Ammo For Sale

« « Uh what? | Home | Where guns are banned » »

So, if I understand this correctly . . .

If you are the mayor of a sanctuary city and you don’t enforce the immigration law: you’re not doing your job. No problem.

If you are a sheriff in Cali or the DC chief of police and do not issue gun permits: you’re not doing your job. No problem.

If you are the president of the United States and don’t adhere to Youcare or immigration laws: you’re not doing your job. No problem.

But if you’re a clerk in a no name town and refuse to issue marriage licenses: you’re not doing your job. EVERYBODY FREAK OUT!

Let’s be consistent, people, and jail them all.

27 Responses to “So, if I understand this correctly . . .”

  1. Adam Lawson Says:

    Pretty sure you’re racist and/or sexist for saying that.

    But yeah, I hadn’t thought of it that way. I was surprised she didn’t just resign.

  2. Heath J Says:

    I love how the (apparently) MOST IMPORTANT THINGS EVER are gay matrimony, sexually confused deviants an the weather.

  3. Glenn Says:

    We can take this a step farther. Your first three
    points eventually got people killed dead. Innocent
    people. You might have added a Secretary of State
    who allowed her personal e-mail account to breach
    the common security of the United States.

    No one, to my knowledge, has died because a county
    clerk refused to issue a marriage license.

  4. Sebastian Says:

    The first I take issue with. There’s no obligation on the part of state or local law enforcement or officials to enforce federal law. However, there is an obligation to obey federal law.

  5. nk Says:

    There’s a difference between ministerial and discretionary executive action. But yes, good points.

  6. JTC Says:

    Yes, be consistent; jail none of them. They are all elected officials serving at the pleasure of their respective electorates. If they can legally be removed from office by recall or impeachment for mis, mal, or non feasance, remove them.

  7. mariner Says:

    If we were jailing the first three, I wouldn’t have a problem with jailing the fourth.

    In addition I have a problem with a Federal judge throwing a local elected official in jail over this.

  8. ChrisM Says:

    This case has led me to the conclusion that the gay marriage supporters went about this all wrong. They should have banded together with the Libertarians, and the small government Conservatives to do away with the concept of government-granted marriage licenses all together. For good measure the Constitutional Carry crowd could have joined in also.

    I think we’d all be better off severely limiting the number of things the government has to grant us permission for.

  9. Ron W Says:

    ChrisM,you’re correct that removing marriage from the cognizance of government would have been and still can be the best solution. But the gay marriage agenda was not about freedom as it was a long time ago, when they said, “get the government out of my bedroom”. They wanted and got the REDEFINITION of marriage so it became “get the government in your face” and FORCE others to perform actions to approve of their agenda. It would be more like the “Constitutional Carry crowd” wanting to require that everyone go armed or possess a gun.

  10. FoxTrot Says:

    Well, with regard to the clerk… If she is not doing her job then why is the recourse to jail her? This is just an employee… why is she simply not fired for not doing her job?

    And if this is now the standard and the precedent going forward, then yes, start jailing everyone in Washington immediately.

    *I would also like to point out that it took them all of about a minute to put this clerk in jail. Compare and contrast that to how long it is taking them to put Hillary in jail.

    Some animals are more equal than others should have been your headline for this post.

  11. JTC Says:

    So, for better or worse, gov can revoke for cause my license to drive, carry, or deal firearms. For each of those, there is some measure of competence or behavior and oversight.

    Ever heard of a marriage license revocation? What if any standards are there? Oversight? No? Well, that’s because it’s not a license but simply a tax.

    I’ve said many times that gov has no right or reason to be in the marriage business. While in my view gay marriage and homosexuality itself is a mortal sin for which immortal souls will pay, that’s between it’s practitioners and God; it’s a religious thing and gov has no damn business in religion.

    But I do believe in and support equal treatment of all by gov, and to whatever degree there are benefits of marriage (there are) those benefits should accrue to anyone who considers themselves “married”. And most gays (real people just going about their lives and not the in-your-face activists) will honestly tell you that it’s not an issue of “love”, but of financial and familial rights. Eliminate the role of gov in all marriage and apply the rights and benefits to all.

    And that’s what the clerk in ky was doing in stopping the issuance of marriage license to all, but as I’ve said before she did it for religious reasons, not for the practical and constitutional ones which support the elimination of gov’s role…which as I said at the top is really all about money, as it almost always is. Follow the money; always follow the money.

  12. KM Says:

    If you take the govt out of the marriage license business, who then issues them?
    It is a legal document that can affect tax status, estates and a *whole* bunch more so what entity takes over the role?
    A church?

  13. Mike Says:

    A nice answer to half that question:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/02/why-kim-daviss-refusal-to-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses-is-legally-different-from-a-sanctuary-citys-refusal-to-cooperate-with-federal-immigration-law/

  14. DocMerlin Says:

    @KM:
    if no one issues them then no one would demand them, and would take other forms of proof of marriage.

  15. JTC Says:

    “If you take the govt out of the marriage license business, who then issues them? It is a legal document that can affect tax status, estates and a *whole* bunch more so what entity takes over the role?”

