Agree or Disagree with 'Gun Sanctuaries'?

Two dollars - since when? Hey, when the head of Starbucks becomes President, there will be free coffee for all. The heck with medical care and college!

Thanks for the info on the early implementation of the BOR. Interesting that the early times weren't halcyon days. What I read, though, said folks were saying such actions were against the spirit of the BOR. Now I recall the slave states were were worried about the spirit of the BOR applying to the slaves and the slavery debate.

Frank Ettin said:

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."

Click to expand...

Ok so then I have a question regarding that. If the next Democrat administration decides to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices (as they have threatened to do) and then declares an abolishment of the Second Amendment (very unlikely) or (more plausible) the liberal congress writes a law that, in effect, crippled the 2A to a point of virtually nullifying it, what should be our recourse? The USSP would have the final say. They determine constitutionality of a law. So we should just accept it and go on? Because our opinion about what the law should be doesn’t matter. Only what the court says it is.

Things that were once out of the realm of fathomability, aren’t so much anymore. Just look at the new abortion law in New York and the fully backed Green New Deal. Even under Bill Clinton’s administration, those would have been laughed out of committee. Now, one is law and the other is fully supported by the front runners in the Democratic Party.

I would argue our opinions about law does matter. In fact, they matter greatly. Just today, Oklahoma became the 16th state to allow constitutional carry. That didn’t happen because people didn’t have opinions about what the law “should be”.

Now, on a gun forum like THR (The best one there is btw), maybe the opinions don’t carry much weight. But what they do accomplish is lively discussion about the direction some believe the direction of the country should be headed. Those discussions “can” lead to enlightenment and agreement. That in turn can lead to discussions outside of this forum with other people. Those discussions can then build a fire under some people which in turn can build a fire under more. And eventually those discussions become people contacting their legislators and getting out to vote when they might not otherwise have. And that leads to laws changing. A snowball effect if you will.

I have always been a supporter of the second amendment. But I have never contacted my legislators before becoming a member of this forum. I am very proud to be one of those that didn’t just confine myself off to what the law is. But instead, listened, read, and discussed what others felt the law “should be”. And I’m proud to say that I shared those opinions with my friends, family, coworkers, and legislators. And I voted, and several friends that never voted before now vote, and we have effected change. All because of opinions others shared, and I subsequently agreed with, about what the laws should be.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m an idiot. But telling people on our side that their opinions are silly and don’t matter doesn’t seem like the most effective way to ensure cohesion. It certainly won’t help promote dialogue. It seems very....liberal.

Even the Supreme Court writes “Opinions”. And they have the final say.....

Apples and oranges brother. Having an opinion of a law and voicing one's preference is different from declaring a law invalid and using that as a basis for non-compliance. The former is an important part of the body politic, and the latter wouldn't be a defense in court. Both are opinions, but the use is different.

Edit: shucks I got that wrong. Unconstitutionality is a defense is court. Just that the tricky part is winning.

Frank Ettin said:

But that is a political and policy question, not a legal one.

Everyone is free to have beliefs about what the law should be and exercise his political rights and power to attempt to make it so. But believing that a law is unconstitutional won't make it unconstitutional. The question of the constitutionality of a law is a legal one, not a political or policy one.

Constitutional and unconstitutional aren't the same as "good" and "bad." Good laws can be unconstitutional, and bad laws can be completely constitutional.

Click to expand...

Are the two not in fact intertwined? Supreme Court judges are appointed by presidents ie; politicians. Lower court judges are elected by a vote of the people. The “Law of the Land” is dictated 100% by politics. If Liberal, Democratic candidates are voted into high office, they will (can) appoint Liberal judges who then decide the constitutionality of a written law. A law of opinion (we should make this or that legal/illegal) written by people elected into office based on the opinion of the masses. Every single law we have started as an opinion. So if our opinions don’t matter, then we might as well pack it up and go stand in a food line for government commodities.

For God’s sake, no one says you shouldn’t have an opinion. The issue is a discussion of what works to have a productive strategy to preserve and enhance firearm rights. Because a feel good action may not accomplish that goal should be discussed.

