• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Oregon sheriff tells Biden he won't enforce new gun rules

Soapweed

Well-known member
Oregon sheriff tells Biden he won't enforce new gun regulations

Published January 15, 2013

Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. – An Oregon sheriff has sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden saying his department will not enforce any new gun laws it considers unconstitutional.

Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller, in his letter dated Monday, said politicians are "attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims" by supporting laws that would harm law-abiding Americans. The sheriff said he took an oath to support the Constitution, and laws preventing citizens from owning certain semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines would violate their rights.

"We are Americans," Mueller wrote. "We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws."

Mueller told The Associated Press in a phone interview from Albany, Ore., that he felt compelled to make his views known because sheriffs have not had much of a say on the vice president's anti-gun violence task force. Mueller said his constituents have been repeatedly asking his deputies about what will happen if new gun restrictions are adopted.

"We're restricted and prohibited from enforcing all types of federal laws, including immigration laws," he said Tuesday. "It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that I would enforce a federal firearms law."

The sheriff figures Biden probably won't even receive his letter, but "it needed to be said, so I said it."

"I tried to be as respectful as possible, but I also needed to get my point across," Mueller said.

Mueller said some other sheriffs expressed support for his stance, but he does not know of any who have pledged to take similar action in regard to potential gun laws. Holly Russell, executive director of the Oregon State Sheriff's Association, did not respond to phone and email messages left late Tuesday afternoon.

Linn County is largely rural and politically conservative. Fewer than 40 percent of its registered voters supported President Barack Obama in November. Mueller said most households in the county have guns.

Though the letter might add fuel to an already hot topic, Mueller said he wishes people could have a civilized discussion about the issue, rather than resort to threats and name-calling. He said he doesn't think the vice president is a bad person; he just doesn't like the path he appears to be on regarding gun laws.

"We don't have to be jerks to each other over it," he said. "If old Joe wants to come out here to Linn County, we'd have a good conversation."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/ore-sheriff-says-wont-enforce-new-gun-laws/#ixzz2I9LcX9y6
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Come on now leave ot alone. After all he has to concentrate on which babies might need to be killed, if he thinks that just maybe they might not lead the life he thinks they should.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Larrry said:
Come on now leave ot alone. After all he has to concentrate on which babies might need to be killed, if he thinks that just maybe they might not lead the life he thinks they should.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :agree:

Maybe Old Blowzitouthisazz thinks the babies would be better off dead than to live under a Repub administration?
 

TSR

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
Oregon sheriff tells Biden he won't enforce new gun regulations

Published January 15, 2013

Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. – An Oregon sheriff has sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden saying his department will not enforce any new gun laws it considers unconstitutional.

Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller, in his letter dated Monday, said politicians are "attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims" by supporting laws that would harm law-abiding Americans. The sheriff said he took an oath to support the Constitution, and laws preventing citizens from owning certain semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines would violate their rights.

"We are Americans," Mueller wrote. "We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws."

Mueller told The Associated Press in a phone interview from Albany, Ore., that he felt compelled to make his views known because sheriffs have not had much of a say on the vice president's anti-gun violence task force. Mueller said his constituents have been repeatedly asking his deputies about what will happen if new gun restrictions are adopted.

"We're restricted and prohibited from enforcing all types of federal laws, including immigration laws," he said Tuesday. "It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that I would enforce a federal firearms law."

The sheriff figures Biden probably won't even receive his letter, but "it needed to be said, so I said it."

"I tried to be as respectful as possible, but I also needed to get my point across," Mueller said.

Mueller said some other sheriffs expressed support for his stance, but he does not know of any who have pledged to take similar action in regard to potential gun laws. Holly Russell, executive director of the Oregon State Sheriff's Association, did not respond to phone and email messages left late Tuesday afternoon.

Linn County is largely rural and politically conservative. Fewer than 40 percent of its registered voters supported President Barack Obama in November. Mueller said most households in the county have guns.

Though the letter might add fuel to an already hot topic, Mueller said he wishes people could have a civilized discussion about the issue, rather than resort to threats and name-calling. He said he doesn't think the vice president is a bad person; he just doesn't like the path he appears to be on regarding gun laws.

