Murdered Judge Defended Sheriff Mack

(This is a follow up to an earlier post on Richard Mack http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/former-arizona-sheriff-richard-mack-greatest-threat-is-not-terrorists-it-is-the-federal-government/comment-page-1/#comment-308275)

The New American reports that

Judge John M. Roll, murdered in Saturday’s shooting rampage in Tucson, was the leading judicial voice supporting former Graham County, Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack in his 1997 lawsuit against the federal government. Mack is a speaker, states’ rights advocate and author of The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope.

Sheriff Mack observed in an interview on Alex Jones’ Jan. 10 radio broadcast that John Roll changed his life. He has quoted Roll in his books. In 1997, when Mack was sheriff of Graham County, he joined with Sheriff Jay Printz of Montana in filing a  suit against the federal government regarding the Brady Act. The resulting Supreme Court decision found the Act unconstitutional.

The Brady Act not only would have required state and local officials to carry out and fund a federal mandate regarding gun regulations, but it also called for the arrest of any law enforcement officer who refused to enforce it. On the basis of these provisions, Mack and Printz filed suit, and were eventually joined by five other sheriffs around the nation. Mack recalled of the judge:

He was really worried about the sanctions against me (or any other sheriff) — he  protected  me. Judge Roll stood up for me in particular because I was the only one filing the lawsuit at the time.
Richard Mack received 48,317 votes as The Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senator from Arizona in 2006.

13 thoughts on “Murdered Judge Defended Sheriff Mack

  1. Joey G. Dauben

    It’s great that he made this ruling, but the open-borders Libertarians don’t have a stance, do they, on the bringing of a lawsuit by illegal aliens against an Arizona rancher?

    I need to ask a LP lawyer or something what standing an illegal alien has to sue a citizen of the country, ya know?

    He might have sided right with the anti-Brady campaigners, but Judge Roll did a disservice when he let the illegal aliens’ suit go through.

  2. paulie

    Joey,

    There’s no such thing as an illegal alien. All human beings are legal.

    And I don’t have to be a lawyer to tell you that you don’t have to be a citizen of a country, or even reside in that country, to sue someone.

    If, say, a Canadian company ripped you off, should you be allowed to sue them? If you were visiting another country on a trip and, say, police stood around watching, laughing and doing nothing while you were robbed in the open…might you have a case? If you take a job abroad, do you lose all recourse in the legal system? What if you move to another country and it takes years to become a citizen there – no legal recourse no matter what anyone does to you?

    Judge Roll was absolutely right to allow a lawsuit by undocumented workers.

  3. Joey G. Dauben

    paulie, when libertarians and communists both have the same viewpoint on borders as apparently they do, I hope you like reporting the 1, 2, 3 percent vote percentages.

    I’m all for a path to citizenship, but I’m also not the type to view this communist no-borders and libertarian open-borders as salvageable.

  4. paulie

    paulie, when libertarians and communists both have the same viewpoint on borders as apparently they do, I hope you like reporting the 1, 2, 3 percent vote percentages.

    Because the Constitution Party is doing really so much better than the LP…and our principles should be up to change depending on survey results, too?

    I’m all for a path to citizenship, but I’m also not the type to view this communist no-borders and libertarian open-borders as salvageable.

    I don’t have the same point of view as communists on borders. They want a one world government which owns all property on earth. People with your viewpoint want governments to define trespass – but only a legitimate property owner can claim trespass, so that means all property in the whole country really belongs to the government. Just like communism, but at a national scale.

    From the viewpoint of the individual, it looks much the same – either all property around you is owned by a government in DC, or it’s owned by an even bigger government in Geneva or New York, but in any case you can’t really own anything.

    I’m all for cooperation and neighborliness, but I don’t really view this national-socialist or international-socialist “no private property” as salvageable :-)

  5. paulie

    Note, too, that even someone who supports regime-defined borders does not necessarily make the leap all the way to saying only citizens have legal recourse through a court system. That sounds like a pretty extreme claim in itself.

  6. paulie

    I don’t have the same point of view as communists on borders. They want a one world government which owns all property on earth. People with your viewpoint want governments to define trespass – but only a legitimate property owner can claim trespass, so that means all property in the whole country really belongs to the government. Just like communism, but at a national scale.

    From the viewpoint of the individual, it looks much the same – either all property around you is owned by a government in DC, or it’s owned by an even bigger government in Geneva or New York, but in any case you can’t really own anything.

    Thinking about this some more, from the standpoint of the individual who would like to control her own property and decide who is and who isn’t allowed on it, the communist and nationalist ideas of borders are both a form of trespassing.

    The communists tell her that she can’t exclude anyone. The nationalists tell her she must exclude certain people, even though she doesn’t want to. Both want to in effect exercise ownership of her property – that is, if you agree with me that she does in fact legitimately own it, they want to trespass.

Leave a Reply