    Nobody. It’s not really a license but a legal registration. And all of the rights and benefits you mention are covered, or can be, in any legal agreement, a business partnership for instance.

    A couple has an agreement drawn up, recorded at the courthouse, and it has the force of civil law. If they also choose to be “married” in the eyes of God, then that is the role of the church.

  16. DocMerlin Says:

    “It is a legal document that can affect tax status, estates and a *whole* bunch more so what entity takes over the role?”
    – you don’t need a marriage license for any of those things, just a marriage, which in many states (including my own) the government recognizes even without the license.

  17. Ellen Says:

    Government should deal in civil unions, as a matter of contract. Churches should deal in the blessings of their god(s). Leave the definitions of marriage up to the citizenry — I’d prefer it go only to people who’ve gotten both government and ecclesiastical approval. Your mileage may vary.

  18. Joe Says:

    Marriage is a religious ceremony. The govt should be dictating who can and can not partake in a religious ceremony

  19. Joe Says:

    *should not

  20. RAH Says:

    I really question why the states have any purpose to issue marriage licenses. Was it originally to stop black/white marriages? The state does not do any research on the couples to see if any has a previous valid marriage to prevent bigamy. Most do not do blood test for venereal disease and no DNA tests are done to ensure that the couple is too closely related So why is the state in the business of granting licenses? I can see a system where the couple announces their intentions They get married at the venue of their choice and register the marriage with Clerk like a deed for property other issues. The only conflict would be if the Clerk has to perform the marriage Is that Kentucky law? If so then have clerk eligible that have no issues. Why force a person who thinks they will go to Hell if they perform the marriage? That is just to to show either you have the power to compel people and just wrong.

  21. Ron W Says:

    Ellen, well said! States should just adopt civil union contracts for whatever motivation. That would be a good solution and pretty much eliminate the “gay marriage” controversy. However, then the issue of age, relationship and number may become an issue for polygamists, incestuous advocates and groups like NAMBLA.

  22. Chris Says:

    The Mayor of a sanctuary city, and more importantly its police, cannot be forced to act as federal employees in the enforcement of federal laws. This creates a messy situation where federal law is enforced unevenly, based on whether the local government has its own laws on the book matching or opposing cooperation with the feds. However, this does not bar federal law enforcement from going into a sanctuary city and making their own arrest. In other areas this is probably a better policy for libertarians than not, but national immigration enforcement is clearly an important issue to many libertarians.

    As far as Cali, the Peruta case specifically, the courts are dragging their feet but a ruling is inevitable as is an appeal to SCOTUS. I’m leaning toward the courts upholding the ruling that CA has to allow either CC with permits or OC, but cannot ban or effectively ban both. A right delayed is a right denied, but a court taking its sweet time on upholding its own ruling is not quite the same as doing nothing.

    As far as ObamaCare, the courts have limited power over the Executive and Legislative branches, and specific challenges and complaints are still working through the courts. See above.

    The clerk, however, is being held in contempt of court for refusing to conduct the job she was elected to do, with no legal backing as there is a SCOTUS ruling striking down all laws banning SSM. She also refuses to allow a deputy to sign the marriage licenses in her place, and is denying all residents in her county their right to a marriage license over this one issue. She is not a libertarian hero, she is in fact acting as the worst kind of overreaching bureaucrat that is the antithesis of libertarianism. If her job offends her she can resign, otherwise do as the bible instructed Roman soldiers and slaves to do.

  23. Ron W Says:

    Ironic indeed, that SCOTUS based its decision on “gay marriage” on the 14th Amendment’s ” equal protection of the laws”, yet a county clerk goes to jail for failure to comply while others in higher officialdom, most notably the President, refuse to enforce laws with impunity. It brings to mind the biblical phrase, “wickedness in high places”.

  24. KM Says:

    Doc said: you donít need a marriage license for any of those things, just a marriage, which in many states (including my own) the government recognizes even without the license.

    Interesting. I’ve gotten married in 2 states and both wanted a license purchased.
    (tried to convince the wife it was Title of Ownership. I manly bail before she grabs something to throw)

    As far as the deputies of the clerks office giving out the licenses, a talking head on a news channel said, (so take with a salt lick), even though the deputy would do it, it would still be the clerks name on the license. They also stated that they could have gone to another county and gotten a license. PITA for someone who just wants to get hitched. They got what they wanted, a license and her ass is in jail.

  25. Mike Says:

    I would like to see a simple federal law allowing for a private right of action, similar to a writ of mandamus, that would allow the courts to remove public officials to refuse to do their jobs.

  26. Kristophr Says:

    The county clerk involved is a Democrat, by the way.

  27. Ron W Says:

    Mike, I wonder how far down the presidential succession chain we would have to go to get a compliant employee? Or would there be judges who would actually do the removal? Impeachment is the current Constitutional remedy, but the two party system, the “party spirit” of which George Washington warned, pretty much negates removal of presidents and “lesser magistrates”.