Agree or Disagree with 'Gun Sanctuaries'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
... Am I saying that some “no kind of lawyer” peasants opined that a law previously voted on by the Supreme Court, was Constitutional/Unconstitutional, sued, challenged the ruling in a later court, and THAT court reversed the previous decision because it had different judges on the bench now with different beliefs and opinions? ...
Of course that happened. But it wasn't the raw opinion of members of the public that changed it. It was an opinion, perhaps supported by legal analyses by lawyers, that motivated the Court challenge.

But the law wasn't actually unconstitutional until the Court ruled.
 
Frank Ettin, ....I think you're missing a point:...

I deal in reality. The following is reality (in summary -- I've written in depth on these points and won't repeat all the detail here):

  1. As I've discussed many times, the Constitution provides that issues or disagreements about what the Constitution means or how it applies are the province of the federal courts. It is also well settled that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited governmental regulations.

    So the RKBA will be regulated. The limits of constitutionally permissible regulation of the RKBA will be discovered as cases are litigated. While we have a theoretically good foundation with Heller and McDonald, we've gotten some lousy court of appeal decisions. But Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, and we can anticipate considerable evolution in the scope of permissible regulation. And for that reason we need to approach Second Amendment litigation wisely and prudently to minimize the development of more unsatisfactory precedent.

  2. The Declaration of Independence was essentially a public justification for our breaking up with England. Unlike the Constitution, it is not law.

    The philosophical points you raise are, perhaps, best addressed in the political arena. Whether they will get much traction there is an open question.

  3. Remember that the underlying causes of the American Revolution were economic.

    At the time of the Revolution, the Thirteen Colonies were in their own rights significant economic and political entities, and they had been for some time. Each was substantially self governing, subject to the oversight of the Crown. Each had its public administration infrastructure. The independent economic prosperity of the Colonies in fact laid the foundation for the Revolution. England wanted money, and the economic prosperity of the Colonies made them an attractive revenue source. And so England started to increase its economic demands (in the form of taxes and control of commercial activities) to the point that many of the more successful colonists, like many of our Founding Fathers, were motivated to resist the English attempts at stifling colonial prosperity. And colonial resistance to English economic policies led to English political constraints.

...Would the Founders have abided by a law that said they did not have the right to "alter or abolish" their government?..you seem to be arguing that this system is the proper system, and is what the founders intended when they crafted the Constitution....
It's fatuous to believe that the Founding Fathers all agreed on exactly what they meant and how the Constitution would apply. The reality was that although fifty-five delegates attended the Constitutional Convention in 1786-87, only thirty-nine signed the proposed Constitution. Thirteen left early without signing, and three refused to sign. There was then a bitter fight over ratification by the States. And it indeed looked like the Constitution would fail ratification until the Massachusetts Compromise was hashed out -- giving us the Bill of Rights after the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights.

The Founding Fathers well understood how people do disagree and how politics works. They were active, mostly successfully, in the commercial and political world of the time. Many were lawyers. A few were judges. Almost all were very well educated. They were generally politically savvy. Many were members at various times of their home colonial assemblies or were otherwise active in local government or administration. They were solidly grounded in the real world and knew how to make things work in the real world. That is why they were able to bring our nation into being.

The Founding Fathers left us with --

  • A system of checks and balances achieved through a separation of powers among the Congress (legislative), the President (executive) and the Courts (judicial);

  • Of these three branches of government, the legislative was most directly subject to the influence of the body politic, and the judicial was the least subject to the direct influence of the body politic;

  • Judicial power vested in a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress might establish, and this judicial power would extend to all cases arising under, among other things, the Constitution and the laws of the United States;

  • A Constitution that could be changed, albeit with difficulty.

So indeed the system left us by the Founding Fathers offers built in provision for altering it. We elect our representatives and can influence, through the exercise of political power.

And the judiciary, as other branches of government, is still subject to checks and balances. So if a judge's decision is unsatisfactory, the ball might well be in the court of the legislature.

It's not the proper role of a court to decide if the result is good or bad. It's the job of a court to apply the the law and applicable precedent to decide the case. It can sometimes be argued that in a given case the law was not properly applied, or the result of applying the law and precedent can in fact be unsatisfactory to some. We could think that a law is a bad idea or bad public policy, and that law could be entirely within the power of Congress to enact and perfectly constitutional. Being constitutional does not guarantee that a law is a good thing.

