3Rivers Archery Supply
Welcome To California
Community
Contributors to this thread:
'Ike' (Phone) 02-Jan-18
Huntcell 02-Jan-18
'Ike' (Phone) 02-Jan-18
Thumper 02-Jan-18
Woods Walker 02-Jan-18
HDE 02-Jan-18
Woods Walker 02-Jan-18
bigeasygator 02-Jan-18
Woods Walker 02-Jan-18
sleepyhunter 02-Jan-18
bigeasygator 02-Jan-18
IdyllwildArcher 02-Jan-18
HDE 02-Jan-18
Paul@thefort 02-Jan-18
Bowfreak 02-Jan-18
Franzen 02-Jan-18
DL 02-Jan-18
Bowbender 02-Jan-18
bad karma 02-Jan-18
bigeasygator 02-Jan-18
JTV 02-Jan-18
bad karma 02-Jan-18
HDE 02-Jan-18
bad karma 02-Jan-18
DL 02-Jan-18
Spike Bull 02-Jan-18
ASCTLC 02-Jan-18
Bowbender 02-Jan-18
Annony Mouse 02-Jan-18
Woods Walker 03-Jan-18
'Ike' (Phone) 03-Jan-18
Annony Mouse 03-Jan-18
DL 03-Jan-18
Annony Mouse 04-Jan-18
Annony Mouse 04-Jan-18
slade 04-Jan-18
02-Jan-18

'Ike' (Phone)'s embedded Photo
'Ike' (Phone)'s embedded Photo
LMAO...These signs have been found at several entry points to CA! Puck you Jerry Brown!!!

From: Huntcell
02-Jan-18
Wow! That is creative prankster! But it still reflects Brown and his followers mindset. Time to bring in Federal troops.

02-Jan-18

'Ike' (Phone)'s Link
The story...

From: Thumper
02-Jan-18
Stop all federal funding and spending in Calif except SS.

From: Woods Walker
02-Jan-18
The above is proof positive that the Rule Of Law no longer exists in this country. It's only going to get worse from here on out. How much more of this will we take?

From: HDE
02-Jan-18
The Governor of CA is conspiring to create a clear and present danger to the security of the free state of the US. Time to arrest him and indict on charges of both insurrection and sedition.

The DOJ can do that under the direction of the President...

From: Woods Walker
02-Jan-18
That would be very true......IF we had the rule of law....we no longer do. Laws are now selectively applied by politicians who are above it.

From: bigeasygator
02-Jan-18

bigeasygator's Link
Let’s ignore the fact that these were put up by pranksters and not the State and ask a more pointed question cause I’m confused every time something like this pops up...are we against state’s rights or for state’s rights here?

From: Woods Walker
02-Jan-18
Of course the sign itself is bogus. But the MESSAGE of the sign is NOT. So if Mississippi want to reinstate slavery you'd be good with that? Why bother to have ANY federal laws then?

From: sleepyhunter
02-Jan-18
Truth hurts doesn't it BEG? I agree with the sign. Well done to the person or persons who put the sign up for all to see.

From: bigeasygator
02-Jan-18
Not really. I live in Louisiana, not California.

02-Jan-18
Very funny.

From: HDE
02-Jan-18
Yes, the sign is a joke - read that on the news before this thread. But, as stated, the message that Brown is sending is clear that he doesn't give a rip about the law other than what he says it is...

From: Paul@thefort
02-Jan-18
So George, I will be flying out to San Digeo on Jan 11 to visit family, so prior to that I can rob a bank, shoot the place up, kill some one, escape to California, and be welcomed there. How cool is that? I mean really "cool" now that California has just legalized pot. my best, Paul

From: Bowfreak
02-Jan-18
BEG,

Yes, we are for states rights but a state does not have the right to ignore federal law.

From: Franzen
02-Jan-18
I'm all for state rights, and I'm all for federal assistance being taken away when a state chooses to ignore the laws of this country. Federal assistance means many things. If California does not want to be a part of the United States of America, then they should secede. Although I understand there is some beautiful country I have not seen, I still say good riddance.

From: DL
02-Jan-18
Has North Korea got a Missle that will reach Sacramento Yet?

From: Bowbender
02-Jan-18
"BEG, Yes, we are for states rights but a state does not have the right to ignore federal law."

Then there are no states rights. Pretty sure the FF went out of their way to not have power centrally located.

