Just try to take our guns - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

Just try to take our guns

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:00 am

There’s little need for a proposed bill that would penalize Idaho law enforcement for helping the federal government confiscate firearms, said a Kootenai County Sheriff's official today.

But the state legislation would probably set people's minds at ease, Lt. Stu Miller acknowledged.

"People, they're so nervous about anything to do with guns, it's not humorous," Miller said. "We have people calling us, asking us when the deputies are going to show up at their house and start taking their guns."

A bill introduced in the Legislature today states that if the federal government ever requires firearm registration, or confiscation of semi-automatic guns or magazines, any Idaho government employees who enforce such laws will be guilty of a misdemeanor.

The punishment could be up to a year in jail, and or up to a $1,000 fine.

The bill, which didn't have a number yet, had 22 co-sponsors, according to the AP.

"We think that the bill, if it passes, will give local law enforcement personnel a level of comfort that they need not follow orders from federal authorities in this area," said Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, who couldn't remember if he was a co-sponsor on the bill.

It's highly unlikely the bill's provisions would ever be necessary, Miller said.

The federal government, still discussing potential gun regulation, has openly sworn off pursuing any gun seizures or registry, he noted.

The 23 executive orders President Barack Obama issued on gun safety last month don't mention such steps.

"Out of all of those, none of them propose taking firearms from citizens," Miller said.

The legislation also seems to be redundant, he noted.

Local authorities can't enforce federal law already, Miller said.

"The Sheriff's Office is mandated to perform all duties as prescribed by state law, not federal law," said Miller, who emphasized he hadn't read the proposed bill yet. "Our authority and duties come from the Idaho legislature, not the president or Congress."

Rob Turner, detective lieutenant with the Coeur d'Alene Police, also said the bill isn't covering new ground.

"We don't enforce federal laws as it is," Turner said. "Right now, if we get a convicted felon or a sawed-off shotgun, we call a federal agent."

Barbieri said assuring the public is a large motivator for the proposed bill.

"I think the legislature is responding to constituent concerns. They're being very vocal," Barbieri said of people convinced their guns will be taken. "Each of us is getting plenty of input about making sure their rights are protected from intrusion on the federal level."

He noted that local law enforcement was federally required to confiscate people's firearms during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana.

"If we had it in place to pre-empt a situation like that, where local enforcement can point to a statute to say, 'We cannot become federal government agents,' I think it is a good pre-emptive move," Barbieri said.

The confiscation of guns after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was a different kind of situation, Miller said.

"There was a push because people were looting stores and shooting at the first responders," he said.

There's already protection against that happening again, Miller added. 

In 2006, Congress banned confiscating guns during emergencies and natural disasters, to avoid repeating the post-Katrina circumstances.

And yet, Miller acknowledged that several other states have pursued laws like the one proposed today.

"I guess it makes people happy," he said of the extra precaution. 

The county sheriff still supports residents' rights to bear arms, Miller added.

"They're in the wrong neck of the woods, if they try it," he said of gun confiscation here.

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

99 comments:

  • guy fawkes posted at 7:33 pm on Mon, Mar 25, 2013.

    guy fawkes Posts: 18

    Wow. If I hear one more time "people will not enforce martial law" here I'm going to puke. Who honestly believes that Its that cut and dry. If you work for the police or the military and it's a choice of a pay check and not feeding your family, you WILL take the shot. Ya, it stinks and its a harsh reality, but it's still a reality. Bottom line is, It doesn't take but a few with guns to hold thousand's at bay as long as they're serfs. Real patriots will fire a shot through their front door without even having to plan it out in their head in advance. That's the difference between people that anticipate martial law and those who deny it will ever happen. Understand this, The President "Will Not" come on t.v. tomorrow announcing martial law. Who in the military or law enforcement would up hold martial law on the order of the president? Now, what if the president came on t.v. showing video of a bunch of American people planning and blowing up thousands of innocent people at a church or killing hundreds of kids at a school? That would be a different story now wouldn't it? Listen, we know that the government are liars and you shouldn't trust a single word they preach, but when it comes down to another staged 911 or an IRS bombing by another patsy Tim McVey, you bet your sweet buns people will be shaking in their boots when a few cops come marching down their streets shouting on a bullhorn to stay in their homes. Its the real Americans that will be sitting on their lawns with their flac jackets and Steel Core loaded magpuls stuffed in their 308 or 223's. Everyone else will be blowing their local LID or SID chairperson. Remember this sheep, those who deny, are only leading you to where they don't want to end up. Remember Red Dawn 1984? The mayor and his son sold their own people out to save their own hide. Who would you rather be, Swayze banging Jennifer Gray, or getting 1 in the head then dropped in a ditch? Simple as that. You decide, because it's coming with, or without your approval. FACT!

     
  • Rationale posted at 4:36 pm on Fri, Mar 8, 2013.

    Rationale Posts: 1974

    Pursuit of happiness is not a right...it's in the Declaration.

    Soooo, getting high is what RadRev preaches from the pulpit! No wonder you have no congregation to lead.

