Laura Ingraham predicts 2A Sanctuary Movement destined for the US Supreme Court

[LiveLife]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/second-amendment-sanctuary-movement-supreme-court

With growing number of counties in many states declaring 2A Sanctuary Counties, Laura Ingraham from Fox News predicted the Second Amendment Sanctuary Movement is destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Co-host of the show stated, "This is a crisis between your constitutional rights and state laws that may be too onerous"

Ingraham stated, "'I think this is going to the Supreme Court,' ... the Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right. 'Here these people are saying we have a Constitutional, God-given right. It's an individual right.

Justice Scalia and the court in [District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)] confirmed it's an individual right ... The pro-gun people say ... this is a federally guaranteed right that you cannot abridge in the way you're abridging it.'

'We're sticking to what the Second Amendment meant in Heller. And this is gonna go to the court. There's no doubt about it.'"

 

[reddog81]

How would a county resolution make it to the Supreme Court?

If Virginia passes any sort of gun control measures I hope it makes its way through the courts and gets struck down. This would be a win. The more erroneous they make the law the more likely it is to get struck down.

I don’t see much benefit to sanctuary cities or counties. If my local sheriff says he won’t enforce magazine bans that’s nice, but that doesn’t really help you much if you get in trouble with a city or state police officer.

 

[edwardware]

As far as I can see, the Sanctuary movement is essentially extra-judicial; that is: a local jurisdiction deciding ahead of time that it will not submit to a superior jurisdiction, on Constitutional grounds.

This is distinctly different than suing the superior jurisdiction in court; they're not suing for relief under law from a Court, they're declaring their intent to defy the law, and by strong inference, the judiciary.

It's civil disobedience, by a subordinate jurisdiction.

 

[Walkalong]

Please try to stay on track with this one, no politics........pro and anti.

 

[Casefull]

I love the term ‘civil disobedience.’ We need a lot more of it, way too many followers not questioning overreaching laws.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Sanctuary status is not just "symbolic ". A lot depends in the county you're in. These rural counties, probably 75% of the counties in VA, means that you can shoot your AR on your property or take your AR to your buddies range to shoot without worry of a local LEO giving you hassle. In our rural counties SPO's aren't a worry. This isn't the city. So that in itself is not only beneficial but something you're not going to be privy to around the cities. Also worth note is not having to worry about local LE's coming to your home trying to take your guns.

I dont personally believe the national guard or a special 18 man team is going to go door to door across VA trying to confiscate guns. But based on the folks I've talked to, if they do then theres going to be Ruby Ridges all over the place. Not something anyone wants and I dont think they're willing to do it.


Point is, there are absolutely some immediate worthwhile benefits to living in a 2A Sanctuary county no two ways about it.



And yes I think the VCDL will take every crazy anti 2A law the dems pass to court. But it will be years before anything is spoken on.

 

[Tommygunn]

I hope that 1.) This DOES go to the court system --all the way to SCOTUS if required and 2.) SCOTUS brings back a good, thorough pro 2A decision.
With what's building in Virginia, things could go .... "mad max" and that would be a horrific thing for this country.

 

[DocRock]

As noted above, the Sanctuary movement is effectively ultra vires. It is such when municipal jurisdictions aim to obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration laws and it is such when municipal jurisdictions or county governments resolve to not enforce state laws. County and municipal 2A Sanctuary resolutions are also almost entirely ineffectual. The resolutions almost always simply prohibit the expenditure of county/municipal funds in the enforcement of state gun laws the county may deem "illegal". Other than setting bad precedent, such resolutions are substantively meaningless. One of the notable exception is the county in VA (is it Tizwell? Something like that) that also passed legislation forming, and earmarking funding for, a militia (as provided for under the VA Constitution), intended expressly to obstruct the enforcement of such state gun laws in the county as the county board of supervisors may deem illegal. Not only is this substantive, but the fact that the measures were passed unanimously by a county board of supervisors made up of three Democrats and two Republicans, is politically significant.