I would love to see the 17th amendment repealed and have the senators appointed by the states to represent the state before the federal government. As the FF intended. Worked for the first 125 years, not sure what needed fixed.

From: bad karma
02-Jan-18
Immigration is solely a federal issue as far as law because it by definition indicates a border crossing took place.

From: bigeasygator
02-Jan-18
“Yes, we are for states rights but a state does not have the right to ignore federal law.”

Which federal law requires state agencies to enforce immigration law on behalf of the federal government?

From: JTV
02-Jan-18
Does anyone really thing Sessions has the nads to go after Brown and these cities... Sessions talks a talk, but these places continue to thumb their noses at the rule of law ....

From: bad karma
02-Jan-18
Perhaps you might consider the full faith and credit clause to the Constitution. They're not enforcing federal law, they are holding people until they can be transferred to ICE. In essence, respecting the immigration courts and their rulings.

From: HDE
02-Jan-18
Fed gov't can't make a state officer perform fed officer duties. But a state cannot get in the way of a fed officer performing their duties in a state either.

Everyone is subject to fed law and hiding a known illegal immigrant (breaking fed law in the first place) is against fed law. States have to comply with notification of knowledge of illegal immigration, but they don't have to arrest and cannot impede a fed from carrying out their duties.

From: bad karma
02-Jan-18
Holding someone is not any different than a jail in Riverside holding a defendant for extradition to Sacramento. I don't get why people think this is something unusual. There's a regular check for wants and warrants for any person held in a jail. And if the warrant is out of Nebraska, a CA jail notifies the authorities in Nebraska. That's what law enforcement does, and should continue to do. Immigration should be no different. If another agency has reason for a hold, you hold until the person can be transferred. The system goes to crap if a person in Jurisdiction A is released by a jail in Jurisdiction B just because some twit does not like the law or order from Jurisdiction A.

From: DL
02-Jan-18

02-Jan-18
Agreed, bk.

"I would love to see the 17th amendment repealed and have the senators appointed by the states to represent the state before the federal government. As the FF intended. Worked for the first 125 years, not sure what needed fixed."

Bowbender, I agree, the 17th was a mistake. What needed fixing was the House was getting all the graft and the Senate wanted in! Now they are both "fixed"!

From: ASCTLC
02-Jan-18
If I understand it accurately, Fed Law Enforcement funds are there to help compensate for additional efforts/expenses related to fed law enforcement as a state would encounter holding someone in their cell until a fed officer arrives to take them...you know, the extra meal(s), jailer attention, etc.

So, it's not asking/expecting state resources to go out of their way to track down people for the sole purpose of enforcing fed laws as opponents (and your argument tries to lead) like to put forth.

So your leading question asking about "What federal law requires...?" is simply straw manning the issue BEG. The threat to withhold fed law enforcement funds, that so many liberal people pitch a false "unconstitutional" fit about, is an accurate approach because it's not about "law" it's a fed funding allocated to compensate a state for expenses/efforts expended to comply with federal laws.

If the state is not expending expenses related to feds enforcing a law then the state has no justification to those funds.

From: Bowbender
02-Jan-18
Lest anyone think I am in favor of what California is doing, I'm not. I just get a little concerned when folks wanna call out the federal troops cuz the state isn't playing nice.

From: Annony Mouse
02-Jan-18

Annony Mouse's Link
Welcome to the CA 1A Regulation Zone!

Pat should move his servers to CA and let their censors deal with the many faces of Paul and cronies ;o)

From the link: "...California is now prosecuting him for posting these comments, on the theory that they violate Cal. Penal Code § 653m(b):

Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device ... to another person is ... guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.

The posts, the California AG's office argues, were "were made with the specific intent to annoy and harass the members of the ICSC," because Feigin "was not trying to engage in any kind of political discussion but instead trying to vex members of the ICSC with his thoughts about their religion." The posts are criminal because they constitute "repeated harassment from those who wish to mock and disparage their religion," and, "[r]ather than attempt to engage in discussion or debate," are "cruel and pointedly aimed at dismissing an entire religion and those who practice it."