"We don't have to be jerks to each other over it," he said. "If old Joe wants to come out here to Linn County, we'd have a good conversation."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/ore-sheriff-says-wont-enforce-new-gun-laws/#ixzz2I9LcX9y6

And this is why all the screaming about gun confiscation......well it ain't gonna happen.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TSR said:
Soapweed said:
Oregon sheriff tells Biden he won't enforce new gun regulations

Published January 15, 2013

Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. – An Oregon sheriff has sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden saying his department will not enforce any new gun laws it considers unconstitutional.

Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller, in his letter dated Monday, said politicians are "attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims" by supporting laws that would harm law-abiding Americans. The sheriff said he took an oath to support the Constitution, and laws preventing citizens from owning certain semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines would violate their rights.

"We are Americans," Mueller wrote. "We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws."

Mueller told The Associated Press in a phone interview from Albany, Ore., that he felt compelled to make his views known because sheriffs have not had much of a say on the vice president's anti-gun violence task force. Mueller said his constituents have been repeatedly asking his deputies about what will happen if new gun restrictions are adopted.

"We're restricted and prohibited from enforcing all types of federal laws, including immigration laws," he said Tuesday. "It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that I would enforce a federal firearms law."

The sheriff figures Biden probably won't even receive his letter, but "it needed to be said, so I said it."

"I tried to be as respectful as possible, but I also needed to get my point across," Mueller said.

Mueller said some other sheriffs expressed support for his stance, but he does not know of any who have pledged to take similar action in regard to potential gun laws. Holly Russell, executive director of the Oregon State Sheriff's Association, did not respond to phone and email messages left late Tuesday afternoon.

Linn County is largely rural and politically conservative. Fewer than 40 percent of its registered voters supported President Barack Obama in November. Mueller said most households in the county have guns.

Though the letter might add fuel to an already hot topic, Mueller said he wishes people could have a civilized discussion about the issue, rather than resort to threats and name-calling. He said he doesn't think the vice president is a bad person; he just doesn't like the path he appears to be on regarding gun laws.

"We don't have to be jerks to each other over it," he said. "If old Joe wants to come out here to Linn County, we'd have a good conversation."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/ore-sheriff-says-wont-enforce-new-gun-laws/#ixzz2I9LcX9y6

And this is why all the screaming about gun confiscation......well it ain't gonna happen.

Yep- I agree-- and a few Sheriffs are using a rightwingnut perceived disaster to blow smoke up the rears of some of their weaker minded followers---"I'll save ya Bubba"... :lol: The comedy and fault with this characters speech is in his saying he would not enforce any unconstitutional federal laws-- well local officials don't enforce federal laws anyway... :roll: And local officials have never been authorized to determine the legality or constitutionality of federal laws....

But all the fearmongering - and riling up of the pack/herd mentality should have been good for my investments in Depends..
 

Mike

Well-known member
TSR said:
Soapweed said:
Oregon sheriff tells Biden he won't enforce new gun regulations

Published January 15, 2013

Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. – An Oregon sheriff has sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden saying his department will not enforce any new gun laws it considers unconstitutional.

Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller, in his letter dated Monday, said politicians are "attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims" by supporting laws that would harm law-abiding Americans. The sheriff said he took an oath to support the Constitution, and laws preventing citizens from owning certain semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines would violate their rights.

"We are Americans," Mueller wrote. "We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws."

Mueller told The Associated Press in a phone interview from Albany, Ore., that he felt compelled to make his views known because sheriffs have not had much of a say on the vice president's anti-gun violence task force. Mueller said his constituents have been repeatedly asking his deputies about what will happen if new gun restrictions are adopted.

"We're restricted and prohibited from enforcing all types of federal laws, including immigration laws," he said Tuesday. "It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that I would enforce a federal firearms law."

The sheriff figures Biden probably won't even receive his letter, but "it needed to be said, so I said it."

"I tried to be as respectful as possible, but I also needed to get my point across," Mueller said.

Mueller said some other sheriffs expressed support for his stance, but he does not know of any who have pledged to take similar action in regard to potential gun laws. Holly Russell, executive director of the Oregon State Sheriff's Association, did not respond to phone and email messages left late Tuesday afternoon.

Linn County is largely rural and politically conservative. Fewer than 40 percent of its registered voters supported President Barack Obama in November. Mueller said most households in the county have guns.

Though the letter might add fuel to an already hot topic, Mueller said he wishes people could have a civilized discussion about the issue, rather than resort to threats and name-calling. He said he doesn't think the vice president is a bad person; he just doesn't like the path he appears to be on regarding gun laws.

"We don't have to be jerks to each other over it," he said. "If old Joe wants to come out here to Linn County, we'd have a good conversation."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/ore-sheriff-says-wont-enforce-new-gun-laws/#ixzz2I9LcX9y6

And this is why all the screaming about gun confiscation......well it ain't gonna happen.

Actually, I agree with "Gun Confiscation" to the degree in that every criminal's guns should be confiscated if he has a gun illegally.

The problem is it's the illegalization of certain guns that are legal at this time and in the hands of law abiding citizens, that's what the screaming is about.

I guess you don't remember the lawsuits that went before SCOTUS that were charging that law abiding citizens could NOT possess guns IN THEIR OWN HOME for self-defense?

The Liberals DO WANT TO DEPRIVE CITIZENS OF GUNS. It's obvious. :roll:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
here ya go oldtimer

free ones

http://www.depend.com/products/get-samples?WT.mc_id=DPY&WT.srch=1

You are such a good customer that they should give you DISCOUNT :wink: :wink:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
TSR said:
Soapweed said:
Oregon sheriff tells Biden he won't enforce new gun regulations

Published January 15, 2013

Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. – An Oregon sheriff has sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden saying his department will not enforce any new gun laws it considers unconstitutional.

Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller, in his letter dated Monday, said politicians are "attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims" by supporting laws that would harm law-abiding Americans. The sheriff said he took an oath to support the Constitution, and laws preventing citizens from owning certain semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines would violate their rights.

"We are Americans," Mueller wrote. "We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws."

Mueller told The Associated Press in a phone interview from Albany, Ore., that he felt compelled to make his views known because sheriffs have not had much of a say on the vice president's anti-gun violence task force. Mueller said his constituents have been repeatedly asking his deputies about what will happen if new gun restrictions are adopted.

"We're restricted and prohibited from enforcing all types of federal laws, including immigration laws," he said Tuesday. "It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that I would enforce a federal firearms law."

The sheriff figures Biden probably won't even receive his letter, but "it needed to be said, so I said it."

"I tried to be as respectful as possible, but I also needed to get my point across," Mueller said.

Mueller said some other sheriffs expressed support for his stance, but he does not know of any who have pledged to take similar action in regard to potential gun laws. Holly Russell, executive director of the Oregon State Sheriff's Association, did not respond to phone and email messages left late Tuesday afternoon.

Linn County is largely rural and politically conservative. Fewer than 40 percent of its registered voters supported President Barack Obama in November. Mueller said most households in the county have guns.

Though the letter might add fuel to an already hot topic, Mueller said he wishes people could have a civilized discussion about the issue, rather than resort to threats and name-calling. He said he doesn't think the vice president is a bad person; he just doesn't like the path he appears to be on regarding gun laws.

"We don't have to be jerks to each other over it," he said. "If old Joe wants to come out here to Linn County, we'd have a good conversation."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/ore-sheriff-says-wont-enforce-new-gun-laws/#ixzz2I9LcX9y6

And this is why all the screaming about gun confiscation......well it ain't gonna happen.

Yep- I agree-- and a few Sheriffs are using a rightwingnut perceived disaster to blow smoke up the rears of some of their weaker minded followers---"I'll save ya Bubba"... :lol: The comedy and fault with this characters speech is in his saying he would not enforce any unconstitutional federal laws-- well local officials don't enforce federal laws anyway... :roll: And local officials have never been authorized to determine the legality or constitutionality of federal laws...

You are WRONG, WRONG, AND WRONG! Local and/or State Law Enforcement Officers may enforce (make an arrest) of a FEDERAL LAW if their State Law authorizes it.

:roll:

States enforce and make arrests for Federal Immigration laws all the time. SCOTUS upheld that in the Arizona case.................................

State authority to enforce federal law is a relatively recent phenomenon, though it is also rooted in older practices.
62
Many state
attorney general offices grew dramatically during the 1980s, partially
as a response to Reagan-era devolution and a decline in enforcement
by federal agencies.
63
As state attorneys general assumed new prominence, provisions for state enforcement began to proliferate in
Congress. New provisions have been enacted by virtually every
Congress in the last two decades. There is no clear link between
Democratic or Republican control of Congress, or divided versus unified government, and a preference for state enforcement.
Indeed, state enforcement has been relatively uncontroversial in
Congress.
64
The most common argument in its favor-usually raised
in the context of statutes that permit both state and private enforcement-is a need to enhance enforcement for reasons of compensation,
deterrence, or both.
Although states' authority to enforce federal law sometimes
operates as a supplement to enforcement of their own laws, that is not
always the case. In some cases, attorneys general are empowered to
enforce federal rules that have no state analogue, either because state
law has been preempted
7
' or because the state has chosen not to legislate.
72
It is important, therefore, to separate the question of state
enforcement from that of state regulatory authority. Typically, the two
go hand in hand: A government creates laws and then enforces them.
But state enforcement of federal law breaks that link by authorizing
state actors to enforce the law of a different sovereign. As a result,
state attorneys general may have enforcement authority in areas
where state legislatures have not acted or are powerless to act.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
TSR said:
And this is why all the screaming about gun confiscation......well it ain't gonna happen.

Yep- I agree-- and a few Sheriffs are using a rightwingnut perceived disaster to blow smoke up the rears of some of their weaker minded followers---"I'll save ya Bubba"... :lol: The comedy and fault with this characters speech is in his saying he would not enforce any unconstitutional federal laws-- well local officials don't enforce federal laws anyway... :roll: And local officials have never been authorized to determine the legality or constitutionality of federal laws...

You are WRONG, WRONG, AND WRONG! Local and/or State Law Enforcement Officers may enforce (make an arrest) of a FEDERAL LAW if their State Law authorizes it.

:roll:

States enforce and make arrests for Federal Immigration laws all the time. SCOTUS upheld that in the Arizona case.................................

Institutionally

A near-total victory for the federal government. This is a sweeping affirmation of federal power over immigration law. Arizona, and every other state, can’t make new immigration policy by making it a crime to be in the United States illegally. States can’t even make laws that interfere with federal immigration policies or principles. The court severely limited state “experimentation” in this area, and future presidents and Congresses will be grateful to the Obama administration for bringing this challenge. Bottom line: There will be no crazy-quilt, patchwork bunch of state laws addressing the problem of illegal immigration in America. The question was settled at Appomattox in 1865.


The court struck down these three major provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers, making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.

Practically

Less than meets the eye. As of today, Arizona police can check the immigration status of every person reasonably stopped in the course of keeping public order in the state. But what can they do with that information? There’s no state crime on the books any more. States can’t deport people. The feds do that. All the Arizona cops can do is inform federal immigration authorities if they round up an illegal immigrant. And the feds are perfectly free to ignore them. That’s a lot of hoo-ha, and a lot of police paperwork, for a pretty trifling payoff. How much effort will Arizona police departments put into enforcement? How will training to avoid the problem of racial-profiling affect enforcement? How long can police detain someone while they check her immigration status (the court is especially concerned about this)? How will Arizona residents change their behavior knowing that they might be asked to prove they are in the country legally? How those questions are answered will determine the practical impact of this decision.

SCOTUS just said Arizona's law was so full of holes it was worthless....The decision put everything back to the way it has been handled by local law enforcement for sometime- Feds do the arresting on Federal charges...If a local officer suspects an illegal federal violator they contact the Federal Law Enforcement- who then advises them how to proceed...If the local officer has the subject in custody on another state charge they proceed with that- but when adjudication of that charge is done- and the Feds- haven't done anything- that person walks free...The locals do not have the authority to charge federal crimes or deport.....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Don't happen, huh?

Date: November 15th, 2012
Sheriff Joe Arpaio Reports 42 Illegal Aliens
Arrested in 16 Day Human Smuggling Crack Down

The Entry By Illegal Aliens Into Maricopa County Has Not Diminished
(Maricopa County, AZ) Sheriff Joe Arpaio reports a total of 16 illegal aliens were arrested in the last
two days during a Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office operation in the Southeast Valley. Two of
these incidents ended with short vehicle chases through the desert as the suspects attempted to get
away.
The most recent chase came last night when six suspected illegal aliens, two of which were in the
trunk of the vehicle, drove into the desert in attempt to get away from deputies. One of the illegal
aliens in the trunk suffered a laceration to the head and he was transported to Maricopa Medical
Center for medical attention.
During one of the investigations on Wednesday of this week, Sheriff’s deputies tried to approach a
vehicle they had observed at a high rate of speed, when the vehicle sped away, going off road
driving through a barb-wire fence into the desert. The suspect vehicle sustained damage to include
flat tires but continued to drive for about one mile before eight occupants, including the driver, fled
on foot into the thick brush. Immediately deputies created a perimeter and with the use of the
Sheriff’s helicopter and K-9 units, they located one suspect hiding in a backyard of a residence and
all others hiding in a wash.
In a separate incident detectives from the Sheriff’s Human Smuggling Unit observed a red vehicle
on the side of a well-traveled road in southern Maricopa County being loaded with what appeared to
be large bundles of marijuana. Detectives approached the vehicle and four Hispanic males
immediately fled into the desert while the vehicle, occupied by two other Hispanic males, sped off. It
came to an abrupt stop a short distance later where the two occupants fled on foot into the desert.

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld the main provision of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants but threw out three other parts, handing partial victories to President Barack Obama in his challenge to the law and to the measure's conservative supporters.

In an important test of whether federal or state governments have the power to enforce immigration laws, the top U.S. court unanimously upheld the statute's most controversial aspect, a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of people they stop, even for minor offenses such as jay-walking.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
but but but oldtimer said that could not be!!!!!
BUT BUT notice he leaves out important information when he cuts and pastes...He is soooooo full of PHONEY it runs out his ears
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hopalong said:
but but but oldtimer said that could not be!!!!!
BUT BUT notice he leaves out important information when he cuts and pastes...He is soooooo full of PHONEY it runs out his ears

Nope- I have never said that...Local law enforcement can still arrest for state laws- like traffic laws like speeding, reckless, eluding, resisting , etc. etc.--BUT they do not have the direct authority to arrest for being an illegal immigrant or hold someone for that charge after the local charges have been cleared up- nor do they have the power to deport ....
When the state charges have ran their course- the either turn over to the Feds or release....
That has been the rule since I started in LE in 1970- and the SCOTUS just reverified it ....
Which kind of blows the sails out of the rightwingernut fear and hatemongers that are claiming the country has gone to hell because of recent court rulings... :wink: :p :lol:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hopalong said:
but but but oldtimer said that could not be!!!!!
BUT BUT notice he leaves out important information when he cuts and pastes...He is soooooo full of PHONEY it runs out his ears

Nope- I have never said that...Local law enforcement can still arrest for state laws- like traffic laws like speeding, reckless, eluding, resisting , etc. etc.--BUT they do not have the direct authority to arrest for being an illegal immigrant or hold someone for that charge after the local charges have been cleared up- nor do they have the power to deport ....
When the state charges have ran their course- the either turn over to the Feds or release....
That has been the rule since I started in LE in 1970- and the SCOTUS just reverified it ....
Which kind of blows the sails out of the rightwingernut fear and hatemongers that are claiming the country has gone to hell because of recent court rulings... :wink: :p :lol:

Tell that to a REAL sheriff, not soime backwoods Montana wanna be like dickie boy,,,, :D :D :D
 

Mike

Well-known member
No Congressional Preemption

Having established that this inherent state arrest authority exists, the only remaining question is whether such authority has been preempted by Congress. In conducting preemption analysis, courts must look for (1) express preemption by congressional statement, (2) field preemption where the federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive as to create the inference that Congress intended to leave no room for the states to supplement it, or (3) conflict preemption, where compliance with both state and federal law is impossible or state law prevents the accomplishment of congressional objectives. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992) (plurality opinion). In all three categories, there must exist manifest congressional intent for preemption to exist.

Moreover, in the context of state arrests for violations of federal law, there is a particularly strong presumption against preemption. Normal preemption cases involve: (1) state legislation or regulation (2) that is at odds with federal purposes or statutes. However, state arrests for violations of federal law involve: (1) state executive action (2) that is intended to assist the federal government in the enforcement of federal law. The critical starting presumption must be that the federal government did not intend to deny itself any assistance that the states might offer. This presumption was explained in 1928 by Judge Learned Hand, who stated that "it would be unreasonable to suppose that [the federal government’s] purpose was to deny itself any help that the states may allow." Marsh v. United States, 29 F.2d 172, 174 (2d Cir. 1928).

In 1996, Congress expressly put to rest any suspicion that it did not welcome state and local assistance in making immigration arrests. Congress added section 287(g) to the INA, providing for the establishment of written agreements with state law enforcement agencies to convey federal immigration enforcement functions to such agencies. In doing so, Congress reiterated its understanding that states and localities may make immigration arrests regardless of whether a 287(g) agreement exists. Congress stated that a formal agreement is not necessary for "any officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a state… to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States," or "otherwise to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States." 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10).