 

[LiveLife]

Why law abiding citizens need AR15

Dems Sit in Silence as Witness Debunks Their 'Assault' Rifle Lies



Rep. Jordan Rails on so-called "Assault Weapons" ban



"Assault Weapons" or Assault on the Second Amendment | Stephen Halbrook

 

[jdc1244]

How would a county resolution make it to the Supreme Court?

If Virginia passes any sort of gun control measures I hope it makes its way through the courts and gets struck down. This would be a win. The more erroneous they make the law the more likely it is to get struck down.

I don’t see much benefit to sanctuary cities or counties. If my local sheriff says he won’t enforce magazine bans that’s nice, but that doesn’t really help you much if you get in trouble with a city or state police officer.

How would a county resolution make it to the Supreme Court?

It wouldn’t.

And as already correctly noted, Second Amendment ‘sanctuary’ counties are devoid of legal merit, there’s no justification in refusing to enforce state firearm regulatory measures the courts have already upheld to be Constitutional.

The proper remedy is for state residents to seek relief in Federal court to have onerous state firearm laws invalidated.

 

[milemaker13]

I will simply note that sanctuary status has been used effectively by others. California uses it since the 70s to shield illegal immigrants from federal law and many states (IL now included) use it to shield pot smokers from federal law.

 

[Speedo66]

One of the notable exception is the county in VA (is it Tizwell? Something like that) that also passed legislation forming, and earmarking funding for, a militia (as provided for under the VA Constitution), intended expressly to obstruct the enforcement of such state gun laws in the county as the county board of supervisors may deem illegal.

So this county is going to encourage gunmen to possibly shoot at state LEO's attempting to enforce state laws? Somehow I can't see that ending well for anyone on the local level, those shooting, or those who funded them.

 

[Speedo66]

These rural counties, probably 75% of the counties in VA, means that you can shoot your AR on your property or take your AR to your buddies range to shoot without worry of a local LEO giving you hassle.
[/QUOTE

That's fine for holders of large tracts of private land, but it doesn't do much for Joe Schmo who's arrested at a public range with "contraband" by a LEO other than a county sheriff.

 

[milemaker13]

What will the other examples of sanctuary situations do when the feds show up? I'm really asking as I don't know.
Does federal immigration officers deport illegal aliens from LA? Will people walking out of the pot shops go to federal prison?
Do they have any legal standing in court?

 

[reddog81]

What will the other examples of sanctuary situations do when the feds show up? I'm really asking as I don't know.
Does federal immigration officers deport illegal aliens from LA? Will people walking out of the pot shops go to federal prison?
Do they have any legal standing in court?

there are federal laws, state laws and local laws. City cops enforce city traffic code. Federal agents enforce immigration laws. Many times there are laws that overlap I.e. federal and state drug laws. When federal agents are doing a raid in a sanctuary city it means the local government won’t cooperate with the federal agents.

 

[guyfromohio]

My greatest concern with going to SCOTUS is that they just might agree with the right to bear arms, but might not agree that the right is absolute to the type of arms. My hope and my money goes towards defending that unabridged right, but I have to wonder why Illinois, NJ, California, NY, and a few others haven't been decided in the big court yet. That gives me pause.

 

[AlexanderA]

There's no "justiciable issue" arising from these sanctuary resolutions. No way for the courts -- much less the Supreme Court -- to get involved.

Laura Ingraham is a lawyer. She should know better than this.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

Not sure how it works in other states but here in Kansass the Sheriff's Dept. has jurisdiction within the whole county, including towns and cities, and the State Troopers have the same throughout the whole state.
Point being, the stadtpolizei could perform arrests, etc., inside a "sanctuary" city or county.

 

[BSA1]

My greatest concern with going to SCOTUS is that they just might agree with the right to bear arms, but might not agree that the right is absolute to the type of arms.

Justice Scalia left that possibility open when writing the decision in Heller.

Heller is not as much of a victory as it is made out to be. However enforcing a ban on what is arguably the most commonly owned rifle is full of unintended consequences.

 

[ATLDave]

this makes zero sense.

