What are the enforcement tools against local governments . . .

maestro pistolero · July 31, 2011, 11:46 AM

. . . like Chicago? So far, there is just enough ambiguity in the case law to prevent their shenanigans from hurting them in any meaningful way.

Soon, once carry outside the home has been made clear, we will see Chicago and others erect new and novel obstacles to the exercise of the right. There will be lines drawn to which they will either acquiesce, or not. I think, not.

If they refuse to allow carry, or make it so burdensome that it suppresses the right, what is the recourse?

At what point in this scenario, does stupid begin to hurt in any meaningful way? Put another way, what will it take to get complete protection from recalcitrant state and local government who would rather deny the right altogether?

PawPaw · July 31, 2011, 11:54 AM

Lawsuits is one recourse against local government. The ballot box is another. There are several others, but we don't need to discuss them here.

maestro pistolero · July 31, 2011, 03:12 PM

Quote:

There are several others, but we don't need to discuss them here.

My question should be prefaced "short of second amendment remedies, what are the enforcement tools, etc"

**Tom Servo** · July 31, 2011, 06:40 PM

Well, IIRC, the Supreme Court's will would be enforced by the DoJ.

Yep, the DoJ.

jgcoastie · July 31, 2011, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Well, IIRC, the Supreme Court's will would be enforced by the DoJ.

Yep, the DoJ.

Just spewed coffee on my keyboard on that one... You mean that this DOJ would enforce a pro-2A ruling by the SCOTUS, against a local/state government???

That's almost hysterical....

The current leadership of the DOJ couldn't find the Second Amendment with two hands, a map, compass, and a highlighted copy of the Constitution, complete with footnotes...

maestro pistolero · July 31, 2011, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Well, IIRC, the Supreme Court's will would be enforced by the DoJ.

Yep, the DoJ.

Ok, but using what tools of the DOJ, or what enforcement mechanism?

Say, hypothetically, SCOTUS says any non-prohibited person may carry on any public sidewalk. (let's set GFSZs aside for the purposes of this discussion).

That local government continues to harass and arrest citizens exercising the right. They have already been prevented by injunction from enforcing such a law but they refuse to stop enforcement. What does the DOJ do to force compliance?

In other words, where are the teeth? Can officials be arrested for contempt? Would we see US marshals escorting the open carriers of weapons to make the enforcement point?

When and how do officials' lives get so uncomfortable that they would cease to flout the will of the court?

armoredman · July 31, 2011, 07:17 PM

Quote:

You mean that this DOJ would enforce a pro-2A ruling by the SCOTUS, against a local/state government???

Only if it doesn't interfere with the Mexican gunrunning connection.

pnac · July 31, 2011, 08:34 PM

Keep an eye on Quartzite, AZ. It might be educational to see how that situation is handled.

armoredman · August 1, 2011, 12:43 PM

Just looked that one up - that will shake out poorly for the city council. Poorly and expensively.

Glenn E. Meyer · August 1, 2011, 01:26 PM

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Look it up, when state governments refused to implement - Federal and Federalized National Guard troops enforced the decision.

So, expect to escorted by an Abrams tanks when you carry your J-frame to the Stop and Rob.

Seriously, the Federal government will hammer a state for noncompliance.

July 31, 2011, 11:46 AM	#1
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	What are the enforcement tools against local governments . . . . . . like Chicago? So far, there is just enough ambiguity in the case law to prevent their shenanigans from hurting them in any meaningful way. Soon, once carry outside the home has been made clear, we will see Chicago and others erect new and novel obstacles to the exercise of the right. There will be lines drawn to which they will either acquiesce, or not. I think, not. If they refuse to allow carry, or make it so burdensome that it suppresses the right, what is the recourse? At what point in this scenario, does stupid begin to hurt in any meaningful way? Put another way, what will it take to get complete protection from recalcitrant state and local government who would rather deny the right altogether?

July 31, 2011, 11:54 AM	#2
PawPaw Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 2010 Location: Central Louisiana Posts: 3,137	Lawsuits is one recourse against local government. The ballot box is another. There are several others, but we don't need to discuss them here. __________________ Dennis Dezendorf http://pawpawshouse.blogspot.com

July 31, 2011, 06:40 PM	#4
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	Well, IIRC, the Supreme Court's will would be enforced by the DoJ. Yep, the DoJ. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

July 31, 2011, 08:34 PM	#8
pnac Senior Member Join Date: September 7, 2008 Posts: 550	Keep an eye on Quartzite, AZ. It might be educational to see how that situation is handled. __________________ In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons

August 1, 2011, 01:26 PM	#10
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Look it up, when state governments refused to implement - Federal and Federalized National Guard troops enforced the decision. So, expect to escorted by an Abrams tanks when you carry your J-frame to the Stop and Rob. Seriously, the Federal government will hammer a state for noncompliance. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

August 1, 2011, 12:43 PM	#9
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,297	Just looked that one up - that will shake out poorly for the city council. Poorly and expensively.