GEM said:

For God’s sake, no one says you shouldn’t have an opinion. The issue is a discussion of what works to have a productive strategy to preserve and enhance firearm rights. Because a feel good action may not accomplish that goal should be discussed.

Click to expand...

“””I would argue our opinions about law does matter. In fact, they matter greatly. Just today, Oklahoma became the 16th state to allow constitutional carry. That didn’t happen because people didn’t have opinions about what the law “should be”.”””

That was the only time I stated, incorrectly, that we “shouldn’t have opinions”. Every other time, I defended that our opinions simply matter. Claiming our opinions about a law’s constitutionality don’t matter is a defeatist philosophy. And will certainly never effect change. And separating law from politics only works if the judges appointed implement complete unbiased views. We all know how often that happens.

There’s no reason to get angry at me. I’m just a nobody from Oklahoma. I just happen to not be afraid to voice my opinion and tried have a dialogue with someone I respect. Even if it’s not worth anything.

A discussion with true application to todays way of getting the rabbit and the tortoise to stop racing and to get them to marry ,to multiply giving birth to future politicians. We give these sanctuary's self evidence that no thought is born of natural means, and only that ignorance that can be conjured by man has relevance worthy of self destruction.

Aim1 said:

As much as I support the 2nd Amendment I do not believe gun sanctuaries are the way to go. Do you agree or disagree?

Click to expand...

I believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, by anyone.

Frank Ettin said:

The question of whether a law is or is not constitutional is a technical matter decided through a particular process.

Click to expand...

The thing is a law can obviously and blatantly contradict the words written in the constitution itself, that law would generally be called “unconstitutional” no matter what the legal system or the judicial branch says.

Now before I get chastised, I’ll admit that is extremely rare, and I have been guilty of useing the term “unconstitutional” to loosely, I will try to work on that.

I tend to use “unconstitutional” as a way to say “I believe ________ is a violation of the text of the _____ amendment.” As you correctly pointed out that isn't correct or helpful. “I believe” and “unconstitutional” probably shouldn’t be in the same sentence most of the time.

Frank Ettin said:

It's not clear that some members really understand much of this when they post silly things like:

1. 
   
   

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):

​

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:
   
   
2. And much more recently in U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), at 605:

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.

Click to expand...

And characterizing our opinions and comments as silly also does nothing to help promote the RKBA, especially when it's done so in a superior, snooty and smarter-than-thou manner with implicit derision intended.

We are totally dealing with reality here.

"Whether or not a law is constitutional is up to the courts, not anyone else" Gosh, thank you so much for enlightening us about this process, and thank goodness we have a California lawyer on our forum.

Frank Ettin said:

We were discussing whether a law is unconstitutional. Like other matters subject to litigation, the resolution of the question of constitutionality will be decided through a process that excludes broad input from the public at large. It is not a question that is subject to popular vote.

Click to expand...

It's almost as though you intend to shut down discussion. As the stated intent of this particular forum is:
"an online discussion board dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership. It is the declared mission of this board to achieve and provide the highest quality of firearms discussion on the Internet, a standard set by the discussion board "The Firing Line" in 1998.

Everyone is welcome to participate, regardless of political affiliation, gender, religion, nationality, or stance on gun ownership. We aim to respect every point of view, as long as it is presented in a polite and factual manner."
You, Frank are starting to come across as disrespectful of others' opinions. If we state that we believe a law to be unconstitutional, and you promptly label us as "silly" and incapable of understanding reality, I'll take that personally.

The declaration of 'sanctuaries' for gun rights against federal law is for the most part ceremonial. Just like most 'common sense gun regulations'. However here in NM where we are currently looking at new gun laws being shoved down our throats, these cities and counties that refuse to enforce or allow use of resources will greatly reduce their effectiveness. the theatrics of it all has already helped to alter one of the bills, and frustrated our governor to the point of name calling... now we are all supporting our 'rogue sheriffs'.

This thread has been very enlightening as to the attitudes and political leanings of the staff of this site. Very enlightening.