"...And the government's argument makes clear that it's going after Feigin for the content -- indeed the viewpoint -- of his speech: "The mere content and nature of the posts establish that they are not made in 'good faith' as Defendant would suggest but are meant to annoy and harass." "Defendant is not seeking uriderstanding or guidance, instead he is posting in order to annoy and harass those who have beliefs with which he vehemently abhors." The Facebook's page public accessibility "does not translate into requiring ICSC or its members to sustain repeated harassment from those who wish to mock and disparage their religion." "Rather than attempt to engage in discussion or debate, Defendant's posts are cruel and pointedly aimed at dismissing an entire religion and those who practice it." Nor is the government's argument limited to vulgar epithets ("Filthy muslim shit"), though even those epithets are constitutionally protected when said outside the context of face-to-face "fighting words"; it applies just as much to the nonvulgar criticisms.

Of course, there's nothing in the government's logic that limits it to comments posted on the Islamic Center's page, or for that matter on the Catholic Church's page or the Westboro Baptist Church's page or the Church of Scientology's page. If the government is right, and the statute applies to posts on organizations' pages, then it would apply to any repeated harshly critical posts

on an NRA page "intended to annoy" NRA employees, on a pro-Trump page "intended to annoy" its operators, or on any other ideological organization's page.

The "during the ordinary course and scope of business" exception might exclude consumer complaints, but the government's theory is that this exception doesn't apply to this sort of criticism that is "cruel and pointedly aimed at dismissing an entire religion and those who practice it" -- logic that would apply equally to criticism of political as well as religious ideologies. Nor can the courts constitutionally conclude that harsh insults of the NRA are "in good faith" and similar harsh insults of Islam are not..."

From: Woods Walker
03-Jan-18
If a state won't cooperate with the feds then fine, but then they should get ZERO federal MONEY. That's like someone not showing up for work but wants to get paid anyway.

03-Jan-18

'Ike' (Phone)'s embedded Photo
'Ike' (Phone)'s embedded Photo
Frick’n love it...Popping up all over now! Hey Jerry, kiss our ass...

From: Annony Mouse
03-Jan-18
From: DL
03-Jan-18
Only in California. Does anyone else think it's odd that... The State doesn't get ammo purchase regulations to Walmart and they have to suspend sales? Yet the State fails to get Pot regulations in place and tells merchants to "Write sales down on paper and KEEP SELLING"? What's wrong with this State?

From: Annony Mouse
04-Jan-18
ICE To Crack Down On California Gov For Harboring Illegals

ICE To Crack Down On California Gov For Harboring Illegals

January 4, 2018 John Locke Government corruption 10 California’s Governor, Jerry Brown, could possibly be facing a federal conviction in response to his decision to harbor illegals.

The entire state of California has declared sanctuary, this means that illegals residing in the state need not worry about deportation from local law enforcement as police officers are forbidden from determining legal status upon questioning. That does NOT, however, stop ICE agents from doing what local law enforcement won’t and that is exactly what the director of ICE, Thomas Homan, had to say to Gov. Jerry Brown.

Furthermore, Homan is certain that Brown’s actions violate US law, and while illegals may be ‘safe’ from the law, Brown is not.

Via:

California’s Governor is about to get a knock on the door from Thomas Homan, the current Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director.

Homan straight up said that California “better hold on tight” the moment Brown allowed the sanctuary state law to happen. The point was made that the sanctuary city status might protect the criminals as they illegally creep around our beloved American cities looking for another victim, but ICE has plans to snatch them from their hideaways and send them packing.

Fox News:

“There’s no sanctuary from law enforcement,” he said. “California better hold on tight – they’re about to see a lot more deportation officers. If politicians don’t protect their communities then ICE will.”

Homan said illegal alien smuggling organizations will use the California law as a “selling point” and that Brown “bit off a lot more than he can chew.”

Homan said that Brown and other sanctuary-jurisdiction leaders may have violated 8 U.S. Code § 1324 – relating to “harboring certain aliens.”

He said he hopes the Justice Department will look into whether officials can be criminally charged under the statute.

If knowingly endangering citizens one is sworn to protect isn’t breaking the law, it certainly should be. The entire state of California is an abomination in the sense that it’s made up of a cultural mixing pot where criminals are allowed to thrive thanks to the ‘don’t ask,don’t tell’ policy implemented by the democratic officials attempting to poison the country.

From: Annony Mouse
04-Jan-18

Annony Mouse's Link
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND CRIME: The stunning numbers the Left cannot refute (link)

From: slade
04-Jan-18
Sorry mouse, but I have no doubt leftytutu will try.

  • Sitka Gear