Consequently, it is hardly surprising that no appellate court has expressly ruled that states are preempted from arresting aliens for civil violations of the INA. The only case that even comes close is the 1983 opinion of the Ninth Circuit in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983). In Gonzales, the Ninth Circuit held that local police officers have the authority to arrest an alien for a violation of the criminal provisions of the INA if such an arrest is authorized under state law. In that instance, a group of persons of Mexican descent challenged a policy of the City of Peoria, Arizona, that instructed local police to arrest and detain aliens suspected of illegally entering the United States in violation of the criminal prohibitions of Section 1325 of Title 8. See 722 F.2d at 472-73. Observing that local police generally are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes and that concurrent enforcement authority is authorized where local enforcement would not impair federal regulatory interests, the court engaged in a preemption analysis to determine whether Congress had precluded local enforcement of this criminal provision of the INA. The court concluded that no such preemption had occurred. See id. at 475. In passing, the Ninth Circuit "assume[d] that the civil provisions of the [INA]… constitute… a pervasive regulatory scheme" that suggested a congressional intent to preempt local enforcement, id. at 474-75. However, this possibility of field preemption was merely an assumption, asserted without any analysis, and made in dictum — entirely outside of the holding of the case (which concerned a criminal offense). It does not constitute binding precedent. And even if the Ninth Circuit had squarely reached this conclusion in 1983, such a holding would have been fatally undermined by the court’s failure to apply the strong presumption against preemption discussed above. In addition, the subsequent actions of Congress in 1996 made such a holding unsustainable.

Solid Case Law. In contrast, the case law supporting the conclusion that Congress has not preempted state arrests of aliens for violations of civil provisions of the INA is solid and on point. The Tenth Circuit has issued several opinions on the subject, all pointing to the conclusion that Congress has never sought to preempt the states’ inherent authority to make immigration arrests for both criminal and civil violations of the INA. Its 1984 ruling in the case of United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298 (10th Cir. 1984), confirmed the inherent arrest authority possessed by the states. The defendant in that case was the driver of a pickup who had been arrested for the criminal violation of transporting illegal aliens. He had been stopped by a state trooper for driving erratically. The driver and his wife were in the cab; and six passengers, none of whom spoke English, were in the back of the pickup. The defendant claimed that a state trooper did not have the authority to detain the transported passengers while he questioned them about their immigration status. In rejecting this claim, the Tenth Circuit held that a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations." 728 F.2d at 1301 n.3. The court did not differentiate between criminal and civil violations. Indeed, because there is no indication in the opinion that there was any reason to believe that the alien passengers had committed any criminal violations, the court’s statement appears to apply fully to civil as well as criminal violations.

The Tenth Circuit’s most salient case on the preemption question is U.S. v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 1999). In that case, an Oklahoma police officer arrested the defendant because he was an "illegal alien." The officer did not know at the time whether the defendant had committed a civil or criminal violation of the INA. Id. at 1295. It was later discovered that the alien had illegally reentered the country after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, a criminal violation. When the government indicted the defendant, he moved to suppress his post-arrest statements, fingerprints, and identity, arguing that he was arrested in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1252c. The defendant claimed that a local police officer could arrest an illegal alien only in accordance with the conditions set forth in Section 1252c and that because his arrest was not carried out according that provision it was unauthorized. Section 1252c authorizes state and local police to make a warrantless arrest and to detain an illegal alien if (1) the arrest is permitted by state and local law, (2) the alien is illegally present in the United States, (3) the alien was previously convicted of a felony in the United States and subsequently was deported or left the country, and (4) prior to the arrest the police officer obtains appropriate confirmation of the alien’s status from federal immigration authorities. 8 U.S.C. § 1252c.

The Tenth Circuit’s conclusion was unequivocal: Section 1252c "does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law." Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d at 1295. The court rejected the alien’s contention that all arrests not authorized by Section 1252c are prohibited by it. The court reviewed the legislative history of Section 1252c and analyzed the comments of Rep. Doolittle (R-Calif.), who sponsored the floor amendment containing the text that would become Section 1252c. The court concluded that the purpose of the amendment was to overcome a perceived federal limitation on this state arrest authority. However, neither Doolittle, nor the government, nor the defendant, nor the court itself had been able to identify any such limitation. Id. at 1298-99.

