Agree or Disagree with 'Gun Sanctuaries'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to admit, this is a subject I’m torn on and I haven’t landed on either side, so far as it pertains to firearms and the second amendment.


I do not believe any state or municipality should be able to give the finger (figuratively) to the Federal Government and say “no, we don’t like that so we’re not going to do it...” we have to be a nation of laws in order to keep order.

At the same time when the Federal Government blatantly disregards, or contradicts, the Constitution that should not mean it gets ignored just because they say so.

The problem is the overwhelming majority of Americans and nearly all people in the three branches of government, don’t care what the constitution says, except when it fits their agenda. So when it gets contradicted or ignored people don’t care.


Then theirs the fact that at the end of the day, what the constitution says doesn’t really matter, what the people think doesn’t matter. If you (or anyone else) refuses to obey a Federal Law because it’s unconstitutional you’ll go to jail. Even if it is obviously unconstitutional, because who decides if it’s unconstitutional, SCOTUS. Who have proven through history they don’t mind violating the constitution.

When Roy Moore was removed from office years ago, his entire argument for defying the SCOTUS was that they had given him an Unconstitutional order therefore he didn’t have to obey it... that was the argument he gave to (wait for it) the SCOTUS. Obviously they said they were right and he was wrong.....shocking I know.


In the end, I don’t fault them for making a “gun sanctuary” because it’s nothing more than second amendment obedience, and I agree with that. At the same time I don’t fault anyone for opposing the idea based on simple rule of law, which we have to maintain if we want a civil society. I agree with that to.
 
If the “sanctuary” is a mere refusal to use local resources for federal tastings, I’m ok with them. Federal law violations absent state crimes are federal responsibilities, barring serious criminal activity. But local laws do not preempt federal or state laws.
 
The linked article is the state of Illinois making it illegal for local governments to ignore state gun laws, so called gun sanctuaries. Not sure where all the talk about ignoring federal law is coming from.

If anyone is ignoring federal law it’s the state of Illinois for passing laws in violation of the 2A, but the state of Illinois isn’t creating any sanctuary.

But whatever. If a local government wants to ignore a state law that violates the 2A, then more power to them. It’s the same as when LEO’s proclaim that they will not enforce confiscation laws in violation of the 2A. So yeah, I support “gun sanctuaries”.
 
Old Dog said:
While the Seattle city council and mayor go about crafting more and more firearms regulations stricter than state or federal law (in violation of the state preemption as well), the mayor has de facto legalized possession of amounts of Schedule 1 controlled substances (specifically meth and heroin) found on users -- as well as supporting legal injection sites (at taxpayer expense, no less) AND the city has proclaimed itself a sanctuary city for illegal aliens.

If a city or jurisdiction can do this on any social issue, why would you argue against a sanctuary city for firearms?

What causes MORE crime, ultimately? Increasing your city's numbers of illegals, addicts and the drug flow ... or the guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens?
Click to expand...
Olddog I live on the other side of the mountain. The side that most of us voted against i1639 I agree how can they have sanctuary for illegal immigrants and illegal drugs? And make it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms. On this side of the mountain we have 12 sheriff's that have said publicly they won't enforce i1639 I'm all for it. The Liberals want to let people do illegal drugs and give sanctuary to illegal aliens on tax payer dollars. And pass laws to take our firearms that's BS. Washington state is becoming a very liberal state thinking it's time to move!
 
Such sanctuaries are just political theater whatever the issue. The offending object or persons may be protected for a bit by lack of local enforcement. That doesn't mean the object is useful or the people safe from the law.

The banned gun item can just be hidden and has no use in self-defense, hunting or competition. If you croak, you leave a problem for your heirs. The risk of disclosure and having state authorities on you is always there if the items are discovered. In the case of a person, they live a life in fear of discovery and the legal consequences. Being a fugitive isn't a great life.

Thus, unless such actions - sanctuary gun, sanctuary people, local marijuana laws, etc. can lead to political action to solve the problem - they are best seen a PR for a solution to rally support and influence legislation. You may or may not agree with the given sanctuary so you can move to a golden mountain top or whatever.
 