     
  • boohoo2U posted at 4:32 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    boohoo2U Posts: 406

    NO - standard operating procedure under the auspices of Obama's North American Union.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsLjNUdEWc4

     
  • boohoo2U posted at 3:31 pm on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    boohoo2U Posts: 406

    @ Marty below: use of marijuana preserved in the bill of Rights and practiced by many of the original signers; i.e., 'pursuit of happiness'. Right to Bear Arms is a close 2ND to freedom to speak your onions about reefer. Marijuana is a seed bearing plant suitable for many uses including relief from chronic pain. It was outlawed under pressure from Big Pharma and the Timber industry to ensure their monopoly on prescription drugs and paper.

    Forget martial law - it will never happen. Even if the military were deployed on home soil, there's that loyalty factor. Even nobility abandoned King Louis.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 7:47 am on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    I think that Martial Law is only practical when you have enough people to enforce it. It's one thing to have the entire US Army in Iraq, and even then have a hard time controlling it, versus the US, with 330 million people. Local law enforcement could never hold down martial law, it woudl take Feds, and IMO I don't think there's anywhere near enough of them.

    My thought is, simply, protect your family & those close to you.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 7:19 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "But you will....."

    If any of the stuff happens that you worry about, I'm converting to Mormon. Got a relative who came across with the second wagon train. They got to take me in.

    Or, I could buy an ice cream truck and spend my days driving past Prepper Bomb Shelters. When the Preppers come out to buy an Ice Cream Sandwich, I'll sneak in and steal their frozen burritos. I think that's better plan than turning Mormon.

    Working on another plan to trade bath salts with the Zombies for Prepper supplies which I will sell back to the Preppers who are afraid to go to Costco.

    What you may call an Apocalypse, I call opportunity.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 6:52 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Hey Floorist, you said that what I said was a great sentiment, thank you, and I meant it. There are plenty who will need help, and my family & I will do what we can. We are planning for it.

    Now, for the REST of you nitwits, the majority of the Preppers" out there have more HEART than any of you will ever have. The premise of Prepping itself isn't about individuality, it's about protecting your family and those close to you, something that I personally think is a noble and human thing to do.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 6:48 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Excellent story, Floorist.
    That's the way it sould be. Love them Texans.

    Now, GM, let's get it right:
    When it all comes down, the "Pistol Packin' Preppers" won't BE at Costco.
    But you will.....& have fun!

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 5:37 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "I fully believe that Costco will be one of the most dangerous places you can be"

    I see Pistol Packin' Preppers killing each other over 48pc family size boxes of Corndogs... oh the humanity!

     
  • The Simple Truth posted at 4:57 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    The Simple Truth Posts: 563

    And more proud NRA stories!

    http://m.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/db_36543/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=PFn3Rg1v

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 1:50 pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    1inidaho, you're just another one who is terrified of change.
    Embrace it, you'll feel more secure, and reality will become more "normal" to you.
    As to "absence", I never asked to hang out with you, nor would I, so go "be happy".

     
  • searcher posted at 11:48 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    searcher Posts: 365

    Why on earth would a state make a law declaring other laws unconstitutional? That makes no sense. We have a judicial branch of government precisely for the purpose of determining what is or is not within the boundaries set by the constitution. You can't just ignore something because you don't like it.

     
  • searcher posted at 11:43 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    searcher Posts: 365

    Hmmm. Sounds like preventing anyone adjudicated to be mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others is presently having their constitutional rights violated. I'm pretty sure that they are presently prevented from possessing firearms - especially if they are institutionalized.

     
  • Screen Name posted at 11:26 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    Screen Name Posts: 803

    Well Joe, it was YOUR party that signed BOTH laws enabling the subsidies. So, why would you post that ethanol is a bad idea brought about by liberals? Because you don't known what you are talking about. Last time I checked, George Bush was not a liberal. When it is brought to our attention that you are wrong, you make some feeble attempt to cover it up and try to deflect the fact that you were wrong.

    I did not say I believe the ethanol subsidy is a good thing and I did not say that I support it. I don't, on both counts. What I did point out is that you make statements that are factually inaccurate. Your factually incorrect statements and derogatory labeling of other people and groups undermines your credibility.

    By the way, your party is split on the issue of the subsidy: This year, GOP candidates Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum came out against ethanol subsidies. GOP front-runner Mitt Romney supported them.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 10:59 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Works for me my friend...

     
  • 1inIdaho posted at 10:55 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    1inIdaho Posts: 252

    Joe;
    please finish prepping, and go away.
    For my part, I will live free of paranoia, and much happier in the absence of the likes of you.

     
  • Rationale posted at 10:39 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    Rationale Posts: 1974

    Joe,

    I only used China as an example...after all, they are an easy analogy right now.

     
  • Rationale posted at 10:38 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    Rationale Posts: 1974

    floorist,

    Conjecture? So none of those things has happened in the past 75 years? Perhaps you should look at history...which repeats itself.

    I don't believe in doomsday...I believe in the stupidity of mankind. They refuse to see what is right in front of them.

