Agree or Disagree with 'Gun Sanctuaries'?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Feb 25, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,729
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    No, it has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence.

    The first case I cited, Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), is from 1827, so the principle has been around for some time. Looking at the opinion in Brown the Court doesn't say anything about its origins -- merely that, "...it has been truly said...". So it sounds pretty well accepted in 1827.

    This could be an interesting project for a law student who wants to write a law review article, but the doctrine is so well settled by now that its origins are pretty much moot.
     
  2. Officers'Wife

    Officers'Wife Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,644
    Location:
    A long way from heaven and too close to Chicago
    The idea of a "sanctuary" anything is rather frightening to me. I mean, this is either a nation of laws or it is not. The idea of "sanctuary" implies the law is much like a buffet where you take what you want and ignore the rest. It's simply an extension of rioting when a group doesn't get exactly what they want.
     
    DoubleMag likes this.
  3. Pudge

    Pudge Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    803
    Location:
    Tioga County, PA
    A lot of our civil rights legislation was written because a group who was oppressed by the government resisted when it didn't get what it wanted. If the only recourse is to write to your elected official, there isn't much threat to legislators who can put a nice spin on stripping rights.
     
    10mm Mike likes this.
  4. Officers'Wife

    Officers'Wife Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,644
    Location:
    A long way from heaven and too close to Chicago
    Perhaps, but the beauty of the Constitution is that it actually uses the dregs of society to self correct. When a law is broken it is not only the office of the court system to judge guilt or innocence of the accused but the lawfullness of the law itself. Was it the NAACP that inspired the civil rights protection or Rosa Parks being tried and appealing the decision? Need I remind you of Miranda? Or Brown v Board of Education? When the legislative branch "corrects" the law that correction is only what will satisfy the public. When the judicial branch corrects the law the correction is what satisfies the Constitution. When the executive branch corrects the law... Well, the last time that happened was 1861 and led to bloody civil war. I'd prefer the courts to do their job not the others... 600 thousand people long dead over 150 years show the wisdom of that.
     
  5. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,320
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    In a truly repressive society, "sanctuary" can prove to be very important ~~~even life saving ... assuming the secret police respect it .....
     
    JTHunter likes this.
  6. Pudge

    Pudge Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    803
    Location:
    Tioga County, PA
    My point is that legislators need to be aware that they have a responsibility to pass laws that I'm willing to obey in the same way that I have a responsibility to obey the laws they pass. Right now France is dealing with having passed laws the populace feels they need not obey, and the government is responding to the unrest. I mean does anarchy spring from people unwilling to submit to the rule of law, or does anarchy result from a government establishing laws the people are unwilling to submit to?
     
  7. P5 Guy

    P5 Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,802
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area
    Pudge, I believe that anarchy is the result of the government establishing laws the people are unwilling to submit to.
     
    JTHunter likes this.
  8. labnoti

    labnoti Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,892
    The idea of "sanctuaries" has a lot of different facets. Lately, new liberal Democrat majorities passed an onerous law infringing on private transfers. Many of the state's Sheriffs are making statements to the effect that they will not enforce such a law, citing their oaths to uphold the Constitutions (US and State). Some people might describe such Sheriffs' counties as "sanctuary counties" but the Sheriffs have not abdicated the rule-of-law. Instead, they've refused to enforce a lower law that violates a higher one. Precisely how that refusal will play out remains to be seen. They could simply allocate zero resources for enforcement the same as if they simply declined to ever patrol a certain road. If someone were to try to force them to uphold the un-Constitutional law somehow through a suit, they might have to employ some other recourse depending on how the courts rule.
     
  9. 460Shooter

    460Shooter Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Messages:
    13,160
    I don’t believe in sanctuary states, or cities, and I don’t believe in picking or choosing which laws to follow.
     
    alsaqr likes this.
  10. Pudge

    Pudge Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    803
    Location:
    Tioga County, PA
    I don't disagree with your right to hold such a position, and admire your discipline following speed limits and all such laws. I am too cynical to suggest there is no law that could be passed which I could not in good conscience obey, and likewise I don't disagree with those who feel it is their right to engage in civil disobedience in defence of their civil rights.
     
  11. 460Shooter

    460Shooter Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Messages:
    13,160
    I agree in general. Civil disobedience has lead to major changes in the country for the better. Peaceful protest has to be part of it.

    However a DISCOVERED violation of federal law on my part could end my career, and I do believe in following the legislative and judicial process.

    Everyone has their limits though.
     
    Pudge likes this.
  12. Guitarmike

    Guitarmike Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2017
    Messages:
    87
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Reading all of the posts I can't help but think we are missing the bigger picture. It is not about sanctuaries, they are sympthoms of a bigger problem. We have a large group of people that believe their cause is so important it is worth breaking laws to achieve. We have another group of people watching their country being torn apart, all traditional values and the stuff that made America great are being thrown away (that is the perception). Both sides are seeing hatred and direspect, so much so that violence is starting to break out just because you have a hat on that supports the current president. Freedom of speech has been shut down across the country, the pot is beginning to boil. Compromising, however you want to define it, seems to be a thing of the past. Being able to peacefully protest is not a guaranty anymore. At some point a law will be past that will push people over the edge and America is going to be in trouble.
    When that happens discussions about sanctuary cities for any group will not matter.
     
  13. harrygunner

    harrygunner Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,045
    Should be on a plaque in Congress.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice