The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 4, 2013, 06:09 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2008
Posts: 4,678
Uh-Oh, is this true?

From the linked article:
"By the sounds of it, Colorado is being targeted with an attempt to set up loopholes that will allow the U.S. Secret Service to arrest and remove an elected Sheriff for refusing to enforce the law, or anyone breaking the law.
This means ALL Secret Service - including uniformed division officers, physical security technicians, specialists, and other ‘special officers’.

"In short they want to:

"…establish Federal authority police powers in a State, enabling an enforcement arm reporting directly to the President (Secret Service).
It would enable the President / Executive Branch to theoretically override the actions and preventative measures that are now being taken by many States throughout the country, who are trying to preserve 2nd Amendment gun rights, and who are prohibiting the enforcement of unconstitutional law passed by Congress or pushed by executive order."

In principle this is a cut-and-paste drive-by, but as the subject is bound to come up again, I'm adding some information to what's quoted above, which is one writer's opinion about the purpose of the bill. This idea is making the rounds of various conspiracist web sites, but there's nothing in the text of the bill to support this interpretation.

I've also edited the title to something a bit calmer...


Last edited by Evan Thomas; April 4, 2013 at 07:08 PM. Reason: it's a drive-by, but let's deal with this one...
PetahW is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 06:34 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
The actual bill. It's certainly an odd bill but not quite what the article makes it out to be.

It's not a felony or misdemeanor to practice selective enforcement(AFAIK, unless there's some specific CO law about it). So this bill would give no authority to arrest for refusing to enforce.

The bill itself pretty clearly lays out the constraints, which by my reading, essentially limit them to being able to arrest someone who's committed a crime in front of them while they happened to be in the state anyway.
sigcurious is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 07:01 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 8,389
The bill mentioned at the website and linked to has nothing to do with giving authority to the secret service to arrest sheriffs for not enforcing laws.

It simply gives them temporary state peace officer status when a state misdemeanor or felony is committed in their presence or they are responding to an emergency situation where probable cause exists or they are part of a state-federal task force. They must immediately turn the person arrested over to state peace officers.

It appears to me the intent is to allow flexibility when arresting those trying to interfere with the appearance of someone entitled to Secret Service protection. For example, someone throwing rotten eggs at the President could be arrested by a Secret Service agent for a state assault, rather than a federal charge. It would also give them arrest authority if they happen to run into a liquor store robbery on the way home.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 07:06 PM   #4
Evan Thomas
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,141
Thanks for the link, sigcurious.

Here is the last paragraph of the first section of the bill, which spells out the major constraint:
It explicitly forbids federal LEOs from acting on their own except in the case of crimes committed in their presence.
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry.
Evan Thomas is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 07:52 PM   #5
Junior member
Join Date: January 19, 2013
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 12
Thanks Vanya. I'm new here, but I'm not new to being jerked around by the media and others with an agenda. The last thing we need is to be pulled into something - by design, that creates actions on our part that reinforces the prejudiced perspective of the audience for which the communication is intended.

Stand your ground people. Keep calm. Only if necessary, aim true.

Last edited by Spats McGee; April 5, 2013 at 09:30 PM. Reason: Removing "sheeple" again
/dev/1413 is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 08:36 PM   #6
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,486
Yep, if it sounds like a political rant there's a good chance its a political rant.
thallub is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07719 seconds with 9 queries