Elkins45
Member
Think of it as an example of “giving them a taste of their own medicine.”
2A Sanctuary Movement starting to spread to other states
- Thread starter LiveLife
- Start date
- Status
JulietTango
Member
Kentuckians need to do everything we can to stay ahead of that guy!
Thibaut
Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2019
- Messages
- 310
I'm not particularly "amused," at any of it. Sanctuary cities obstruct immigration enforcement, etc..... The sanctuary movement as relates to guns is relative to citizens of the United States. One has nothing to do with the other.
CoalTrain49
Member
I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone here and these are just my observations. Ruby ridge was brought up and used as metaphor, not something the fed would actually do. This has nothing to do with the fed. Then the Bundys were dragged into it (again, a federal issue) as some kind of response or non response, I'm not sure. There won't be a tactical response from the fed because the laws are state, not federal.
As these counties sign off on these sanctuary movements it's a signal to the state that the governing body of that particular county doesn't agree with the laws that might be passed in the state legislature. Counties have their own budgets and get to decide how their resources are used. It's symbolic in nature and will vary with each county. It may become a political hot potato for anyone who wants to be elected sheriff (or any county position) in any particular county. In my county, which is rural, the primary LE response will be from the sheriff's dept. When the state patrol starts to lose the support of the sheriff's dept there will be a pause just like the riff that developed between ICE and some states/counties/cities LE. In some cases the state just won't be able to enforce their newly minted laws without the help of local LE.
I worked for 30 years in county gov't. The average citizen has no clue what goes on in county government. Most of the good citizens don't even vote. Probably the reason VA got hacked.
As these counties sign off on these sanctuary movements it's a signal to the state that the governing body of that particular county doesn't agree with the laws that might be passed in the state legislature. Counties have their own budgets and get to decide how their resources are used. It's symbolic in nature and will vary with each county. It may become a political hot potato for anyone who wants to be elected sheriff (or any county position) in any particular county. In my county, which is rural, the primary LE response will be from the sheriff's dept. When the state patrol starts to lose the support of the sheriff's dept there will be a pause just like the riff that developed between ICE and some states/counties/cities LE. In some cases the state just won't be able to enforce their newly minted laws without the help of local LE.
I worked for 30 years in county gov't. The average citizen has no clue what goes on in county government. Most of the good citizens don't even vote. Probably the reason VA got hacked.
Last edited:
CoalTrain49
Member
By not ruling they have ruled. They have left the field to the lower courts. The lower courts have not moved away from the states right to restrict your RKBA. It is what it is. An SC ruling is a fairy tale for your kids.
CoalTrain49
Member
Sure it does. Immigration is federal law. Would you feel the same way if congress passed another AWB? Changing federal law would affect you as a citizen and probably not in a good way. So claiming the distinction of citizenship won't save you. Dems have already figured this out. Hello, anyone home?
What sanctuary anything has to do with is local government taking back it's right to govern the way the good citizens where they live wish it to be governed. All that's happening here is a division between state and local gov't. brought about by conditions of mass urbanization. You can't have it both ways.
Last edited:
Shanghai McCoy
Member
Good points.
Riomouse911
Member
That’s how it happens. The one or two largest Muncipal areas run the whole state.
Ca is the third largest state by area (10k more square miles than Montana!), yet it is run by San Francisco: the last two governors, Lt gov, both US senators, speaker of the US house, many committee chairs in the legislature, etc are ALL SF Bay liberals.
Many of you may be surprised to learn MOST of Ca is rural, and in some places thousands of square miles of alpine mountain and low desert are virtually uninhabited. The rural areas and the residents therein could be dropped en masse into any “red” state and people there wouldn’t know the difference because they’re from the same stock with the same beliefs and opinions.
But the bane is this: millions of people live in urban LA, San Diego, SF bay, etc. and they are led by the media to vote like sheep for personal subjugation and more freebies paid for by increasing taxes rather than for personal freedoms and accountability.
Don’t for one minute think that a couple of urban areas can’t poison an entire state. It happened here, and the liberal machine wants it to happen where you live, too. If you cherish your 2nd, don’t go to sleep on it.
Stay safe.
Conelrad
Member
CoalTrain49
Member
Yes there is.
Prosecutors, sheriffs and council are elected officials. "Prosecutorial discretion" always comes into play regarding any county ordinance. A county ordinance is the will of county commissioners or council. Sheriffs, prosecutors and council work for the voters of the county. If they don't they don't last long.
How does sanctuary ordinances of any type not involve voters and citizens? I'm drawing a blank here. Educate me please.
Last edited:
Seems you read the bill of rights differently than I do. Seems to me at least, that my right to bear arms is protected. I fail to see the amendment that covers sneaking into my country illegally being protected. I don't blame the people sneaking in, pretty sure any of us would try it were the roles reversed.
Thibaut
Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2019
- Messages
- 310
Sanctuary cities are nothing new. They've been in existence a long, long time. This could go on and on and on and though I appreciate the emotion surrounding the subject, it is and shall remain no Argument versus much Opinion in this venue. As above, with respect; I am done with it. God bless us all.
Last edited:
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
Yes ... State of Jefferson! (We sure did try to split the state of CA and if another vote would take place, it would be a resounding YES)
If CA was split north of SF and Sacramento, resulting state would be one of most conservative states.