I often cite the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) as an example of this phenomenon. It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result. "Checks and balances" at work.

And if we aren't getting the result we'd like it's not the fault of the system. It's a fundamental error to believe that it’s about "systems" -- that there is some system, any system, which will automatically produce the right results.

We live in a pluralistic, political society, and not everyone thinks as we do. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role government. So while we may be using the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give us to promote our vision of how things should be, others may and will be using those same tools to promote their visions. The Constitution, our laws, and our system give us resource and remedies. We can associate with others who think as we do and exercise what political power that association gives us to influence legislation. We have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people we to elect legislators and other public officials who we consider more attuned to our interests. And we can seek redress in court. And others who believe differently have the same opportunities.

We are "the system." We elect our representatives. We have the final say at the ballot box. If some of us aren't happy with how things are working it means we're failing to get enough people to go along with our values and beliefs. We're failing to inspire.

The Constitution does not bestow wisdom. It's up to the body politic to be wise and to use the processes provided for in the Constitution to make wise decisions and promote wise policies. A "system" can't be wise. A "system" is just a mechanism. It is up to those using the mechanism to use it wisely.

If we can't effectively use the existing legal and political process to better further our interests and values -- "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves ..."
 
Last edited:
I wholeheartedly disagree with sanctuary anything. State laws should be nested within federal laws, city laws nested within state laws, etc. However, since the Dems created sanctuary cities to provide safe havens for criminals, I think it only fair that gun owners can have safe havens where they can own, sell, and manufacture any type of guns and gun accessories. The Dems always want to make up new rules to suit their idiotic ideas. If they want to play stupid games, then their stupid prize can be a litany of sanctuary gun cities.
 
....I think it only fair that gun owners can have safe havens where they can own, sell, and manufacture any type of guns and gun accessories. ....

The problem is that gun sanctuaries aren't really
....safe havens where gun owners can own, sell, and manufacture any type of guns or gun accessories...
at least insofar as federal law is concerned. Guns owners need to clearly understand that or risk winding up like Jeremy Kettler convicted in federal court of an NFA violation when he thought that the Kansas Firearms Freedom law protected him.
 
The problem is that gun sanctuaries aren't really
at least insofar as federal law is concerned. Guns owners need to clearly understand that or risk winding up like Jeremy Kettler convicted in federal court of an NFA violation when he thought that the Kansas Firearms Freedom law protected him.

I agree. It does sound nice as it throws the whole "sanctuary" status back in the face of progressives, but it's purely symbolic and not something I would test. Sure, more of the NM counties have established their jurisdictions as "sanctuary" counties against the state's anti-gun measures, but as soon as Federal Laws are ignored, it just means those Sheriffs won't help the ATF when they kick in your door at 0300; it doesn't offer you any protection or sanctuary.

ROCK6
 
The reality is in Democratic System one can always be outvoted and the electorate can be easily maniplulated. It seens that politicians only pay attention to large crowds. Given that time is not our friend what should we do?
 
The reality is in Democratic System one can always be outvoted and the electorate can be easily maniplulated. It seens that politicians only pay attention to large crowds. Given that time is not our friend what should we do?

-That's why the Founding Fathers established this country as a Republic, not a democracy.
Democracy leads to aristocratic rule by those willing to provide "bread and circuses" to the masses.
 
Do the sheriffs in a sanctuary that refuses to aid the ATF in a critical incident, such as shots fired and an agent down during a search, expect to get ATF or other Federal help in cases other than a gun case? Or should the Feds not help them on other issues and tech support that a rural sheriff might need.

Might Mulder and Sculley stay home when Bigfeet are eating the citizens of Mayberry?
 
Do the sheriffs in a sanctuary that refuses to aid the ATF in a critical incident, such as shots fired and an agent down during a search, expect to get ATF or other Federal help in cases other than a gun case? Or should the Feds not help them on other issues and tech support that a rural sheriff might need.
Interesting question .... bringing up the possibility that this disjuncture between fed and local law enforcement could conceivably snowball out of control as "tit for tat" sanctuary situations continue. While I often distrust federal LEO (after Ruby Ridge and Waco that was often chic) the fact is our Founders gave us Federal Supremacy for a reason.
When I first heard of gun sanctuary cities I admit to reacting a bit exuberant at the idea of "sweet sweet revenge," but we surely do NOT need a breakdown of law and order.
I think that could become a real possibility in our society ... divided as it is today.

