2A Sanctuary States

Status
Not open for further replies.
These seem to be mostly symbolic and not really offering any real advantage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but has any state actually gone toe-to-toe with the feds yet and protected someone who violated an unconstitutional law (Congress has no delegated police powers within the states per the Constitution)?
No, because the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution says federal law is supreme to state laws.
For an example read https://www.thetrace.org/2016/12/kansas-second-amendment-protection-act-silencers/ Those two Einsteins will never own or possess a firearm again.
 
No, because the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution says federal law is supreme to state laws.
For an example read https://www.thetrace.org/2016/12/kansas-second-amendment-protection-act-silencers/ Those two Einsteins will never own or possess a firearm again.

I love watching these things, because it's interesting to see how people flip-flop on these issues all the time. Namely, if it's about something they support, it's a great idea. However, when it's about something they DON'T support, suddenly "you can't do that!"

With respect to sanctuary states, on the one hand you have declared sanctuaries with respect to marijuana and illegal aliens and a whole group of people who avidly support that with others who look askance at this. On the other hand, you have declared sanctuaries with respect to the Second Amendment with the group positions flipped.

It's amusing, because I'm the kind of person who will watch someone rant and rave on one side or the other, then poke their buttons by pointing out how their stand is the polar opposite with respect to issues they support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top