    I don't ignore everything and hope nothing bad happens. When a storm is on the horizon, I prepare for it. It's called common sense.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 9:28 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    I think Rationale is right on the money.
    Floorist, I feel for you & sympathize with you. If you were near me, as a result of your situation, I'd protect you & your family, as well, in a bad situation, let's just say.

    me; I'm not so concerned about the Chinese, I think they have their own set of (giant) problems, but I do thinik all of overestimate the government's ability to feed & protect us in an event that is bad. SImply put, hurricanes alone are more than license for people to do REALLY bad things ot each other, and that's when they KNOW that civility is going to return.
    Turn it around, make the unrest about lack of food or water; or a very quickly diminishing dollar, (hyperinflation) and I fully believe that Costco will be one of the most dangerous places you can be.
    Reality is that if you aren't "Prepped" when the shortages start, you're too late, and you better HOPE your neighbor (Preppers) that you thought were crazy, aren't.

     
  • Rationale posted at 8:15 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    Rationale Posts: 1974

    3 simple hypothetical questions for all the anti-gun ilk:

    Scenario 1: If the government actually succeeded in taking away guns and took your freedoms (like Hitler), what brilliant idea would you have to defend yourself? The answer is easy: nothing. You would lie down in the fetal position, sucking your thumbs, and whine about your predicament. And your servitude would be completely your fault.

    Scenario 2: If the country ever came under attack by...let's say China...on our soil by their billion man army, how would you protect our country? Oh, wait, you wouldn't. You'd crawl into the fetal position, suck your thumb, and whine about your predicament.

    Scenario 3: A shortage of meat in the grocery stores because of economic collapse. How would you eat? And don't claim you would suddenly become vegetarians, because you won't. When the grocery stores become battle zones for food, then what? Don't you dare go to a neighbor and ask to go hunting with them!

    While these situations are, indeed, hypothetical, they are historically true. Countries have invaded other countries and taken them over. How soon you conveniently forget the actions of Hitler. Countries have had shortages of food and people starve because of it!

    Once again, if you will not put a sign in your yard that states you do not own a gun, you are being hypocritical. The reason you won't put that sign in your yard is that you don't want criminals to know! You also know by placing a sign in your yard the likelihood you'll get robbed is close to 100%

    Either put the sign in your yard, or shut up about guns.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 8:04 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    "screen name" says:
    "OK Joe, let's try this one: Ethanol is a bad thing for the US brought about by liberal, communist, liars who have an agenda. Right"?
    No
    Ethanol is a largely SUBSIDIZED product whose primary producers are HUGE conglomerate corn producers in the midwest. The left works HARD to keep this debacle subsidized, KNWOING that it's less expensive to just pay for fossil fuel.

    Yes, George Bush AND the dims were behind this, but it doesn't make it GOOD. See, I disgaree with plenty the repubs did, and do, but the fact of the matter is that when it comes to "subsidies" democrats are the kings of the giveaways.

    "Really, Joe, any semblance of credibility you have is lost when you make statements"
    Ethanol is a JOKE. It eats the rubber out of most anything yuo put it in, it's water based, it costs more to produce than gasoline, and has a storage life that is EXTREMELY short.
    Bad product, and your party stands tightly behind it.
    Republicans aren't much better.

    And jmow, none of the evil dictatorships in history ever had any plans to confiscate the weapons.
    "Livin in a dream"....

     
  • Insider posted at 7:21 am on Wed, Feb 27, 2013.

    Insider Posts: 360

    Well worth a watch, for both sides of the argument. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T-F_zfoDqI

     
  • local res posted at 11:57 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    local res Posts: 1164

    jmowreader one question for you. Why are the dems consistently trying to control the guns of american citizens?

     
  • local res posted at 11:54 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    local res Posts: 1164

    Fact one the infringing on gun rights is and has always been a consistent them of the democratic party.

    Fact two, if our local sheriff had taken a more positive stance, then laws like this would not be necessary. Unfortunately, his little piece in the paper left him looking weak on this issue. If he had came across like Sheriff Tim Muller of Linn county Oregon this law would have not been unnecessary. Check out the story.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/us/oregon-sheriff-gun-laws/index.html

     
  • local res posted at 11:46 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    local res Posts: 1164

    Liberalism is a mental disorder!

     
  • BoxcarBill posted at 8:40 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    BoxcarBill Posts: 1074

    Haha, what a joke!
    All's we need is for Morris Dees to show up here and local law enforcement would all start jumping while asking if it was high enough.

     
  • jmowreader posted at 6:57 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    jmowreader Posts: 1248

    Heck of a choice here: if Obama's Evil All-Black Army orders Idaho law enforcement officers to confiscate every gun in the state, they can either go to jail on a state-level misdemeanor charge for confiscating guns, or on a federal felony beef for disobeying a federal officer.

    And in case you're wondering, there are NO plans to confiscate guns. It would be logistically impossible, morally impossible (because the evening news would be full of footage of dead gun owners - come on, Obama's Evil All-Black Army isn't going to show up armed with pistols and politely ask for your guns, they're going to back a Bradley fighting vehicle up to your door and tell you to deposit all your guns in it, right now, or else) and it doesn't need to be done because most gun owners are law-abiding. This is being pushed by talk-radio hosts..."coming up, 30 minutes of ranting on how Obama is going to take away everyone's guns right after this word from our sponsors Smith and Wesson, Ruger, Federal Ammunition, Dan Wesson, Colt, Glock, Beretta, Bushmaster, Weatherby, Remington and Winchester."