Might Mulder and Sculley stay home when Bigfeet are eating the citizens of Mayberry?

Well, I dunno ... but the truth is out there, if you can find it. BTW you misspelled Scully. :neener: [/Friendly razz]
 
See link below. Latest MSM take on the "gun sanctuary" movement. Food for thought. The movement seems to be growing. (Caution: some lawyers here might be annoyed that a few non-lawyer sheriffs have stated they believe new laws in their states to be unconstitutional).
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/d...berals-on-immigration/ar-BBUlu1b?ocid=SK2FDHP

Oh, and check out the neat grip panels on Sheriff Tony Mace's 1911!
 
...some lawyers here might be annoyed that a few non-lawyer sheriffs have stated they believe new laws in their states to be unconstitutional...

  1. People say all sorts of things. That doesn't mean what they say is true or means anything.

  2. Sheriffs are elected, and like all elected officials will sometimes say things that they think their constituents will like, whether or not what they say is true.

See also post 46:
...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.)
 
In my state it's strictly symbolic and no one is stupid enough to believes it has any standing in law. It's simply to let the liberal powers that have taken over state government know not everyone agrees with them. I do believe the local sherriff when he says he will not use any county resources to enforce this law and there really isn't much recourse for the state to change that. Also the NM Sherriff's Association has already given notice that they have a lawsuit ready and waiting to be filed when the law goes into effect. Then we get to see how it plays out in the courts while the taxpayers foot the lawyer's costs.
 
-That's why the Founding Fathers established this country as a Republic, not a democracy.
Democracy leads to aristocratic rule by those willing to provide "bread and circuses" to the masses.
I hear this all the time, as an excuse for a political minority blocking the wishes of the majority. Almost always, this is said by those on the Right, afraid of a resurgent Left.

It just isn't true. The entire arc of American history, from the very beginning (even as far back as the Mayflower Compact), represents a struggle for more and more democracy. Read the writings and speeches of people such as Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan (all Republicans, btw).

Winston Churchill said that democracy was the worst form of government, except for any other.

Republican forms are not inconsistent with democracy. Apples and oranges. All that "republic" means is that it's not a monarchy. A "republic" is the structure whereas "democracy" is the underlying political philosophy, having to do with popular sovereignty, consent of the governed, etc.

Besides that, people that say this equate "democracy" with mob rule, or "ochlocracy." To the ancient Greeks, who originated these terms, "democracy" was rule by the organized body of the citizenry (the "demos") operating under prespecified rules. That was the exact opposite of "ochlocracy" (mob rule).
 
....Republican forms are not inconsistent with democracy. Apples and oranges. All that "republic" means is that it's not a monarchy. A "republic" is the structure whereas "democracy" is the underlying political philosophy, having to do with popular sovereignty, consent of the governed, etc.....

It can be a whole lot muddier. Consider these definitions:

  1. A "republic":
    A commonwealth; a form of government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the general body of citizens, and in which the executive power is lodged in officers chosen by and representing the people, and holding office for a limited period, or at most during good behavior or at the pleasure of the people, and in which the legislative power may be (and in modern republics is) intrusted to a representative assembly...

  2. A "democracy":
    That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens; as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. According to the theory of a pure democracy, every citizen should participate directly in the business of governing, and the legislative assembly should comprise the whole people....
 
