Gunowners have to show ID, but not Illegals

[INMIline]

well said, and you have the coolest avatar I have ever seen in my life!

Well maybe I can help, The Left use the 1st Amendment to trash the 2nd Amendment, the Right use the 1st Amendment to trash the 4th Amendment, they give themselves pay raises every year and expect the rest of the country to live on minimum wage, notice the same basic agenda and they have people convinced we still have a two party system, now for some unkown reason (could have been a movie) I always thought A violation of oath against your country was considered treason.

 

[MuncieKat]

+1. You beat me to it. This is the hypocrisy: both conservatives and liberals picking and choosing which civil rights / outgroups it's ok to violate / target.

[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]


Slightest inconvenience? Really....ya think? How many folks on this board constantly complain about having to unreasonably show ID or LTCH. Some will do anything to avoid it simply based on the fact that they believe it's a direct violation of civil rights. But now if you are profiled by the cops and forced to present your birth certificate (if you have one), it's just the "slightest inconvenience." Hypocrisy anyone?

Now, I do realize that the media has blown this way out of proportion. The law was not intended to randomly stop every Mexican on the street. But, like any law, law enforcement will use it in many different ways, whether ethical or not. What is a "reasonable" request for papers has yet to be determined by AZ. How would all you feel if you were asked to prove your citizenship because you're standing outside of the Home Depot eating a hot dog? Probably not to good.

Instead of complaining about the media hype and leftist protesters, I'd like to see more folks concentrate on protecting law abiding citizens from unreasonable search and siezure.........whether it pertains to carrying a weapon, proving your citizenship, or any other controversial rights issue. Don't loose sight and be blinded by your personal feelings about illegals.

FTW.....I do believe that illegals should be deported. Illegal immigration is simply unfair to those who are legally waiting in line. I just don't want to see the fear and hate get in the way of my own personal liberties. It's very similar to what the terrorists did alla 911.

 

[JBusch8899]

Well maybe I can help, The Left use the 1st Amendment to trash the 2nd Amendment, the Right use the 1st Amendment to trash the 4th Amendment, they give themselves pay raises every year and expect the rest of the country to live on minimum wage, notice the same basic agenda and they have people convinced we still have a two party system, now for some unkown reason (could have been a movie) I always thought A violation of oath against your country was considered treason.

Treason is specifically defined within the constitution.

1. Waging war against the United States.
2. Providing aid or comfort to the enemy.

Specific violation of one's oath, short of the above, is not defined as such in this country.

 

[Bisley Man]

What's the difference between AZ's law and EVERYONE PULLED OVER IN THEIR CAR showing Driver's License, registration, and proof of insurance(papers)

 

[semperfi211]

What's the difference between AZ's law and EVERYONE PULLED OVER IN THEIR CAR showing Driver's License, registration, and proof of insurance(papers)

That makes me have memories of the drunk driver check points. It has been a while since I have seen one of those.

 

[theweakerbrother]

When will we have a political party that adheres and protects (even if it takes fighting) to protect all amendments to the Constitution?

 

[Hotdoger]

What is a "reasonable" request for papers has yet to be determined by AZ. How would all you feel if you were asked to prove your citizenship because you're standing outside of the Home Depot eating a hot dog? Probably not to good.

The AZ law states there has to be "lawful contact".

Your hotdog eater statement is totally dishonest.

 

[groovatron]

The AZ law states there has to be "lawful contact".

Your hotdog eater statement is totally dishonest.

Dishonest? How so?........ Are you telling me that cops have never "smelled pot" or "heard a commotion" in order to use probable cause? Can you not see the point of my post.

I am sure that you oppose governmental intervention that throws civil rights out the window if it fits into your agenda.......and there in lies the problem with this country.

Once again, I am all for checking a persons identity, including citizenship, during a "lawful stop.".........I just don't want those "lawful stops" to turn into WhateverTF a LEO feels at the time.

It's sad that so many "so called" constitutionalists support this legislation without question simply based on their anti-illegal immigrant sentiments. It makes you no better then the those you criticize on a daily basis. I really wish these people would wake up and recognize their hypocritical ways. Ignorant gridlock is getting us nowhere fast.

Read this.....it sort of goes into furthur details about this issue......and the way loose interpretation of the law can get confusing....Panel of experts outline how Arizona immigration law works

 

[irishfan]

Dishonest? How so?........ Are you telling me that cops have never "smelled pot" or "heard a commotion" in order to use probable cause? Can you not see the point of my post.