GEM said:
Such sanctuaries are just political theater whatever the issue. The offending object or persons may be protected for a bit by lack of local enforcement. That doesn't mean the object is useful or the people safe from the law....
Click to expand...

Nailed it. And a great risk of this sort of sanctuary nonsense, or the "firearm freedom" laws that some States enacted, is that people will believe that they mean something and then discover to their chagrin when it's too late that the federal courts see things differently.

Also everyone needs to remember that in the real world no one cares that you think a law is unconstitutional. What counts is what the courts say, and no law is unconstitutional unless/until the correct court has said so. And unless/until that has happened your opinion on the question is, "... as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."
 
GEM said:
Such sanctuaries are just political theater whatever the issue.
Click to expand...
Um, would suggest that most members here totally get this. But that's not the point.
Frank Ettin said:
And a great risk of this sort of sanctuary nonsense, or the "firearm freedom" laws that some States enacted, is that people will believe that they mean something and then discover to their chagrin when it's too late that the federal courts see things differently.
Click to expand...
And again, I suspect most members here understand this as well.

Heard the phrase, "Fight fire with fire?" The important thing here is getting a message out. Showing resistance, so to speak. The sixteen or so county sheriffs and police chiefs in Eastern Washington who've gone public with statements that they don't intend to enforce I-1639 are simply communicating a message; it's a shot across the bow, so to speak -- and it's the only way they can call attention to bad law. They fully understand the ramifications of their stand, and they're counting on getting action from the voters after the abysmal election turn-outs throughout the state that allowed one county to vote in an unconstitutional law. Actually, I'm starting to think their stand isn't just political theater and pandering to their own electorate, but a display of courage.

But those of you in other states (California?), just go ahead and render judgement. Your cause is already lost.
 
Yup. The idea that there is a need for a "gun sanctuary" clearly demonstrates how badly we have screwed up our Republic and how badly we need to fix this mess and soon...... while we still can. The problem is NOT going to be fixed by voting in rigged elections or writing letters to corrupt politicians or protesting. The next phase is going to be prisons, re-education camps and gas chambers. History has shown us this. It CAN happen here.....
 
Aim1 said:
You cannot have laws that are against Federal law. If you do not like Federal laws then change them.
Click to expand...

Federal laws that violate the Constitution are automatically null & void, and our law enforcement community has a sworn duty to disregard them.

The problem is establishing which ones cross that line, which is generally a decision for the judicial branches, not executive. Some proposed legislation, however, does not require a law degree to understand that it's a blatant violation.
 
As I said, it's a message to change political and voting behavior. If one objects to the term theater, that's rather trivial. Will such messaging lead to legislative change.?

Frank and I were commenting on the pragmatics of such resistance as protection against the law and allowing you to actually use the item now.

Let me throw out a hypothetical for the sheriffs. A person is found to have banned items. The local sheriff says that he or she will not enforce the law. The state police arrive to confiscate said items and a fire fight ensues. Do you expect the sheriff's department not to respond for a call for assistance?

Let's say that without resistance a person like that is arrested and the state police want to stash him in the country lockup for a bit. Will the country authorities refuse to take that person into custody?

Before you answer, consider the Fugitive Slave Acts. Read the War Before the War - Fugitive Slaves. Andrew Delblanco. In those days, Northern states and localities were exactly in the same position.

I fully support such a move to denounce the law. In fact, the sheriff should lead a band of folks carrying such items to the state capitol.

The battle is for the mind of the voter.
 
There is hard core and there is 'hard core'. Unfortunately, in today's world 'hard core' gun supporter politicians seem to have little problem becoming 'soft care'. We see that at all levels. Don't see many turn around from soft core to hard core though.

As I've said, many times - the major organizational messages from the gun positive folks have not been that effective outside of the committed. That's for another thread.
 
GEM said:
the major organizational messages from the gun positive folks have not been that effective outside of the committed.
Click to expand...
I agree we need to do a better job of that, but it won't stop the "hardcore" anti politicians from trying to push gun control legislation. But, they need help, and it's there we can make headway, and swaying the average voter can help there. For some reason the hardcore antis like Schumer, Pelosi, etc manage to keep getting elected despite it. We won't likely make headway there, it has to be in the help, via votes, they get from less committed anti gun politicians. Switch a few of those on either side of the isle and our chances get much greater to succeed.
 