If you define "democracy" as Frank Ettin has in definition #2, we are not, and have never been, a democracy.
It's been my belief we are a "representative republic."
AlexanderA made some good points above, but I must say I think many politicians, including those AlexanderA mentioned, have often played rather loose with these terms. "Democracy" sounds pretty good to many Americans, and always has.
It hasn't always sounded good; Socrates is said to have stated; "the problem with democracies is two fools will out vote one wise man."
Many founders were influenced by the Greek philosophers, and later ones like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and even Niccolò Machiavelli.
They gave us a Constitution with a set of principles intended to guide us. It certainly is not a pure democracy, since we do not individually participate in every decision in our government. But we do democratically elect our representatives.
I think I will be happy with the "representative republic," since I tend to think Socrates had a point about democracies ..... especially seeing much of the political shenanigans in our country's political life in recent years ..... :eek:.....:thumbdown:
 
Last edited:
This boils down to a case of who has the biggest package. The Federal Government sets laws based on the Constitution, State Governments don't like the way the laws are written so they make their own to circumvent Federal Law. City Governments don't like the way State Laws are written so they make laws to circumvent State Laws. In most cases the City and State laws are illegal under the Constitution. The main reason the Pilgrims came to the New World was due to the laws. The King had laws, the Lords made laws, the Dukes & Earls made laws and so on all the way down the chain of command while the base citizens were forced to become outlaws. "Those who ignore history will be doomed to repeat it".
 
It can be a whole lot muddier. Consider these definitions [snipped]
Frank, I beg to differ with those definitions (even though they are from the online Black's Law Dictionary). For example, the UK is unquestionably a democracy, even though in form it is a monarchy. On the other hand, every Communist dictatorship is in form a republic, although certainly not a democracy. Even the early Italian Renaissance republics, such as Venice and San Marino, were not democratic or representational. Dictatorships like to wrap themselves in the guise of republics, whereas democracies can function under either republican or (constitutional) monarchical structures. This is why we have to separate the form from the function. Let's just simply say that the United States is a representative democracy, set up in republican form. (Interestingly, in modern Greek the word dimokratia means both "democracy" and "republic." The official name of the country, Elliniki Dimokratia, is translated as "Hellenic Republic.")
 
I wholeheartedly disagree with sanctuary anything. State laws should be nested within federal laws, city laws nested within state laws, etc. However, since the Dems created sanctuary cities to provide safe havens for criminals, I think it only fair that gun owners can have safe havens where they can own, sell, and manufacture any type of guns and gun accessories. The Dems always want to make up new rules to suit their idiotic ideas. If they want to play stupid games, then their stupid prize can be a litany of sanctuary gun cities.

To paraphrase: "What is good for the goose, is good for the gander."
 
This boils down to a case of who has the biggest package. The Federal Government sets laws based on the Constitution, State Governments don't like the way the laws are written so they make their own to circumvent Federal Law. City Governments don't like the way State Laws are written so they make laws to circumvent State Laws. In most cases the City and State laws are illegal under the Constitution. The main reason the Pilgrims came to the New World was due to the laws. ....
Ah. nope.

[1] A law isn't "illegal" under the Constitution unless a proper court says so. Your opinion on the question doesn't count.

It is also a well settled principle of law that the courts give deference to legislative acts and presume statutes valid and enforceable. 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....

And much more recently in U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000):
...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....

[2] Our early settlers came here primarily (1) to escape religious persecution; and/or (2) to seek opportunities.

[3] Here's how the federal-state thing works:

  1. Our's is a federal system. States are sovereign, political entities. At the time of the founding of our nation each State effectively ceded some measure of sovereignty to join with the others to become the United States. How much sovereignty each would cede was a central issue in hashing out the Constitution. Our nation would not have come into existence had the States/Commonwealths not retained an acceptable degree of sovereignty.

  2. A fundamental attribute of government is what's known as police power:
    The inherent authority of a government to impose restrictions on private rights for the sake of public welfare, order, and security.

  3. The police powers of States are broad and general.

  4. However, as our federal government has been established under the Constitution the federal government has no general police powers. Instead, its powers are specifically described in the Constitution. So, for example, Congress only has the power to pass laws consistent with the specific powers granted to it under Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (subject to certain limitations set out in Section 9 of Article I).

  5. That arrangement is acknowledged by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

  6. Deciding whether a law or other act of the federal government is within its power.

    • The first issue will be whether a law or act of the federal government is within a power granted to it by the Constitution. So for example, the scope of the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause to pass laws regulating marijuana has been defined and confirmed under a number of Supreme Court decisions, most recently Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

    • A second issue will be whether a particular federal law impairs rights protected under the Bill of Rights. However, the courts have ruled that some regulation of rights protected by the Bill of Rights is permissible.