BSU police used the "heard a commotion" on my house once....it so happened that there were 40 people in my living room and the strobe light was going with a fresh keg on ice but hey happens.

I can honestly say that I am not worried about getting my ID checked if I am in Arizona but I could see some people being checked at a Home Depot for loitering charges If we had a law that was enforced on the books from the feds we would not be debating if one state is right or wrong anymore.

 

[Vince49]

Well spoken!

[/color][/font][/size]


Slightest inconvenience? Really....ya think? How many folks on this board constantly complain about having to unreasonably show ID or LTCH. Some will do anything to avoid it simply based on the fact that they believe it's a direct violation of civil rights. But now if you are profiled by the cops and forced to present your birth certificate (if you have one), it's just the "slightest inconvenience." Hypocrisy anyone?

Now, I do realize that the media has blown this way out of proportion. The law was not intended to randomly stop every Mexican on the street. But, like any law, law enforcement will use it in many different ways, whether ethical or not. What is a "reasonable" request for papers has yet to be determined by AZ. How would all you feel if you were asked to prove your citizenship because you're standing outside of the Home Depot eating a hot dog? Probably not to good.

Instead of complaining about the media hype and leftist protesters, I'd like to see more folks concentrate on protecting law abiding citizens from unreasonable search and siezure.........whether it pertains to carrying a weapon, proving your citizenship, or any other controversial rights issue. Don't loose sight and be blinded by your personal feelings about illegals.

FTW.....I do believe that illegals should be deported. Illegal immigration is simply unfair to those who are legally waiting in line. I just don't want to see the fear and hate get in the way of my own personal liberties. It's very similar to what the terrorists did alla 911.

We really do not want to go down this road. Confiscation of arms and the requirement to show ID on demand sound very much like something from a middle European country that we have twice had to go to war against in the last century.

 

[JBusch8899]

Dishonest? How so?........ Are you telling me that cops have never "smelled pot" or "heard a commotion" in order to use probable cause? Can you not see the point of my post.

Police officers have used exigent circumstances as a reason to exercise warrantless stops/searches/etc. for years. There have been a number of incidents, where such matters have been tossed, due to a lack of credibility.

However, I believe that a clear majority of LEOs are honest in such a regard. The actions of a few corrupt individuals, shouldn't completely tie the hands of legitimate law enforcement.

I am sure that you oppose governmental intervention that throws civil rights out the window if it fits into your agenda.......and there in lies the problem with this country.

Once again, I am all for checking a persons identity, including citizenship, during a "lawful stop.".........I just don't want those "lawful stops" to turn into WhateverTF a LEO feels at the time.

The law is pretty well crafted, though any law could use improvements. However, if you're concerned about a LEO abusing this particular law, you probably should be even more so concerned about him or her enforcing others laws.

It's sad that so many "so called" constitutionalists support this legislation without question simply based on their anti-illegal immigrant sentiments. It makes you no better then the those you criticize on a daily basis. I really wish these people would wake up and recognize their hypocritical ways. Ignorant gridlock is getting us nowhere fast.

Read this.....it sort of goes into furthur details about this issue......and the way loose interpretation of the law can get confusing....Panel of experts outline how Arizona immigration law works

I've read those same arguments too: Its akin to "The sky is falling!" I've actually read the 17 page law. How many of those who are critical of it, haven't?

This law places a huge burden upon the state, and business owners, potential employers, criminals who engage in illicit transport, and governmental officials, and Law Enforcement. I still can remember when RICO was passed into law, listening to the same predictions of police abuse and 4A violations, with few occasions of those same predictions becoming true. There will always be those governmental employees which will violate the law in their attempt to enforce the same, but lets not condemn the law because of the few that will do so.

 

[groovatron]

Police officers have used exigent circumstances as a reason to exercise warrantless stops/searches/etc. for years. There have been a number of incidents, where such matters have been tossed, due to a lack of credibility.

So, are you saying we should just let situations of abuse go to court and they'll make it all better?

However, I believe that a clear majority of LEOs are honest in such a regard. The actions of a few corrupt individuals, shouldn't completely tie the hands of legitimate law enforcement.

I have a history of supporting LEO's on this board.......and legitamate law enforcement is exactly my goal...........Tie their hands? I'm not sure you completely understand my posts. Anytime a law is introduced that involves a fine, dull line of protocol, I will question it, regardless of it's subject matter. I said nothing about LEO's being dishonest.



The law is pretty well crafted, though any law could use improvements. However, if you're concerned about a LEO abusing this particular law, you probably should be even more so concerned about him or her enforcing others laws.