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 5:53 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "Some perverts sound reasonable, and some do not"

    Almond Joy has nuts, Mounds don't.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 5:49 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Just try to take our guns

    One time I stepped over the line drawn in the sand, nothing happened. Except that I stopped voting Republican.

     
  • CaiusCosades posted at 5:43 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    CaiusCosades Posts: 380

    JW writes "Washington State, Missouri, New York and Colorado all have tried to slide laws through with Confiscation hidden in them. It is not "paranoia and idiocy" when there is proof of the attempt."

    Typical republicans! All hear say or rumors or banter, NO HARD EVIDENCE. SHOW US THE HARD EVIDENCE, DON'T JUST TALK. SHOW SOME HARD EVIDENCE THAT THE GOVT IS TRYING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS.

     
  • babydriver posted at 5:11 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    babydriver Posts: 1393

    He is a pervert, what do you expect?

    Some perverts sound reasonable, and some do not. But the perversion starts in the brain.

     
  • Marty posted at 5:09 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    Marty Posts: 8

    I agree with this Jeffrey, these laws in effect and proposed by the Federal Government are unconstitutional as stated by the State of Alaska.

     
  • babydriver posted at 5:06 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    babydriver Posts: 1393

    There are six or seven here with major mental defects. Easy to spot.

     
  • Marty posted at 5:03 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    Marty Posts: 8

    I stand corrected either way it has a ring of truth that can not be denied.

     
  • babydriver posted at 5:02 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    babydriver Posts: 1393

    So you are saying Thos. Jefferson disagreed?

     
  • babydriver posted at 4:59 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    babydriver Posts: 1393

    Pray tell what oath violation you speak of.

     
  • babydriver posted at 4:57 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    babydriver Posts: 1393

    Mister, you sound like you believe what the government tells you.

    If that is true, so sad.

    In the grand scheme of things, nothing is coincidental. Everything is done on purpose.

     
  • ancientemplar posted at 4:57 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    ancientemplar Posts: 1187

    most likely there will be blood on my front porch and more than likely more than one blood type.

     
  • babydriver posted at 4:52 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    babydriver Posts: 1393

    Ok, But what about the TSA?

    Anyone recall the 4th amendment?

    Our good Senator Risch thinks they do a fine job, never addressing my concerns about the violation of Rights. Crapo never responded at all.

    If I had the cash I might run for Senator myself.

     
  • babydriver posted at 4:48 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    babydriver Posts: 1393

    Right, not in the Constitution, it is in the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 4:32 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    simple simon is kinda amazing, really.
    Hint:
    I wasn't talking to him/her whatever. At all.
    But hey; if you need to get yelled at; go talk to anyone with common sense. ;-)

     
  • Screen Name posted at 4:28 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    Screen Name Posts: 803

    OK Joe, let's try this one: Ethanol is a bad thing for the US brought about by liberal, communist, liars who have an agenda. Right?

    The steep growth in twenty-first century ethanol consumption was driven by federal legislation aimed to reduce oil consumption and enhance energy security. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required use of 7.5×109 US gal (28×106 m3) of renewable fuel by 2012, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 raised the standard, to 36×109 US gal (140×106 m3) of annual renewable fuel use by 2022.

    The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub.L. 109–58) is a bill passed by the United States Congress on July 29, 2005, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005. The act, described by proponents as an attempt to combat growing energy problems, changed US energy policy by providing tax incentives and loan guarantees for energy production of various types, including ethanol

    The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub.L. 110-140 originally named the Clean Energy Act of 2007) is an Act of Congress concerning the energy policy of the United States. President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law on December 19, 2007, in response to his "Twenty in Ten" challenge to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years.

    I guess that makes former President Bush a liberal communist liar, eh?.

    Really, Joe, any semblance of credibility you have is lost when you make statements

     
  • NoName posted at 4:17 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    NoName Posts: 253

    The Simple Truth says: ""I really think you need to go off on me now in a radical rant. Please do so - it will just go to show your mental stability. So, please, lay into me and make it harsh.""

    ""SO, PLEASE, LAY INTO ME AND MAKE IT HARSH""

    Talk about mental stability!!!! lolololol..... oh, that was good... I needed that laugh! TST, I will check back in a few hours to see what other pearls of wisdom you bestow upon us!

     
  • The Simple Truth posted at 4:07 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    The Simple Truth Posts: 563

    I really think you need to go off on me now in a radical rant. Please do so - it will just go to show your mental stability. So, please, lay into me and make it harsh.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 3:40 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Washington State had as part of theiir new gun control laws a provision giving the police a RIGHT to search & "inspect" the homes of any gunowners once a year.
    Sure, what's to worry about?
    You liberals are liars.

    Fromnidaho wrote:
    "I don't think liberals are communists, socialists or crazy, I believe their heart is in the right place. I also believe that they let their heart over ride their common sense from time to time"

    I AGREE that "their heart is in the right place".
    UNfortunately; they aren't "all heart". Their lack of common sense is CONSISTENTLY doing bad things to this country; ethanol, blowbamacare, "global warming" carbon taxes, and they CHEER when the rest of us have to pay $5.00 a gallon for gas, because it suits their AGENDA.

    So "from", you keep being undertanding & compassionate towards the commies, they'll appreciate it, and take you STRAIGHT to the cleaners as a result.

