Tucson to ignore Arizona's 'Second Amendment sanctuary' law

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Jul 8, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,887
    This sanctuary law appears similar to preemption but it's not.

    I do not agree with making cities and states sanctuary cities and states like when they make them sanctuary states for illegal aliens. Either change the law or make preemption the law of the state but you shouldn't be able to flout Federal law.




    https://www.breitbart.com/news/tucson-to-ignore-arizonas-second-amendment-sanctuary-law/




    Screenshot_20210708-081914_Chrome.jpg Screenshot_20210708-082003_Chrome.jpg
     
    1942bull likes this.
  2. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    902
    Being able to and being allowed to are two separate things. A state ignoring a federal law is, actually, illegal, and thus is not allowed; however, they are able to do so as long as the feds don’t step in and crush it.

    Enough people breaking idiotic laws in the past (helping runaway slaves, prohibition, possibly marijuana use nowadays), has helped turn the tide against unpopular or moronic laws. This is really no different.

    The whole 2A sanctuary theme is interesting, and will be interesting to see played out.

    Time will tell.
     
  3. commygun

    commygun Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    744
    Location:
    Lewis County, WA
    A lot more of this to come. Regarding all kinds of issues. If the elections are believed to lack integrity, then it follows that the elected are believed to lack authority. Possibly good for 2A, probably not that great for law and order generally.
     
  4. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,566
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    The bad part of this is very annoying.
    This goes to court (such things usually do).
    Court decides either for or against the City in favor of the State. Or vice versa.
    Taxpayers in the City and in the State pay for both sides of that trial. No matter the outcome.
    And, usually no one winds up any better informed about 2A after than before.
     
  5. mnrivrat

    mnrivrat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,353
    Location:
    MN
    Illegal trespass into this country is one thing (apples), and unconstitutional laws (oranges) are something else. No matter what government body makes laws, all laws should pass the litmus test of following the constitution.
     
    JR24, Bfh_auto, eyeshot and 6 others like this.
  6. DocRock

    DocRock member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,109
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    2A "Sanctuary" laws are red meat PR stunts, so I support them as little as the i!legal alien sanctuary laws. But, were I the Governor of Arizona, having gon e along with the 2A sanctuary charade (assuming he signed it into law, and I haven't looked up to see if it was on his watch), I would make the Mayor of Tucson pay for his PR stunt defiance. Withhold any and all state funding for Tucson until the Mayor and City Council attest in writing that they will adhere to and enforce all state laws. Then, see whether the residents of Tucson are as supportive of the bravery of their Mayor.
     
  7. mnrivrat

    mnrivrat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,353
    Location:
    MN
    I haven't researched this but suspect the language is more symbolic , than being made into law. We already have a law, called the 2nd amendment. The sanctuary cities and states proclaiming sanctuary for illegals I doubt is made into some sort of law as well. We have immigration laws , and I doubt any state, or city could make laws that would override present immigration law. The sanctuary part is I think a simple statement that the state or city will not enforce present or future laws regarding the subject matter. If I am incorrect please give me a link to legislative laws passed so I can eat my crow on what I just stated.
     
  8. Pat Riot
    • Contributing Member

    Pat Riot Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2015
    Messages:
    3,910
    Location:
    Southern California
    When cities and states follow the Constitution as it is written then I will agree “sanctuary laws” are unnecessary. Until then, anything that pokes a stick in the eye of those in power is a good thing.
     
    JR24, Bfh_auto, Hartkopf and 6 others like this.
  9. daverich4

    daverich4 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2014
    Messages:
    56
    Not to mention not all that good for Democracy as well…
     
    Bfh_auto likes this.
  10. Kevin Keith

    Kevin Keith Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    273
    Location:
    Texas
    Maybe it's a part of the Hope and Change we've heard about.
     
    Steel Horse Rider likes this.
  11. 4v50 Gary

    4v50 Gary Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    20,405
    Pete Kitchen would be spinning in his grave.
     
  12. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    9,462
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    The states that refused to enforce the federal fugitive slave law seem to be regarded as heroes today.

    Tennessee has a long standing state law that state, county, local law enforcement will not aid in enforcement of a federal law that violates Article 1 declaration of rights of the citizen.
     