Let's get this straight.....I am concerned about LEO's, politicians, and anyone else for that matter, abusing ANY paticular law. This is just a drop in the legislative cesspool.


I've read those same arguments too: Its akin to "The sky is falling!" I've actually read the 17 page law. How many of those who are critical of it, haven't?

That acrticle simply showed how interpretation can change from one person to the next. This is the problem with a lack of specifics in laws. I have also read the text, and I fail to see the details through the fluff. It should be a simple as outlining the specifics........but that would just make too much sense and ease of accountability.

This law places a huge burden upon the state, and business owners, potential employers, criminals who engage in illicit transport, and governmental officials, and Law Enforcement. I still can remember when RICO was passed into law, listening to the same predictions of police abuse and 4A violations, with few occasions of those same predictions becoming true. There will always be those governmental employees which will violate the law in their attempt to enforce the same, but lets not condemn the law because of the few that will do so.

I have made no predictions. I have not condemned the law. I am, however, condeming those who bash the critics who have a few questions concerning the loose text. The OP is comparing this to showing your LTCH to a cop. Most people on this board would agree that just because you are OCing, doesn't give a LEO the right to "card" you for no reason. There in lies the hypocrisy. I suggest you go back and read my posts. I have no problem with legislation that allow officers to enforce the law and do their job. What I have a problem with is laws that allow individual LEO's to decide how they want to enforce it. Let's skip all the expensive, taxpayer funded court costs after the fact, and outline the details prior to enforcement. With all the mumbo jumbo in the full text of most written law, there surely must be room for actual specifics on enforcement.

 

[JBusch8899]

Police officers have used exigent circumstances as a reason to exercise warrantless stops/searches/etc. for years. There have been a number of incidents, where such matters have been tossed, due to a lack of credibility.

So, are you saying we should just let situations of abuse go to court and they'll make it all better?

Certainly not. It is the prerogative of those administrators within the executive branch to assure to the best of their ability, to monitor their own. The separation of powers also ensure that the judicial branch exercise their respective power in matters of justice, as well as the legislative branch to codify the necessary corrections to the law.

Is it perfect? No. Is it the system we have? Yes.
------------------------------
However, I believe that a clear majority of LEOs are honest in such a regard. The actions of a few corrupt individuals, shouldn't completely tie the hands of legitimate law enforcement.

I have a history of supporting LEO's on this board.......and legitamate law enforcement is exactly my goal...........Tie their hands? I'm not sure you completely understand my posts. Anytime a law is introduced that involves a fine, dull line of protocol, I will question it, regardless of it's subject matter. I said nothing about LEO's being dishonest.

What you did state: "Are you telling me that cops have never "smelled pot" or "heard a commotion" in order to use probable cause?" That certainly implies dishonesty to me, at least in the context that you utilized this sentence.
-------------------------------
The law is pretty well crafted, though any law could use improvements. However, if you're concerned about a LEO abusing this particular law, you probably should be even more so concerned about him or her enforcing others laws.

Let's get this straight.....I am concerned about LEO's, politicians, and anyone else for that matter, abusing ANY paticular law. This is just a drop in the legislative cesspool.

Then what and how would you propose to stopping abuse, as it's already illegal.
-------------------------------
I've read those same arguments too: Its akin to "The sky is falling!" I've actually read the 17 page law. How many of those who are critical of it, haven't?

That acrticle simply showed how interpretation can change from one person to the next. This is the problem with a lack of specifics in laws. I have also read the text, and I fail to see the details through the fluff. It should be a simple as outlining the specifics........but that would just make too much sense and ease of accountability.

What isn't specific? Its a fairly straight forward state law that not only criminalizes the illegal aliens themselves, but pretty much anyone whom facilitates their sustained residence within this country.

I can interpret that elephants have the capability of sustained flight, but it doesn't make it correct. However, the law is quite clear and plainly written in the English language, using common language. I fail to see the stated level of ambiguity of the law from the opinions rendered, for the aforementioned rationals presented.
---------------------------------------
This law places a huge burden upon the state, and business owners, potential employers, criminals who engage in illicit transport, and governmental officials, and Law Enforcement. I still can remember when RICO was passed into law, listening to the same predictions of police abuse and 4A violations, with few occasions of those same predictions becoming true. There will always be those governmental employees which will violate the law in their attempt to enforce the same, but lets not condemn the law because of the few that will do so.