     
  • Paintedmoose posted at 3:06 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    Paintedmoose Posts: 17

    A couple of things. Someone mentioned secession. Cannot happen. Idaho Constitution ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3. STATE INSEPARABLE PART OF UNION. The state of Idaho
    is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United
    States is the supreme law of the land.
    Also, SECTION 11. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. The people have the
    right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision
    shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed
    on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for
    crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of
    legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon,
    nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law
    shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or
    possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of
    firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.
    No secession, no confiscation. The sheriff officers have sworn to uphold both the State and U.S. Constitutions. Anything less is treason.

     
  • Jill Heine posted at 2:54 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    Jill Heine Posts: 408

    great concept, just bury the refuse and nourish the earth. Liberals have wanted to get rid of excess polluters for decades. time for them to volunteer or shut up.

     
  • CaiusCosades posted at 2:34 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    CaiusCosades Posts: 380

    The bottom line is that fear that the federal government is going to try to take your guns is paranoia and idiocy they will never try, they aren't talking about it, this is just another excuse for extremist republicans to be up in arms about a non issue that isn't happening, other than in their own minds as they watch Faux News on the TV they've installed in their bomb shelters.

     
  • FromNIdaho posted at 2:08 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    FromNIdaho Posts: 48

    I have a lot of guns because I like hunting, shooting...and guns. I am not mentally defective (maybe on occasion according to my wife when it comes to household chores.) nor am I paranoid about government conspiracy's, Obama being born in Kenya, zombie's, or government officials coming to break down my door to take my guns.

    I do carry a concealed weapon, but equate that to having car insurance. I have never been in an accident, but still have the insurance. I think everyone should have the right to own a firearm, but also think that if you are going to own one, you should make it a priority to get training and understand your firearm and it's power. I realize not everyone will do that.

    I don't think liberals are communists, socialists or crazy, I believe their heart is in the right place. I also believe that they let their heart over ride their common sense from time to time.

    I also believe The Simple Truth is just nuts!

     
  • skunkworks posted at 2:04 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    skunkworks Posts: 252

    One would 'Just" not comply !!!!....Let the Fed's get a Search Warrant...And trying to "Track" down Private Sales,Stolen and Lost Firearms Will be to costly....

    There's always a way around the "Feds"....Its called the "Common Sense Clause"....

     
  • Flash Gordon posted at 1:46 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    Flash Gordon Posts: 1296

    ANY state legislation is a complete waste of time for obvious reasons.....

     
  • The Simple Truth posted at 1:17 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    The Simple Truth Posts: 563

    So, you're saying that you prefer violence to peace? I'm sure the kids in Newtown would agree with you.

     
  • The Simple Truth posted at 1:17 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    The Simple Truth Posts: 563

    This is local to Texas. Better, Joe? Another proud NRA member....
    http://www.crosstimbersgazette.com/index.php/local-news/3123-argyle-police-blotter

     
  • Screen Name posted at 12:46 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    Screen Name Posts: 803

    Wrong. You are citing an Italian who did not believe in the death penalty:

    The following quotation is sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson:

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."

    This is not something Jefferson wrote, but rather comes from a passage he included in his "Legal Commonplace Book." The passage is from Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishments. It appears in Jefferson's commonplace book as follows:

    "A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, 'Be thou a slave;' who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

    The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons."

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 12:40 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Just LOOK at the posts; all of them are the same nationwide.
    The left (communists) want CONTROL of what the right does, in EVERY instance.
    It's history repeating itself; when the Russians voted in the Commies, they had no IDEA thatthey'd all be in line to get taken away in the night, they applauded the "organization" that communists gave (supposedly) to the country.
    No different today; the left wants & will do ANYTHING to give government more control, more power, all of it, right up until it affects them locally. Then, it's a bad thing, and more importantly, it's too late.

     
  • idahoguy posted at 12:02 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    idahoguy Posts: 932

    I would like to see those who support additional gun control be the ones forced to walk up to suspected gun owners homes and knock on the door. Hi, I am here to take away your gun now. I see that as a very good means to reduce the current population and return the nation to it's foundational roots.

    It is easy to say take away the guns when you do not need to be part of the implementation of it... cowards.

     
  • The Simple Truth posted at 11:58 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    The Simple Truth Posts: 563

    So, you're willing to violate the oath you took to the Constitution then?

     
  • Screen Name posted at 11:44 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    Screen Name Posts: 803

    I agree, up to a point. The point at which we as a State receive more money from the Feds than we as a State pay to the Feds. Anything else is just a socialist redistribution of wealth. How do you think the tax payers of New York State feel paying more to the Feds than the Fed pays back to them when Idaho receives more from the Feds than Idaho pays. Idaho is a Federal welfare state with a State Legislature that does not have the cojones to take a real stand on an issue. Again, if you don't like the Federal mandate, don't take the Federal money. Anything else is pure hypocrisy. Which of our Legislators will be the first to sponsor a Bill rejecting all Federal money? (crickets chirping)

     
  • Marty posted at 11:43 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    Marty Posts: 8

    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” - Thomas Jefferson

     
  • Marty posted at 11:39 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    Marty Posts: 8

    If you really feel those of us in this fine State that are of a different opinion than you look like fools because we live here with our differences then maybe you live in the wrong State, there are States that are more of your opinion, Illinois or Washington DC comes to mind.
    Did you miss the part of the article where local law enforcement was federally required to confiscate people's firearms during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. This caused events where citizens who's arms were confiscated were looted buy criminals who had them. This is not paranoia it is documented fact that apparently has been rectified so it won’t happen again, although I haven’t heard how.