The right way to go is to change the law. Doesn’t matter if it’s a law against possessing a particular good, completing a particular service, or whatever. Violation of law is still violation of law, no matter the point behind it. You are either falling into line or stepping out hoping for enough people to take your side to start a civil war. There is no gray area, there is no in between. If it’s illegal-don’t, if it’s legal-you decide.

That said the laws are dumb, unconstitutional, and ineffective. Repeal the majority and reform what’s left.
 
Direct discussions of immigration is off topic. The issue is whether gun sanctuaries are effective in the gun rights debate.
 
Speedo66 said:
There is no such thing as a gun sanctuary state, violate Federal law and the ATF people will come down on you.

You’ll be standing there going “but, but, they said I was safe here” as they snap the cuffs on.

The feds let the marijuana people get away with it because there’s big money to be made there. As we know, money trumps everything.
Click to expand...

That is a remote chance, in the case for example of two sellers making a private sale. Lots of county sheriffs have already said they wouldn't enforce these background check laws, so calling them wouldn't do anything. I think the gun sanctuary movement is great.
 
Old Dog said:
...I suspect most members here understand...
Click to expand...
It's not clear that some members really understand much of this when they post silly things like:

  1. Old Dog said:
    ...one county to vote in an unconstitutional law...
    Click to expand...

  2. theotherwaldo said:
    The United States is a gun sanctuary.

    Gun banners are the law breakers.
    Click to expand...

  3. MachIVshooter said:
    Federal laws that violate the Constitution are automatically null & void, and our law enforcement community has a sworn duty to disregard them.

    ....Some proposed legislation, however, does not require a law degree to understand that it's a blatant violation.
    Click to expand...

Whether or not a law is constitutional is up to the courts, not anyone else.

Legislative bodies do sometimes enact laws, with a good faith, if mistaken, belief that they can pass constitutional muster. The Stolen Valor Act is a good example.

While a law might ultimately be found unconstitutional, and thus void, the Founding Fathers in the Constitution assigned the authority to decide questions regarding the meaning and application of the Constitution not to you, or me, or local law enforcement, but to the federal courts (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

Section 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,...
Click to expand...

And indeed, it is a general principle in the United States that courts give deference to legislative acts and presume statutes valid and enforceable, unless unconstitutionality is determined:

  1. As the Supreme Court said in Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), at 437:
    ...It has been truly said, that the presumption is in favour of every legislative act, and that the whole burden of proof lies on him who denies its constitutionality...
    Click to expand...

  2. And much more recently in U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), at 605:
    ......Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577_578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress' power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution....
    Click to expand...

Holding on to cherished misconceptions about what the law is or how the law works doesn't help promote the RKBA. To deal effectively with reality we must first clearly understand it.
 
Paul7 said:
...Lots of county sheriffs have already said they wouldn't enforce these background check laws, ...
Click to expand...

But so what?

A sheriff might have some broad discretion about what state laws he wants to devote resources to enforcing, but that doesn't change the law. A local chief of police could still enforce the law within his jurisdiction, or, if the governor or attorney general has enough interest, any state police might get involved. And sheriffs leave office, so the new sheriff could have different ideas. (And of course federal agents can still enforce federal laws even without local cooperation.)
 
Frank Ettin said:
It's not clear that some members really understand much of this when they post silly things like:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess it is silly to expect some folks to actually follow the Constitution... .

Using that logic, a state could simply declare the entire Constitution to be null and void within their borders and then just do whatever they want until the case runs through the court system.
 
That is well known in history. Before the Civil War many Slave states passed laws that forbid public speech, printed materials and preaching from the pulpit opposing slavery. I guess those folks failed to understand the Constitution when it suited them.

Opposing the law by not adhering to it and deliberately defying it is a noble tradition for Constitutional and civil rights causes. The resistance to the Fugitive Slave laws and later actions taken against segregation and Jim Crow laws are case in point. For those to be the starters of successful action, the resistance had to tap into existing attitudes among significant segments of the population and/or aid in changing the minds of folks to void the laws.

