Discussion in 'Legal' started by Thomasss, Jun 14, 2021.
@Thomasss - do you happen to have the Senate and Assembly bill numbers? I tried using the search function on the state legislature website and couldn't find them. Thanks...
Bow to you federal overlords.
The Legal Forum recognizes the sovereignty of States, and does so repeatedly.
It also recognized that States must needs be subject to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.
Asserting otherwise is unproductive.
As CapnMac states - Patently untrue. Just remember the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights. The problem there is that the federal (feral) government has been insinuating itself in areas they don't actually belong, usurping powers they are technically denied.
Well, let's examine that.
To be a "sanctuary polity" involves a political declaration that violations of Federal Law, from great to small, will be ignored for political reasons. Political expediency oft reeks more of illusion than substance.
Seldom are these things pitched as a reasonable decision by a given Executive branch that the burden of enforcing Federal rules on top of State and Local ones is an unreasonable burden. A situation that ought also involve Legislative input as well.
All of which is often more egregious for the self-same polity still cashing Federal checks for Law Enforcement.
The Legal forum here is dedicated to the concrete letter of the law and actual jurisprudence. What is rather than what we might wish to be.
armed resistance to their efforts buy the locals.
This is a link to the bill's status page: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/proposals/reg/asm/bill/ab293
This is a link to the bill's text: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/related/proposals/ab293
…which they otherwise wouldn’t be required to do prior to a ‘sanctuary’ declaration.
The notion of a Second Amendment ‘sanctuary’ state is political theater, the stuff of partisan politics.
It's in the Senate as SB.314, has been reported out of committee with a "yea" recommendation, and is awaiting being placed on the Senate schedule.
If for no other reason than to advise potential non 2A supporters of that fact. In the hopes it may keep a few of them moving to perceived friendlier environs more in line with their political ideals as they evacuate their previous state in search of greener pastures.
Let's not go to denouncing folks or politics.
You may be correct on that point, but it may be an indicator of more major issues that are more highly motivating.
As one Wisconsinite of 40+ years, I would pull up and move to a more "free" state if there weren't other personal issues holding me here.
Are there enough in favor to override a veto?
I was born and raised in California and lived there all my life except for three years in the early 70''s. Over the years it became a very different place. In researching where I wanted to move to, gun rights were a major factor in my decision. I ended up picking Arizona, which for some years now has been determined to be the most gun-friendly state in the country, and also met my other most important criteria, notably weather. I've been here three years now and every day am thankful I live here.
Separate names with a comma.