The interpretation of 1252c urged by the defendant would have grossly perverted the manifest intent of Congress, which was to encourage more, not less, state involvement in the enforcement of federal immigration law. Reading into the statute an implicit congressional intent to preempt existing state arrest authority would have been entirely inconsistent with this purpose. Moreover, such an interpretation would have been inconsistent with subsequent congressional actions. As the Tenth Circuit noted, "in the months following the enactment of Section 1252c, Congress passed a series of provisions designed to encourage cooperation between the federal government and the states in the enforcement of federal immigration laws." Id. at 1300 (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103(a)(9), (c), 1357(g)). Put succinctly, the "legislative history does not contain the slightest indication that Congress intended to displace any preexisting enforcement powers already in the hands of state and local officers." Id. at 1299.

The Fifth Circuit has also rejected the notion that Congress has preempted the inherent arrest authority possessed by the states. In Lynch v. Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363 (5th Cir. 1987), the court considered whether 8 U.S.C. §1223(a) defined the sole process for detaining alien stowaways, thereby preempting harbor police from detaining illegal aliens as occurred in that case. The Fifth Circuit’s conclusion was broad and unequivocal: "No statute precludes other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from taking other action to enforce this nation’s immigration laws." Id. at 1371.

Finally on the subject of preemption, it must be noted that the distinction between arrests by state police for criminal violations of the INA and arrests by state police for civil violations of the INA is utterly unsustainable. Any claim of field preemption would have to establish that the civil provisions of the INA create a pervasive regulatory scheme indicating congressional intent to preempt, while the criminal provisions do not. No court has ever attempted to justify such a conclusion. The INA is not separated neatly into criminal and civil jurisdictions. Nor have the regulations promulgated pursuant to the INA or the executive agencies charged with its enforcement attempted such a separation. The structure of the INA, with its numerous overlapping civil and criminal provisions, simply cannot support such a distinction.

Voluntary State and Local Assistance

It bears reiterating that any assistance that state or local police provide to the federal government in the enforcement of federal immigration laws is entirely voluntary. There is no provision of the U.S. Code or the Code of Federal Regulations that obligates local law enforcement agencies to devote any resources to the enforcement of federal immigration laws. This fact seems to escape those who assert that the federal government has by statute or policy imposed costly enforcement burdens on state and local government. This assertion is false. Indeed, when local law enforcement agencies do arrest and detain aliens for violations of immigration law prior to transfer to federal immigration authorities, it has been the regular practice of the federal government to reimburse such agencies for any detention costs incurred.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
OT gets spanked again.

Nope- its the locals that get spanked if the Feds don't back their move---- because there are no laws that allow state/local authorities to charge...
Especially if these incarcerated- but uncharged- file claims and suits...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Read again, Fatlock:

The Tenth Circuit’s most salient case on the preemption question is U.S. v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 1999). In that case, an Oklahoma police officer arrested the defendant because he was an "illegal alien." The officer did not know at the time whether the defendant had committed a civil or criminal violation of the INA. Id. at 1295. It was later discovered that the alien had illegally reentered the country after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, a criminal violation. When the government indicted the defendant, he moved to suppress his post-arrest statements, fingerprints, and identity, arguing that he was arrested in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1252c. The defendant claimed that a local police officer could arrest an illegal alien only in accordance with the conditions set forth in Section 1252c and that because his arrest was not carried out according that provision it was unauthorized. Section 1252c authorizes state and local police to make a warrantless arrest and to detain an illegal alien if (1) the arrest is permitted by state and local law, (2) the alien is illegally present in the United States, (3) the alien was previously convicted of a felony in the United States and subsequently was deported or left the country, and (4) prior to the arrest the police officer obtains appropriate confirmation of the alien’s status from federal immigration authorities. 8 U.S.C. § 1252c.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
OT gets spanked again.

Nope- its the locals that get spanked if the Feds don't back their move---- because there are no laws that allow state/local authorities to charge...
Especially if these incarcerated- but uncharged- file claims and suits...


Oldtimer said:
BUT they do not have the direct authority to arrest for being an illegal immigrant


Section 1252c "does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.


spanked
 

Mike

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
OT gets spanked again.

Nope- its the locals that get spanked if the Feds don't back their move---- because there are no laws that allow state/local authorities to charge...
Especially if these incarcerated- but uncharged- file claims and suits...


Oldtimer said:
BUT they do not have the direct authority to arrest for being an illegal immigrant


Section 1252c "does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.


spanked

He's much too easy Hypo. Almost every sentence he writes has a lie in it. :lol: :lol:
 
Top