 

[Tommygunn]

Not sure how it works in other states but here in Kansass the Sheriff's Dept. has jurisdiction within the whole county, including towns and cities, and the State Troopers have the same throughout the whole state.
Point being, the stadtpolizei could perform arrests, etc., inside a "sanctuary" city or county.

If you read my post #7 above ....THIS is the precise reason I want this DECIDED BY THE COURT!
I hate it, but the sanctuary city/state thing regarding illegal aliens gives an appearance of working because it is the state or city authority creating them. The federal government has not seen fit to correct this matter, allowing it to stand.
The Virginia government being the highest state goverment, and having enacted (or soon to enact ....) laws will carry through to enforcing them.
Maybe a few STATE leos may try to resist, but that is not a way to success.
We are in dire need of a Supreme Court with some back-bone ..... and a sense of urgency!!!!!

 

[LiveLife]

https://www.saf.org/gun-rights-faq/

"Is gun ownership a civil right?

Princeton University, defines a 'Civil Right' as a right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress including the right to legal, social and economic equality. This makes gun ownership as much of a civil right as freedom of speech, religion and freedom of the press.

What was the intent of the 2nd Amendment?

The intent of these amendments was to protect individuals from government powers. They were meant as a guarantee to the individual state governments as well as the American citizens that the Federal government would not try to take away the freedoms which many of them had so recently fought for. Senator William Grayson wrote to Patrick Henry; 'Last Monday, a string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty…' (p. 76).

'To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.' (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, and member of the first Continental Congress, which passed the Bill of Rights)"

 

[ATLDave]

Framing the issue as whether a municipality can refuse to accept the legality of a state law is an IDIOTIC framing. You will lose that every time. The sanctuary city movement is a valid and important political strategy. It may indirectly help convince the Supreme Court that the rubber is hitting the road in the real world and punting on the 2nd is about to cause civil unrest.

But it is a sure loser from a legal perspective. This is NOT the question we want courts to answer. This is indescribably stupid.

 

[LiveLife]

To me, 2A Sanctuary Movement is only going to grow as a grassroots movement.

For decades, gun owners of the country saw erosion of their gun rights/2A by state law makers, many of which were sued and overturned in court, all the way to the Supreme Court, like DC v Heller - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Now hundreds of gun control bills are being introduced in many states up to the point of ban/confiscation.

Minority gun owners' rights are being imposed by the sheer will of the majority and it's time for the Supreme Court to enforce the Bill of Rights. And like other civil rights, such as voting rights, overturn states' anti gun laws for good.

Since Heller, states have not introduced gun control bills that violate the Heller ruling.

As to "modern arms" issues of AR15s/semi-auto firearms, magazines, suppressors, binary triggers, etc. several courts have already spoke to modern types of communication being protected by the First Amendment and so should modern types of arms.

And what about ADA and elderly? Nobody complains about the use of adaptive devices such as red dot sights and scope for visual assistance when our vision deteriorates. Well, firearms are adaptive devices to assist those physically unable to defend themselves.

Yes, I do believe it's time for the Supreme Court to enforce the Second Amendment rights and perhaps stretch a bit more like 50 state carry as clearly demonstrated by recent Texas church shooting that personal right to self defense does not change just because you leave your home.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

How would a county resolution make it to the Supreme Court?

If Virginia passes any sort of gun control measures I hope it makes its way through the courts and gets struck down. This would be a win. The more erroneous they make the law the more likely it is to get struck down.

I don’t see much benefit to sanctuary cities or counties. If my local sheriff says he won’t enforce magazine bans that’s nice, but that doesn’t really help you much if you get in trouble with a city or state police officer.

I understand what you are saying but it's the overall movement that is the key, that is, multiple counties and cities proclaiming they are a sanctuary opposing the newly proposed VA laws. It's a group effort by a group of people who are saying their individual rights are being infringed on. The state may enforce these new proposed laws against an individual but that will then force the state to go to court when the individual lawyers up. The accused must have his/her day in court if the accused proclaims they are not guilty of breaking a law that is ultimately protected in the US Constitution, that is, the state is enforcing onerous or unconstitutional mandates upon an individual.