    Bfh_auto likes this.
  13. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    17,862
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    If you're not sure what the law says, reading it might help.
    https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/1R/laws/0182.pdf
    Or I could just post the text - it's not long.
    Seems pretty cut and dried, to be honest, but, as usual with this type of law, there is no penalty added in.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  14. twarr1

    twarr1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    252
    Location:
    TX
    Not only are there too many conflicting laws, there are too many laws in general. The situation practically begs federal intervention and inevitable abuse.
    A result of scheming politicians playing to easily manipulated, selfish voters.
    The last time I read the Bill of Rights I didn’t see anything that could be construed as giving the entire population of earth the right to ignore borders, but here is a mention of the right to keep and bear arms.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  15. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    10,303
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    Whether we agree or disagree about being "able to flout Federal law", there is room to discuss the viability, usefulness, or necessity of such acts.

    Going against the law is, by definition, "illegal". But when the law itself is unjust, immoral, abusive, outdated, or tyrannical, at some point action MUST be taken. And if the government does not respond to the pressures of it's constituents to affect change through representative means, then defying such laws is the next step.

    In fact, in order to challenge these laws in the courts you must first have a case where someone is charged by the State with having violated such laws with which to take to court and defend against state prosecution.

    Remember Rosa Parks? She committed an illegal act by failing to vacate a row of seats in the "colored" section of a bus in favor of a white passenger in violation of Alabama segregation laws. Others had violated the same segregation laws, but the NAACP thought that she was the best candidate to affect a court challenge to those laws. At that time in our history, 90 years had elapsed since the end of the Civil War and obviously we had SERIOUS problems with Jim Crow and other various segregation laws which were specifically enacted to deprive black people of their rights. Nearly a century, with no change on the horizon through anything like representative means.

    In effect, someone HAD to violate a law in order to get the law changed.

    Yes...we CAN work to change such things through our representatives. However, that doesn't necessarily establish a long term, and protected, change to the law(s). We can, for example, campaign long and hard and get a particular law/statute changed through such a process. However, others can come along afterwards and work to change what we've accomplished in much the same way. We see this all the time when control shifts between Democrat and Republican in the House/Senate, both on the State and the Federal levels.

    However, if you go to court and win a precedent setting court challenge? Now the laws may not only be changed as a result, other laws written to attempt the same thing may be more easily rendered null and void as a result. You have, in effect, gotten the government itself to say "nope, can't do that" through one of the three branches of the government.
     
  16. mnrivrat

    mnrivrat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,353
    Location:
    MN
    After reading the "law" that was passed, and put into an active state legislation, it seems my earlier post was incorrect. Nothing symbolic about the law passed in Arizona. I am not a lawyer for sure, but it would seem that Arizona "firearm sanctuary" is not a symbolic sanctuary state when it comes to the 2nd amendment. If I understand this correctly Tucson would be in violation of state law by them do not follow the states legislation.
    Different than the sanctuary state or city for illegal alien protection, Arizona is protecting a constitutional protected right.
    Are the city officials of Tucson in violation of a legitimate state law ? If so, what action can can or will the state bring against them ? Interesting questions in my mind
     
    Bfh_auto and RetiredUSNChief like this.
  17. twarr1

    twarr1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    252
    Location:
    TX
    You say;
    Then go on to say;
    Therein lies the root problem.
    Everybody doing their own thing.
    One group wants things a certain way and they elect their person(s), sway public opinion, and get their way. Then a different group wants things a different way, and they do the same. You end up with sanctuary cities, conflicting laws, constant aggression and no common purpose.
    One could argue disingenuously that 'That's America"; we have many voices, debate, etc. but the sad fact is, practically everyone is polarized on practically every topic. They are a member or believer or supporter of Group A, Group B and Group X with "American" far, far down on the list. Everyone wants to pick a side and get everything their way on every issue. Nobody accepts that they won't get their way on some issues that are very important to them, but compromises for the overall good of the country. After all, the country isn't that important, their pet issue is. Politicians have capitalized on this to their benefit. Since about the Nixon era, it's not enough to say "Elect me, my position is blah,blah, and my opponent's is blah, blah". The opponent doesn't just have a different opinion, he is satan in the flesh.
    An increasingly common reaction to this is people taking the position of "Do whatever you want and let me do whatever I want". It's a grand idea, but it doesn't work when the other guy is a murderer, thief, molester or some other ilk. What if I say my pursuit of happiness comes from robbing banks? Most will agree that's not acceptable. So there is a line somewhere. We just have to agree where that line is and stop allowing politicians to divide us by arbitrary traits.
    We need a common purpose, like, we are all Americans.
     
    Bfh_auto likes this.
  18. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,872
    Location:
    WNY
    General politics isn't really the charge of General, if you read it. So while interesting, it leads to conflict not part of THR's interest, thus closed.

     
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