government won't enforce it's own. This corruption of the rule of law is exactly what you would expect from a Clinton (or an Obama) appointee.

Would someone mind giving bcspace a link to Article I of the Constitution and the supremacy clause?

Ah yes. ACLU supporter Darth J knows how convoluted Bolton's reasoning was in twisting the legal framework established around that clause so his weary and conscience-seared brain makes a half-hearted swipe in hopes no one will notice his lack of substance.