    Additionally article VI the (Supremacy clause) provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This in fact means that 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.” must be upheld. I don’t see the problem here.

    Further I see no need for us not to be civil in this forum, name calling and innuendo do nothing to further either cause.

     
  • heatherfeather posted at 11:08 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    heatherfeather Posts: 297

    Screen Name: As long as Idaho citizens continue to pay the Federal Government taxes, they are entitled to handouts of that money.

    My dream is a new nation comprised of the "flyovers", Inter-mountain West, and of course, Texas. The liberals could have the Left Coast and the Empire Back East. They could do whatever they wanted there.

     
  • Marty posted at 10:47 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    Marty Posts: 8

    I agree with Bob, I think Washington State, Colorado, California, and Oregon have all set a president here with there Marijuana laws, Maybe the supreme court should rule on this issue. Additionally there is no provision in the Constitution that provides for the use of Marijuana, like the second amendment does in the case of arms control “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.” Article VI the (Supremacy clause) provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This in fact means that the second amendment must be upheld. I don’t see the problem here. Further I see no need for us not to be civil in this forum, name calling and innuendo do nothing to further either cause.

     
  • flattopramen posted at 10:39 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    Well this bill has already failed somehow.... as shown below, folks are not satisfied.

    Even with our coalition of FFA states, people believe Obama's coming for their guns.

    Secession is the only statement worth making at this point.

    Is sectionalism not a patriotic value any more? Are you an American or an Idahoan?

     
  • The Simple Truth posted at 10:34 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    The Simple Truth Posts: 563

    'paranoia will destroy ya'

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 10:15 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "We think that the bill, if it passes, will give local law enforcement personnel a level of comfort that they need not follow orders from federal authorities in this area"

    Imaginary tyranny makes people do strange things.

     
  • The Simple Truth posted at 10:10 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    The Simple Truth Posts: 563

    Another great NRA rep:

    http://www.newser.com/story/163454/military-ammo-burns-down-texas-gun-range.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=slate&utm_campaign=greatfinds_rss

     
  • Insider posted at 10:09 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    Insider Posts: 360

    I disagree, this bill is a simple statement of solidarity with like minded states. Further legislation limiting our rights is not acceptable, we are simply making ourselves heard. I have spoken and corresponded with our state representatives over the last few months regarding this issue and have provided them with ample information to assist in writing this bill. You can stereotype us gun owners however you want, but it is you, the person classifying your own neighbors that ends up looking childish and immature. We are the ones taking action and doing something to stop this push. You, on the other hand, sound cool to yourself by calling us names on the interwebs. Brilliant.

     
  • Marty posted at 9:41 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    Marty Posts: 8

    They proved that on Ruby Ridge, and Wacco. That don't make them right.

     
  • drivy19a posted at 9:40 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    drivy19a Posts: 162

    Speak ONLY for yourself! As for me, Christ coming down off the Blessed cross wouldn't move me to "politely" do ANYTHING, supremacy clause OR not, that means voluntarily surrendering ANY weapons that I may have....

    Vietnam Combat Veteran 7/66-11/71

     
  • nidforest posted at 9:33 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    nidforest Posts: 17

    the rep needs to do some meaningful work other than pandering to the crazies that see conspiracy everywhere. this is whats wrong with our govt. our officials concentrate on issues that are not there while the real issues get worse

     
  • flattopramen posted at 9:31 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    I said it because it's true... not because I believe it too. American's believe a lot of stuff tho:

    "Sixty-three percent of registered voters in the U.S. buy into at least one political conspiracy theory, according to results from a recent Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMindPoll" Jan 2013

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/120815791/Fairleigh-Dickinson-poll-on-conspiracy-theories

    The fact that polls still show that about 25% of America believes there was a cover-up on 9/11.

    I said many not most... 1 in 4... many

    Now where are your facts hater? Forget Beck and Moore! Alex Jones has millions of supporters that believe every twisted word that he spews.

    I estimate (low) 25 million Americans truly believe that Obama is a communist dictator, bent on destroying the constitution.


     
  • CaiusCosades posted at 9:24 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    CaiusCosades Posts: 380

    A lot of you will talk a big game anonymously on the internet, however if the federal government decides they want to take your guns away, and they exercise the supremacy clause of the constitution, I guarantee all of you will politely hand over your weapons.

     
  • 1inIdaho posted at 8:57 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    1inIdaho Posts: 252

    No. "Many libs and repubs..." DON'T believe there is a shadow government.
    YOU saying so, does not make it so.
    The sheriff's efforts and comments do the exact OPPOSITE of calming the paranoia. They FEED it. Absent anyone of authority giving credence to such nonsense; the tinfoil hat crowd would have to rely on idiots like Glen Beck and Michael Moore to bang the gong.

     
  • flattopramen posted at 8:57 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    "which is what the rest of us HAVE been saying"

    A bleating minority of aging white anarchists are the "the rest of us". we're screwed.

    the fear that the feds are going to take our guns is not a new one.

    so where's the proof that this time it's going to happen?