It is an empirical question whether the statements of rural sheriffs will do this? I wonder if the research arms of progun organizations have tested this messaging for efficacy. If it only impacts the committed, it isn't that useful. If it is a negative as when state authorities opposed civil rights with force, then the actions are a loss. I note there was not a reasonable messaging for segregation, nor should there have been for that horror.

If a person owning a banned weapon goes off the rails in a county where a sheriff 'resisted', think that will be a positive? For Frank, might one sue the sheriff is it was shown he knew the banned item existed in the hands of Person XYZ.
 
theotherwaldo said:
Yeah, I guess it is silly to expect some folks to actually follow the Constitution...
Click to expand...

Oh, the Constitution applies, but you don't get to decide what it means or how it applies. No one really cares about your opinion on those subject. What you think about whether or not something is constitutional doesn't matter in the real world.

You might not like it, but so what? That's how things are in real life in the real world. Your opinion about whether a law is constitutional and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
 
GEM said:
...Before the Civil War many Slave states passed laws that forbid public speech, printed materials and preaching from the pulpit opposing slavery. I guess those folks failed to understand the Constitution when it suited them....
Click to expand...

Actually at that time the Bill of Rights did not apply to States. The Supreme Court ruled in 1833 that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States (Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)), some years following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment the doctrine evolved of applying some, but not all, of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the States on a piecemeal basis, using the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The 14th Amendment wasn't used to apply rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the States until, at the earliest, 1897 (Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897) incorporating the "taking" clause of the 5th Amendment through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment). And the right of free speech protected by the First Amendment wasn't applied to the States until 1925 (Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)).

GEM said:
...Opposing the law by not adhering to it and deliberately defying it is a noble tradition for Constitutional and civil rights causes. The resistance to the Fugitive Slave laws and later actions taken against segregation and Jim Crow laws are case in point. For those to be the starters of successful action, the resistance had to tap into existing attitudes among significant segments of the population and/or aid in changing the minds of folks to void the laws....
Click to expand...

Exactly. Civil disobedience as an effective tool for social change tends to rely on the ability to generate empathy. Acts of civil disobedience, effectively used during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, involved very normal, benign, human acts: taking a seat on a bus for the ride home after a hard day at work; sitting at a lunch counter to have a meal; a child registering to attend school; registering to vote; voting; etc. These are normal, every day thing that White folks took for granted. And it became profoundly disturbing for many White to see other humans arrested for doing these normal, benign things simply because of the color of their skin.

And such civil disobedience was favorably reported by the mainstream media, and favorably commented upon on college campuses and in sermons in houses of worship across the nation, helping generate great public sympathy for the cause. That sympathy helped lead to the election of pro-civil rights legislators and executives. And that led to the enactment of pro-civil rights laws.

During the Civil Rights Movement many Whites came to care about the plight of the Blacks, and much of the focus was to make Whites understand and care. The successes of non-Whites on the social and legislative fronts depended on Whites seeing non-Whites as oppressed. How many non-gun owners think gun owners are oppressed?

GEM said:
...If a person owning a banned weapon goes off the rails in a county where a sheriff 'resisted', think that will be a positive? For Frank, might one sue the sheriff is it was shown he knew the banned item existed in the hands of Person XYZ.
Click to expand...

A lawsuit is a reach. But it certainly could well be a political firestorm. And it would help the anti-gun folks make their case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Tucson to ignore Arizona's 'Second Amendment sanctuary' law
Replies
17
Views
1K
GEM
G
hps1
  • Locked
Sheriff Calls for ‘Sanctuary County’ to Protect Gun Rights
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Jammersix
Jammersix
N
  • Locked
It's not just gun control... Rudy Giuliani is Vehemently Pro Illegal Immigration!
Replies
24
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
Craig_AR
  • Locked
2A Sanctuaries in Virginia
Replies
2
Views
768
GEM
G
4
  • Locked
Guns in Mount Rainier National Park
Replies
9
Views
810
4Freedom
4
Back
Top