What I saw traveling up and down the entire state for work for several years is that bulk of rural CA is conservative and pro gun rights/2A and much more grounded to life's issues. I believe same could be said of most of rural counties of the country and as we see the 2A Sanctuary Movement spread to other counties, while symbolic, reflects this sentiment of the people.
I am not sure where the 2A Sanctuary Movement will take this country to as this is rather new movement spurred by recent events of past several years and perhaps is the natural "evolution" of our Constitutional Republic.
Riomouse911
Member
I was living in Humboldt county CA when the State of Jefferson ideas were floated to break off northern Ca and Southern Oregon into Jefferson back in the 1980s. I think Redding was proposed as the new State Capital?!?!
The movement has sort of fizzled out, as I haven’t heard much about it in a while.
Stay safe.
The movement has sort of fizzled out, as I haven’t heard much about it in a while.
Stay safe.
OP
OP
LiveLife
Member
The idea and movement remained alive and well into the 2000s - teens to include many northern CA counties when the movement transitioned to include rest of central/southern CA as "New California" (52 out of 58 counties currently supporting) - https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-california-could-become-51st-state_2951312.html
"The movement started on January 15, 2018. New California activists say they are following guidelines in Article 4, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the same process that West Virginia used in separating from Virginia in 1861."
The "New California" movement includes the entire rural counties of CA breaking away from liberal coastal areas from LA to SF to form the 51st state - https://www.newcaliforniastate.com/whynewcalifornia
The movement actually has some support of liberal LA/SF law makers because it would create 2 more senator seats in Washington.
5th New CA constitutional convention was held on October of 2019 and 6th convention scheduled for February of 2020.
Last edited:
CoalTrain49
Member
There isn't one. The constitution left that up to congress. Apparently they left your RKBA up to the states or at least that's how the lower courts have interpreted it. They must keep reading 10A and believe 2A restricts only the federal gov't from infringement. I don't know but that's how it looks to me.
Targa
Member
I have seen a number of ridiculous comparisons on forums but you sir are certainly in the running for a spot on the podium.
There isn't one. The constitution left that up to congress. Apparently they left your RKBA up to the states or at least that's how the lower courts have interpreted it. They must keep reading 10A and believe 2A restricts only the federal gov't from infringement. I don't know but that's how it looks to me.
So now state rights are above the bill of rights? The second amendment specifically affirms the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. While I agree that the bill of right grants no rights, but prevents the government from infringing on those rights. I don't think the framers meant, "unless the states want to infringe".
CoalTrain49
Member
Actually, if you read the federalist papers, you can pretty well know what they meant. As long as the meaning of words as they knew them are used. Like how people think regulated means under regulations. Instead what the framers meant, as in good working order, or well practiced or kept regular!
Much of the Second Amendment ‘sanctuary’ movement is in response to so-called ‘red flag’ laws:
‘What can we draw from these local efforts to thwart a state-wide policy regarding high-risk individuals and firearms? First, we should understand that, thus far, no federal or state court has held that an ERPO procedure is unconstitutional. So, even though county officials frequently cite the Constitution, they are not simply following court-issued constitutional decisions. Instead, they may be engaging in what Bruce Ackerman referred to as “constitutional politics”—the effort to mobilize citizens in an act of constitution-making outside of the courts.’
https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondthoughts/2019/06/07/second-amendment-sanctuary-counties/
Consequently, the ‘sanctuary’ movement is about politics, not the Second Amendment as a matter of Constitutional law.
Also, there’s a considerable difference between local law enforcement not enforcing ‘red flag’ laws as opposed to not enforcing a magazine capacity restriction measure or AWB:
‘Colorado shields officers from liability for their good faith decision not to investigate, report, or file an application for an ERPO.’ ibid
Can a county CLEO refuse to enforce his state’s magazine capacity measure or AWB in ‘good faith,’ laws which the courts have upheld to be Constitutional and not in violation of the Second Amendment?
‘What can we draw from these local efforts to thwart a state-wide policy regarding high-risk individuals and firearms? First, we should understand that, thus far, no federal or state court has held that an ERPO procedure is unconstitutional. So, even though county officials frequently cite the Constitution, they are not simply following court-issued constitutional decisions. Instead, they may be engaging in what Bruce Ackerman referred to as “constitutional politics”—the effort to mobilize citizens in an act of constitution-making outside of the courts.’
https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondthoughts/2019/06/07/second-amendment-sanctuary-counties/
Consequently, the ‘sanctuary’ movement is about politics, not the Second Amendment as a matter of Constitutional law.
Also, there’s a considerable difference between local law enforcement not enforcing ‘red flag’ laws as opposed to not enforcing a magazine capacity restriction measure or AWB:
‘Colorado shields officers from liability for their good faith decision not to investigate, report, or file an application for an ERPO.’ ibid
Can a county CLEO refuse to enforce his state’s magazine capacity measure or AWB in ‘good faith,’ laws which the courts have upheld to be Constitutional and not in violation of the Second Amendment?
CoalTrain49
Member
Sorry, I thought you were arguing against me instead of with me. Welcome to the choir.Yep, read all of that. Convince a federal district court judge. You're preaching to the choir.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
