Need clarification

Status
Not open for further replies.

possom813

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
789
Location
An hour south of D/FW
I'm not too educated on legal matters, but can someone clarify how the Federal Government pre emps local laws on immigration, why not firearms? Maybe I confused myself and this post doesn't make any sense, but it just isn't adding up to me right now.

What I get from the article below is that the Federal government is only brought up for political reasons? But what do I know, I've been up all night playing computer games.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_re_us/immigration_texas

By ANABELLE GARAY, Associated Press Writer Wed May 28, 10:48 PM ET

FARMERS BRANCH, Texas - A Dallas suburb's ban on apartment rentals to illegal immigrants, an ordinance passed by city leaders and later endorsed in a vote by its residents, is unconstitutional, a federal judge found Wednesday.


Only the federal government can regulate immigration, U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay concluded in his decision.

The city didn't defer to the federal government on the matter, violating the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which allows for the federal government to pre-empt local laws, Lindsay said.

Bill Brewer, who represented apartment complex operators who opposed the rule, declared victory.

"It's a good day, not just for my clients," Brewer said. "It's a good day for people who are thinking clearly about what is the proper role of municipal governments in the immigration debate."

Representatives for the city said they had anticipated the outcome. The city has no plans to appeal the ruling because it has already stopped pursuing the ordinance and replaced it with another tactic.

"We're disappointed but not particularly surprised," Michael Jung, one of the city's attorneys, said.

The Farmers Branch council passed the ordinance last year. It would have barred apartment rentals to illegal immigrants and required landlords to verify legal status. The rule would have exempted minors and senior citizens from having to prove their immigration status or citizenship.

Families made up of both citizens and undocumented members would have been allowed to renew an apartment lease if they met three conditions: they were already tenants, the head of household or spouse was living legally in the United States, and the family included only the spouse, their minor children or parents.

Residents heavily endorsed the rule a year ago in the nation's first public vote on a local measure to combat illegal immigration.

A group of apartment complex operators, residents and advocates sued Farmers Branch. They alleged the rule was so poorly drafted that it could allow exclusion of legal immigrants and citizens from renting, was difficult to abide by because it didn't provide clear guidance for apartment managers and owners, and improperly tried to turn property managers into policing agents.

Lindsay then blocked Farmers Branch from enforcing the ordinance, a temporary injunction now made permanent by his decision Wednesday.

The rule failed to provide clear guidance that immigration documents were acceptable for proof and didn't explain what was meant by "eligible immigration status," the judge wrote.

The city's attempts to salvage the ordinance faltered because they would have required the court to draft laws, he said. That function is outside the court's duties.

Farmers Branch has given up requiring landlords to verify immigration status and instead plans to implement a rule that would require prospective tenants to get a rental license from the city, which would then ask the federal government for the applicant's legal status before approving it.

Around the country, about 100 cities or counties have now considered, passed or rejected similar laws, but Farmers Branch was the first in immigrant-heavy Texas, according to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which tracks the data.
 
Because the 2A has not been incorporated the way most of the other BoRs have been.

Or

Because the Fed .gov does not want it to. Similar as to carrying in federal buildings Soc Sec, Post Offices, federal parks etc.....

Take your choice as to which reason is correct

NukemJim
 
can someone clarify how the Federal Government pre emps local laws on immigration, why not firearms?
It has already done so, to some extent. For example:

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

18 USC 926a
 
Two different areas of law, two different parts of the Constitution as to the exercise of power. In certain areas, the federal government--allegedly via the Constitution :D--reserves power to itself and disallows certain exercises of power by states and cities.

So, the feds can pre-empt or restrain in the issue of immigration, but has allowed the exercise of power by states and cities as to usage of firearms.

I often feel that they operate from, "There's no intelligent reason for it; it's just our policy."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top