     
  • flattopramen posted at 8:48 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    hah! man people were freaked out about y2k... who knew the Bush admin would be far more destructive.

     
  • flattopramen posted at 8:46 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    The NOPD went rogue... starting shooting people and taking guns. We'll never know the full extent of their crimes against the public that day.

     
  • flattopramen posted at 8:43 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    There is no battle for firearms... unless you mean the lobbyists and politicians scrambling for your votes and money. Many people see this issue as "us vs them" ... it's really just us vs us.

     
  • flattopramen posted at 8:40 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    Keep in mind the "gun nuts" and the "hippies" don't know they are being manipulated... give them a break!

     
  • 1inIdaho posted at 8:33 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    1inIdaho Posts: 252

    This bill is just another example of power-grubbing. office-seeking, d bags, pandering for votes from ignorant back-woods constituents.
    They fan the flames of baseless paranoia, just to get people agitated over nothing... while making themselves and Idaho in-general, look even more foolish in the eyes of the nation (nay, the World).

    For one thing; there has been no proposal from any Federal representative, agency, or body, pertaining to the confiscation of guns.
    Second; If there WERE such a proposal, and orders were ever issued, to confiscate guns... They would come through a chain of command. Not straight from the President's desk, to the walkie talkies of Kootenai Sheriffs. The Sheriffs MAY only take orders from the State Legislature... but if the States are compelled by the Federal Government (look-up "Supremacy Clause), then you can bet that the STATE will be ordering the Sheriffs to carry out the seizures.

    I can't believe that I live in a county where, according to the Sheriff, people routinely call him and ask when Deputies are coming to take away guns. While I expect that is either an exaggeration (or just a "story"), it still speaks to the ignorant paranoia of our area.
    What's worse, is that elected officials... 22 of them in the state... are perpetuating such ridiculous fears and attitudes.
    Mr. Barbieri is apparently either a forgetful fool, a complete idiot, or a duplicitous conniving politician (or all three). It seems that, while this subject and the State Bill are "very important" for easing the minds of constituents and State Law enforcement Employees... Mr. Barbieri "can't remember" whether he co-sponsored the bill or not.
    How convenient is THAT?
    To all the tinfoil hats in his district... he gets to be mentioned in a story which speaks directly to their (unfounded) fears.
    Yet, at the same time; he distances himself from the bill by not claiming sponsorship... So he can always backpedal when he's speaking to SANE people.

    Every State representative, and every elected Sheriff - in ANY State - which has proposed or enacted such bills, is guilty of pandering to ignorance, and fear-mongering.

    Get this, Gun Nuts: NOBODY wants your guns... unless you are a convicted felon, have a history of violence against other people, have issued threats against the lives of other people, and/or have a mental illness which makes you a threat to the public.

     
  • flattopramen posted at 8:17 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    Idaho lawmakers have been feigning outrage over Obama to keep their voters happy. They hold allegiance to no one... but money.

     
  • flattopramen posted at 8:15 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    Firearms can be extremely comforting to people who live on the edge of reality.

     
  • flattopramen posted at 8:13 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    ?

    The gun laws in Chi are not the reason black kids shoot at each other. Money power drugs... gun laws have nothing to do with the crime rate over there.

     
  • flattopramen posted at 8:11 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    All good points!

    The Feds have intentionally polarized the issues and the voters. That's how they stay in office.

    The truth is many libs and repubs believe there a shadow government bent on taken all our weapons and locking us up in FEMA camps eg JoeIdaho... Glad to see the sheriffs making an effort to calm the paranoia.

     
  • drivy19a posted at 8:10 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    drivy19a Posts: 162

    You're wasting your time dealing with some of those here whose collective I.Q. is lower that the octane rating for the cheapest gas you can buy locally and their comments so flippant, and in most cases so "leftist"/MARXIST associated that they don't merit recognition NOR response.....

    Vietnam Combat Veteran 7/66-11/71

     
  • Insider posted at 8:03 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    Insider Posts: 360

    NoName, TST is just an instigator and troll, take a look at some of their other posts in most any thread. No substance, no logical debate, just virulent, obsessive drivel.

    I am happy to see Idaho finally stand with the other states to pass this legislation. It may be symbolic in efficacy but necessary to send the message. As the Dem group votes today on the initial steps of a new gun ban, knowing there is no way it gets through the House, today marks a strong day to continue to stand and fight any future bans or infringements.

    Statistically, the grabbers have no dog in the fight, trying to reinact a ban that failed already. Then come the scary words like "weapon of war" "high powered rifle" "meant to kill as many people as possible". Problem is, the grabbers have already lost the battle, they are looking for any sort of compromise so they can tell their voters "see, I did something". Not going to happen, not at all.

     
  • bob-athol posted at 7:58 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    bob-athol Posts: 190

    I'd like to point out an interesting contrast in the comments below .... no one would disagree that we are a divided country, its liberal vs conservative thought, the numbers are about down the middle.

    However on this particular issue, the liberal folks are maligning the conservatives for bucking federal control over guns.

