Blocking Federal Gun Control

[Birds Away]

So, we can't just have gun sanctuary cities? I've read and heard that declaring a city a "sanctuary" makes the feds absolutely powerless to interfere. But, I was reading the SF Chronicle at the time so.....

 

[MarkC]

So, we can't just have gun sanctuary cities? I've read and heard that declaring a city a "sanctuary" makes the feds absolutely powerless to interfere. But, I was reading the SF Chronicle at the time so.....

Well, if you read it in the Chronicle, it must be true!

 

[Vigilant]

but.. but.. but next they will go after your Whisky!

From my cold drunk hands!

 

[Birds Away]

Well, if you read it in the Chronicle, it must be true!

Sadly it's true there but not here.

 

[HoughMade]

So, we can't just have gun sanctuary cities? I've read and heard that declaring a city a "sanctuary" makes the feds absolutely powerless to interfere. But, I was reading the SF Chronicle at the time so.....

Sanctuary cities can't stop the feds from enforcing their own laws, they just don't do it for them. In other words, it may a direct parallel. Can't say that one is legal and the other illegal....but I doubt that's what people want to hear.

 

[Denny347]

Sooo, we are happy when the States say FU to the Feds over gun control but angry when they say the same thing but about immigration?

 

[T.Lex]

Sooo, we are happy when the States say FU to the Feds over gun control but angry when they say the same thing but about immigration?

Welcome to INGO - you're getting the hang of it.

 

[MarkC]

Sadly it's true there but not here.

It may be considered "true" there, but it is still not true. There can only be one "truth," although it is difficult in many cases to determine what the truth is.

That's why it rankles me when someone says, "this is MY truth." No, that is not truth. You are entitled to how you perceive things and your opinions, but not your own "truth."

ETA: This isn't a rant about Birds Away, but a rant about everyone who believes they are entitled to their own version of the truth. I have to agree with his observation about "truth" in San Francisco, where they have beliefs about law enforcement, social conditions, drug use, and public order that defy reality.

 

[Birds Away]

Sooo, we are happy when the States say FU to the Feds over gun control but angry when they say the same thing but about immigration?

Welcome to INGO - you're getting the hang of it.

I know it's fun to look down your noses at us stupid yokels. What I hate is that the gubmint and statists seem to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution and Federal Laws they want to recognize as being valid. It seems to work out just great for them but if I, Joe normal citizen, were to do so I would be in the pokey. Certain people want to pave the way for the radical left and MORE governmental power and oversight. I guess that fits in with certain professions. I doesn't work out so good for the average citizen.

 

[Birds Away]

It may be considered "true" there, but it is still not true. There can only be one "truth," although it is difficult in many cases to determine what the truth is.

That's why it rankles me when someone says, "this is MY truth." No, that is not truth. You are entitled to how you perceive things and your opinions, but not your own "truth."

Tell Gavin Newsom. I don't think he got the memo.

 

[Vigilant]

Sooo, we are happy when the States say FU to the Feds over gun control but angry when they say the same thing but about immigration?

Quit youing threads sir.

 

[MarkC]

Tell Gavin Newsom. I don't think he got the memo.

I don't think anyone can tell Gavin Newsom anything; he is completely stuck in his own little world, surrounded by similarly "correct" thinkers.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Sooo, we are happy when the States say FU to the Feds over gun control but angry when they say the same thing but about immigration?

More like that the approach is working pretty well for pot smokers/growers/sellers and illegal immigrants. If the Constitution is already being thrown out the window, we might as well get our piece of the pie. No sense in fighting with our hands tied behind our backs. I completely understand and agree that the approach is unconstitutional and I don't like that one bit...but does the Constitution actually matter anymore? The Republic is dying and I don't think there is anything we can do to save it...better to have every advantage we can...if the correct side wins the struggle, maybe the Constitution will become the law of the land again.

 

[T.Lex]

I know it's fun to look down your noses at us stupid yokels. What I hate is that the gubmint and statists seem to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution and Federal Laws they want to recognize as being valid. It seems to work out just great for them but if I, Joe normal citizen, were to do so I would be in the pokey. Certain people want to pave the way for the radical left and MORE governmental power and oversight. I guess that fits in with certain professions. I doesn't work out so good for the average citizen.

Selective emphasis on which parts of the constitution and federal laws to "recognize" as "valid" is a unique exercise in the US: it crosses all demographics.