I have made no predictions. I have not condemned the law. I am, however, condeming those who bash the critics who have a few questions concerning the loose text. The OP is comparing this to showing your LTCH to a cop. Most people on this board would agree that just because you are OCing, doesn't give a LEO the right to "card" you for no reason. There in lies the hypocrisy. I suggest you go back and read my posts. I have no problem with legislation that allow officers to enforce the law and do their job. What I have a problem with is laws that allow individual LEO's to decide how they want to enforce it. Let's skip all the expensive, taxpayer funded court costs after the fact, and outline the details prior to enforcement. With all the mumbo jumbo in the full text of most written law, there surely must be room for actual specifics on enforcement.

I will be the first in line to bash the critics of the people who question the law, if those individuals don't engage in meaningless speculation and unwarranted accusation. While you may not have made any predictions, many of the people engaged in their critical review of the the law, have.

Selective enforcement of the law is already illegal. Law enforcement should, and in my estimation, will be trained upon the enforcement of the new law by departmental command personnel that have been fully briefed by their respective legal counsel.

The state's procedural law already dictates the manner in which all existing law enforcement will be utilized. For the legislature to micromanage actual and lawful enforcement operations outside of the authority granted to the legislature, is a violation of the aforementioned separation of powers. Otherwise the executive branch of government, responsible for enforcement of the law, would be nothing more than a puppet of legislative process.

And by the way, no matter how well written a law that somebody doesn't like, there will always be expensive, tax funded court costs after the fact. The court's authority to review law, is courtesy of the SCOTUS opinion in Marbury v. Madison; an authority, for that matter, that wasn't bestowed unto the judiciary by the framers.

 

[groovatron]

What you did state: "Are you telling me that cops have never "smelled pot" or "heard a commotion" in order to use probable cause?" That certainly implies dishonesty to me, at least in the context that you utilized this sentence.

Yes, however it was intended as a proven possibility, and not a blanket stereotype.
-------------------------------
The law is pretty well crafted, though any law could use improvements. However, if you're concerned about a LEO abusing this particular law, you probably should be even more so concerned about him or her enforcing others laws.



Then what and how would you propose to stopping abuse, as it's already illegal.

Once again, I don't think the law should be repealed. I don't want you to get the impression that I'm for throwing it out. I would simply like to see more specifics in laws in general. As I am a natural skeptic, I will question most fresh acts of legislation.
-------------------------------
I've read those same arguments too: Its akin to "The sky is falling!" I've actually read the 17 page law. How many of those who are critical of it, haven't?



What isn't specific? Its a fairly straight forward state law that not only criminalizes the illegal aliens themselves, but pretty much anyone whom facilitates their sustained residence within this country.

I can interpret that elephants have the capability of sustained flight, but it doesn't make it correct. However, the law is quite clear and plainly written in the English language, using common language. I fail to see the stated level of ambiguity of the law from the opinions rendered, for the aforementioned rationals presented.

Hmmm....I suppose I disagree. Even though it is written in the English language, I believe that even that is open to individual interpretation. The words were as plain as black and white, only debate on principle would exist, and not "meaning."
---------------------------------------
This law places a huge burden upon the state, and business owners, potential employers, criminals who engage in illicit transport, and governmental officials, and Law Enforcement. I still can remember when RICO was passed into law, listening to the same predictions of police abuse and 4A violations, with few occasions of those same predictions becoming true. There will always be those governmental employees which will violate the law in their attempt to enforce the same, but lets not condemn the law because of the few that will do so.




I will be the first in line to bash the critics of the people who question the law, if those individuals don't engage in meaningless speculation and unwarranted accusation. While you may not have made any predictions, many of the people engaged in their critical review of the the law, have.

Selective enforcement of the law is already illegal. Law enforcement should, and in my estimation, will be trained upon the enforcement of the new law by departmental command personnel that have been fully briefed by their respective legal counsel.

The state's procedural law already dictates the manner in which all existing law enforcement will be utilized. For the legislature to micromanage actual and lawful enforcement operations outside of the authority granted to the legislature, is a violation of the aforementioned separation of powers. Otherwise the executive branch of government, responsible for enforcement of the law, would be nothing more than a puppet of legislative process.

And by the way, no matter how well written a law that somebody doesn't like, there will always be expensive, tax funded court costs after the fact. The court's authority to review law, is courtesy of the SCOTUS opinion in Marbury v. Madison; an authority, for that matter, that wasn't bestowed unto the judiciary by the framers.

Okay, I really don't have much of a beef with your opinion as a whole. You are obviously an educated man that does his homework. And for that, I have much respect. I don't think our opinions are really even that far off. I do enjoy the friendly debate.......it keeps the brain waves flowin'