    But we heard no such complaint when Colorado and Washington state bucked federal laws regarding having and smoking marijuana. Indeed those (mostly liberal) side supporting such freedom told the fed's to "stuff it", these states are going to do what they want, despite the fact that federal law prohibits such activity. If its ok to tell the feds to stuff it then, it should be ok now ...

    It is an interesting parody ... as a nation, we spend far to much maligning each other rather than thinking about the rational basis for our opinions.

    I know for sure we have a lot of liberals who are gun owners, in fact every democrat blue dog state is such. Gun rights are not only a constitutional right, but embraced by both parties. However, I know conservatives who would embrace the decriminalization of some drugs. Both sides want tougher laws when either is abused.

    I'm not saying lets all hug, ..... I am saying there is room to reason out and solve most of our problems, but if our federal representatives are our example of how we reason together, we are indeed headed for real trouble as a nation.

    PS ... "Like Clinton, I never exhaled ....... I held it in trying to spare everyone around me from the harmful effects and ..... I might own a gun or two"

     
  • Truthful posted at 7:35 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    Truthful Posts: 133

    Justin - you are absolutely correct. The public is VERY concerned about this new Sheriff and staff supporting the Constitution. How much Federal money has the Sheriff's department received?

    Stu Miller has it wrong on New Orleans. They went door-to-door confiscating guns from innocent citizens. There is an interesting case of Patricia Konie a 61 year old woman who was "police handled" to remove her gun from her fingers! She wasn't a looter yet they tackled her to remove her gun and they broke her collarbone!!!! Lt. Stu Miller needs to get his facts right before he makes incorrect statements. Again, ignorance of the facts leaves many questions about that department protecting us.

    Bravo for the legislators addressing this issue.

     
  • boohoo2U posted at 7:22 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    boohoo2U Posts: 406

    Ruby Ridge MO?

     
  • NoName posted at 7:10 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    NoName Posts: 253

    TST... again talking smack on the local culture. You should move to Chicago, I hear their gun laws are working out great!

     
  • The Simple Truth posted at 6:51 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    The Simple Truth Posts: 563

    There should be a study done on the correlation between gun ownership and mental disorders, in particular severe paranoia. I bet that more guns directly correlates with more paranoia.

     
  • Screen Name posted at 6:42 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    Screen Name Posts: 803

    This article should have been entitled: Just Try and Give Us Money".

    I have to chuckle when I read about our State Legislators spending their time (read: my time) on issues like this. If the State Legislature had any real intention to block Federal action, why not start with the money? The simple truth is that if the State Legislature does not want the Federal government to tell Idaho what to do, Idaho should reject any and all Federal money. But they don't, they gladly suck it up. By proposing Bills like the one described in the article, the State Legislature is acting like a spoiled child. A child that willingly takes a monetary allowance from a parent but refuses to abide by the parent's rules. Who can respect such a child (read: State Legislature)?

     
  • DCIDAHO posted at 6:37 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    DCIDAHO Posts: 2339

    Ooh, ooh... you forgot... (deep voice)... "End Of Story"

     
  • drivy19a posted at 6:18 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    drivy19a Posts: 162

    Only one thing to say:

    Molon Labe!!!

    Vietnam Combat Veteran 7/66-11/71

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 5:56 am on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    I agree with Justin, they are enforcing, just indirectly.
    Pretty soon, you libs will reap what you sow; you will have thought "it's good to get the semi autos & "assault rifles" out of the hands of the public", and the next thing you know, they'll come for YOUR single shot shotgun, and you'll say:
    "Now they're going too far" (which is what the rest of us HAVE been saying).
    Of course, by then it'll be far too late.

     
  • boohoo2U posted at 10:16 pm on Mon, Feb 25, 2013.

    boohoo2U Posts: 406

    if you were in law enforcement, would you work for free? put your life on the line for free? leave your family defenseless to take guns from silly billies for free? I see something akin to what is happening in Mexico: soldiers and police breaking ranks and joining the resistance. No sense getting shot up over a trivial supremacy clause.

     
  • skunkworks posted at 8:32 pm on Mon, Feb 25, 2013.

    skunkworks Posts: 252

    One would 'Just" not comply !!!!....Let them get a Search Warrant...And trying to "Track" down Private Sales,Stolen and Lost Firearms Statewide Will be to costly....

    There's always a way around the "Feds"....Its called the "Common Sense Clause"....

     
  • CaiusCosades posted at 6:40 pm on Mon, Feb 25, 2013.

    CaiusCosades Posts: 380

    Unfortunately there's this little part of the United State Constitution called the "Supremacy Clause", so basically the federal government can do whatever they want and there's not a single thing that ANYONE in Idaho, no laws, no silly bills, that will stop them.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 5:49 pm on Mon, Feb 25, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "We have people calling us, asking us when the deputies are going to show up at their house and start taking their guns"

    Tell them "Right after the Y2K computer crash is over"

     
  • Justin Cottrell posted at 4:26 pm on Mon, Feb 25, 2013.

    Justin Cottrell Posts: 157

    Det. Turner is wrong with this: "We don't enforce federal laws as it is". In the next breath he answers that in fact while they don't enforce, they make the call to federal officials to let them enforce the. Indirect enforcement is still enforcement. With illogical conclusions like this, he'll have trouble winning friends and earning donuts.

     
default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Stocks