 

[HoughMade]

I know it's fun to look down your noses at us stupid yokels. What I hate is that the gubmint and statists seem to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution and Federal Laws they want to recognize as being valid. It seems to work out just great for them but if I, Joe normal citizen, were to do so I would be in the pokey. Certain people want to pave the way for the radical left and MORE governmental power and oversight. I guess that fits in with certain professions. I doesn't work out so good for the average citizen.

...and some of us know that fighting the fight against expansive government gun control will be more effective when you DON'T violate the Constitution, but work to enforce it.

States cannot legally prevent the federal government from enforcing federal laws.

Article VI of the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

It's right there in the Constitution.

Unconstitutional gun laws are fought by challenging the laws themselves as unconstitutional. That happens in the courts.

It is silly...and unconstitutional for a state to say: "yeah, well, we don't recognize your laws, they are unconstitutional and we will arrest anyone who tries to enforce them."

The states- according to the Constitution, don't get to make that call. If they think a law is unconstitutional, they can challenge it in court. They cannot prevent the enforcement of a law based upon an OPINION that it is unconstitutional.

Do we like the Constitution or not?

Do you know why some people find this whole debate humorous? It's not a superiority complex. It's not because they think they're better than anyone else. It's not because they like big government.

It's because this issue has been discussed time and time again and the answer as to whether this "let's arrest federal agents" idea is legal is so obvious even to people without any college degrees, if they put their wishes about what the law should be away and just looked at what the Constitution says.

There's a way to fight bad gun laws that is legal and proper...and not a complete and utter waste of time, money and a purely political stunt.

Let's do that.

...or elect people to federal government who won't pass bad gun laws....or enact a bumpstock ban. That would work too.

 

[MarkC]

Selective emphasis on which parts of the constitution and federal laws to "recognize" as "valid" is a unique exercise in the US: it crosses all demographics.

Agreed; which parts of the Constitution and federal laws are "wrong" depends on ideological orientation. For example, those on the extreme left (and the sort-of extreme left) think that the First Amendment doesn't apply to "hate speech," which is whatever they define it to be.

 

[Birds Away]

You misunderstand me, sir. I do not support passing laws "nullifying" federal laws or anything of the sort. I was merely pointing out that other entities do it and seem to get away with it. But then, that applies to a lot of things the leftists do.

 

[MarkC]

...and some of us know that fighting the fight against expansive government gun control will be more effective when you DON'T violate the Constitution, but work to enforce it.

States cannot legally prevent the federal government from enforcing federal laws.

Article VI of the Constitution:



It's right there in the Constitution.

Unconstitutional gun laws are fought by challenging the laws themselves as unconstitutional. That happens in the courts.

It is silly...and unconstitutional for a state to say: "yeah, well, we don't recognize your laws, they are unconstitutional and we will arrest anyone who tries to enforce them."

The states- according to the Constitution, don't get to make that call. If they think a law is unconstitutional, they can challenge it in court. They cannot prevent the enforcement of a law based upon an OPINION that it is unconstitutional.

Do we like the Constitution or not?

Do you know why some people find this whole debate humorous? It's not a superiority complex. It's not because they think they're better than anyone else. It's not because they like big government.

It's because this issue has been discussed time and time again and the answer as to whether this "let's arrest federal agents" idea is legal is so obvious even to people without any college degrees, if they put their wishes about what the law should be away and just looked at what the Constitution says.

There's a way to fight bad gun laws that is legal and proper...and not a complete and utter waste of time, money and a purely political stunt.

Let's do that.

...or elect people to federal government who won't pass bad gun laws....or enact a bumpstock ban. That would work too.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to HoughMade again."

 

[Birds Away]

 

[HoughMade]

You misunderstand me, sir. I do not support passing laws "nullifying" federal laws or anything of the sort. I was merely pointing out that other entities do it and seem to get away with it. But then, that applies to a lot of things the leftists do.

I want to be clear. If you are talking about immigration, if the state allows them to, cities can refuse to enforce (or assist in enforcing) federal immigration laws consistent with the Constitution. Where it gets sticky is if they actively work to thwart federal enforcement. Then whether it is legal or not depends upon the specific facts. I guarantee that active attempts to inerfere with federal agents enforcing immigration laws is illegal. (I mention "if the state allows" because there are states that have passed laws that prevent cities from declaring "sanctuary city" status)

Likewise, states do not have to enforce or assist in enforcing guns laws, constitutional or not. What they cannot do in interfere in federal law enforcement enforcing federal laws.

It's actually very consistent.