    • The Founding Fathers assigned to the federal courts the authority to decide what the Constitution means and how it applies to matters in controversy (Constitution, 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,...​

  7. Deciding whether a law or other act of a state government is within its power.

    • While the police powers of a State are general and broad, each State/Commonwealth has its own constitution. A State's constitution may circumscribe powers of the State government and provide explicit protection of some rights.

    • Since in the United States each State or Commonwealth has its own government in the form of a representative democracy, the people in each have the opportunity to influence what laws are adopted and how they are implemented.

    • While 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. Thus those enumerated rights found applicable to the State have also become limiting factor on the exercise by States of their police power.

    • To the extent that the question of the validity of a state law raises an issue under the United States Constitution, the meaning and application of the Constitution is finally a matter to be decided by the federal courts.

  8. What about when there's federal law and state law on the same subject?

    • The whole area of choice of law (where the laws of multiple jurisdictions could be applicable) is a huge, complex, and pretty much non-intuitive subject.

    • In general federal law will supercede state law. See The Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Clause 2:
      This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    • If the particular issue addressed by the state law is also addressed by the federal law, there's the question of whether the particular federal law was intended to "occupy the field", i. e., be the final word on the subject. In that case the federal law preempts the state law and applies instead of the state law.

    • On the other hand, if a court decides that the federal law did not reflect an intent to occupy the field, in order to decide if federal law or state law applies a court will need to decide if the state law is consistent a federal policy concern or would, on the other hand, frustrate the federal policy furthered by the law. Or a federal law could be found to preempt state law if either expressly or by inference the federal law was intended to promote national uniformity with regard to a particular issue.

    • Sometimes federal law will be explicit about how a conflict between federal law and state law is to be resolved. An example which comes immediately to mind involves the confidentiality of medical information regulation under HIPAA. Those regulations expressly provide that they don't supersede state laws to the extent providing greater protection of an individual's confidentiality interests. For another example, with regard to firearms regulation, federal law (the Gun Control Act of 1968) expressly doesn't preempt state laws. See 18 USC 927:
      No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.

    • Sometimes there's no conflict between federal and state laws. If something is a crime under federal law but not state law, the crime would be prosecuted by the federal government, and visa versa. An act that is both a federal and state crime can be prosecuted by either, or both, the state and federal governments.

Yes, that's all very complicated. But it is what it is, and it's not going to be changing any time soon.
 
It is also a well settled principle of law that the courts give deference to legislative acts and presume statutes valid and enforceable. As the Supreme Court said in Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), at 437:

Where does the presumption of constitutionality from? Is it a logical extension of the presumption of innocence or does it derive from English common law... or is it just something they made up in one of their rulings?
 
Where does the presumption of constitutionality from? Is it a logical extension of the presumption of innocence or does it derive from English common law... or is it just something they made up in one of their rulings?

Consider the consequences of presuming laws are unconstitutional. Immediatly upon being enforced there would have to be numerous appeals up the chain trying to prove Constitutionality. It's said our courts are swamped now.....such a system, it seems to me, would become crushed under its own weight. It isn't a very logical philosophy to build a legal system on, really.

I'm not saying I particularly love the system as is, but remember one thing: The Courts enforce the laws our legislatures make.

WE ELECT THOSE LEGISLATURES.

"We get the type of government we deserve," as the snarky philosopher said.
 
Consider the consequences of presuming laws are unconstitutional. Immediatly upon being enforced there would have to be numerous appeals up the chain trying to prove Constitutionality. It's said our courts are swamped now.....such a system, it seems to me, would become crushed under its own weight. It isn't a very logical philosophy to build a legal system on, really.

I'm not saying I particularly love the system as is, but remember one thing: The Courts enforce the laws our legislatures make.

WE ELECT THOSE LEGISLATURES.

"We get the type of government we deserve," as the snarky philosopher said.

Oh I get it, and I'm not doubting the legitimacy of such a concept. It makes sense that they are presumed constitutional until proven otherwise. I was just curious where that derived from.

Though sometimes, when the lawmakers make such obvious bad faith efforts when passing a law that ends up getting struck down, it would be nice for the court to say, "instead of the accuser demonstrating that this law is unconstitutional, how about you show us in the constitution where it says you have the power to do what you did".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top