Anything that comes from the parties of the left is anti-American because that's what leftists are. Any legislation or proposed legislation from the left is designed to gradually defeat America from within and without. No doubt about it.

Laws in America have been changed by leftists and leftist sympathetic elements for the express purpose of making a socialist-communistic camp out of an American Nation. There is no other objective. Their objective is to end America and create something else for someone else. If it wasn't their objective, then the leftists wouldn't be following socialist-communistic doctrines.

Leftists change laws gradually in very small increments. Yesterday they bitched about guns. Today, you have American gun owners and American manufacturers under constant attack. Today you have Remington leaving New York in order to survive as a business entity. Go figure.

‘The measure comes after dozens of Illinois counties last year passed largely symbolic “gun sanctuary” ordinances that promised not to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.’ ibid

In addition to being largely symbolic, such measures are also ignorant and ridiculous.

Darn, I didn't bring popcorn to this thread.

Gavin Newsome, when mayor of San Francisco, decided to issue marriage certificates to homosexual couples, in violation of state law. In essence, he provided "sanctuary" for homosexuals who wanted to marry.

Later, a federal judge ruled that bans on homosexual marriage violated civil rights laws, and SCOTUS upheld this ruling.

Gavin Newsome is now governor of California, and homosexual marriage is the law of the land.

Thoughtful proponents of legal "santuaries" dream that their proposed exemptions to current law will drive change to those laws following the same approach.

Waiting for legislators to act is one way to change the law. The path chosen by proponents of homosexual marriage is, apparently, another.

I have no problem using BOTH methods to advance and protect my right to keep and bear arms.

Rule by lawyers rather than rule by law may be the way that things are done, but that does not mean that we must all accept this as the only means to power. Pressure on legislators can also work wonders... .

Frank Ettin said:

An individual stating an opinion that a particular law is unconstitutional is really nothing more than a misuse of the word as a general epithet expressing disapproval.

Click to expand...

Frank Ettin, while I appreciate your efforts to inform the membership here on your understanding of the legalities involved, I think you're missing a point:

Does the Constitution *give* us the RKBA, or does it *guarantee* the RKBA?

To a lawyer, it may not matter.

To our founding fathers (some of whom were lawyers), it apparently mattered quite a lot. They asserted that they had been "endowed by their Creator" with rights, and that if their government "became destructive" of those rights then they had the right to "alter or abolish" it.

The wording in the Constitution is often quite interesting. The 1A states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." A specific ban on activity by Congress. The 2A, however, states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Note "the right;" referring as if to something that *already exists.* Not "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the people to keep and bear arms."

If the Founders considered that many of their rights did not come from the government, but were already present, and if the Constitution refers to a right as already existing (and not to be infringed), how can a law infringing on that right be unconstitutional only if a court has ruled it so?

Would the Founders have abided by a law that said they did not have the right to "alter or abolish" their government? Are we to believe that they gave us a system (on their 2nd try, let's not forget) that allows unalienable rights to be limited until such time as a court rules that limit improper?

I do not deny that *in practice*, *today*, that is the system we have. I also do not deny that violation of a law, regardless of its constitutionality, may have serious real-world consequences regardless of any legal theories held by the violator of that law.

However you seem to be arguing that this system is the proper system, and is what the founders intended when they crafted the Constitution. You appear to be arguing that the real determination of rights comes from the courts, not the people, and thus that those rights can change over time (since SCOTUS can overturn its own rulings).

If a right can be changed, how can it be "unalienable"?

Do we have the *right* to keep and bear arms, or do we have the permission of the courts until such time as the courts change their mind?

I’m just in awe that the Supreme Court with all its opinions and lack of unanimous votes has never changed its mind and reversed a law previously voted on and deemed constitutional or unconstitutional by prior Supreme Courts.

American law operates under the doctrine of stare decisis, which means that prior decisions should be maintained -- even if the current court would otherwise rule differently -- and that lower courts must abide by the prior decisions of higher courts. The idea is based on a belief that government needs to be relatively stable and predictable.

Oh wait.... 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? A quick google search search shows its happened around 10 times. And as late as 2010.

Noooo. That can’t be. That’s just silly.