Can the sancturary city/state lawsuits backfire on the anti's ?

[Metal god]

This may have been brought up here , I'm not in this subsection much anymore .

I don't know a lot about how precedent works but I got to thinking about what if the sanctuary cities win in court and set solid precedent that states don't have to follow Federal law if it burdens there resources .

I know there's already statutes , laws , understandings ( what ever the correct wording is ) that local and state governments don't have to inforce Federal law . This sanctuary city thing seems to take that a step further . It appears to me some are now blatantly going against federal law by blocking in some cases the ability for federal law to be enforced .

Lets say that gets upheld in court that states don't have to inform the feds , hold people that have broke federal laws etc . How does that not set a precedent that states don't have to follow any federal law ? Namely an assault weapons ban or any number of federal law like interstate commerce ?

It seems some people think they want something so bad they don't think past there nose as to what it could do to the rest of there agenda . We see this with pro gun groups filing lawsuits that may actually hurt are cause because they just want what they want and they want it now .

Do the anti's really want pro gun states to start holding press conferences stating they will not participate in any assault weapons bans and site the sanctuary city lawsuit as legal precedent as to why they can do that . Then start talking about how they'll worn there citizens if they here of any federal actions on guns about to take place .

It just seems to me some on both sides want what they want so bad they don't think of the long term effects that particular precedent can and will likely have .

[jdc1244]

You’re conflating two different issues, one having nothing to do with the other.

[Metal god]

Can you explain what you mean by that . Like I said I don’t completely understand how precedents work .

[BumbleBug]

What Metal god is saying makes sense to me. If you can defy Federal Law about one thing you can do it on another too. At least that is what he is questioning.

[Frank Ettin]

Can you explain what you mean by that . Like I said I don’t completely understand how precedents work .

Perhaps the best way I can explain is that what is precedent can only be determined based on the court’s opinion. Without a court opinion there’s no precedent.

So it’s impossible to really discuss the questions raised by the OP without actual court opinions to refer to.

[Crankgrinder]

We were taught in school that federal law supersedes state every time. They feds choose not to pursue certain issues for one reason or another like marijuana etc. But when the Fed enacted the ban of 94 the state's had no say now they've looked the other way on immigration for way too long but the sanctuary city/state thing is a violation of federal law already. Legally the mayor's of such can be jailed for it if the Fed so chooses so far they have not. the civil war was fought over states rights but for generations it has been (wrongly) taught it was about slavery. Since the end of that war it was dictated that the federal overrules the state.

[Tom Servo]

I think the concept you're looking for is nullification. Some states are seeking to do so by claiming they've "legalized" marijuana, and many sheriffs in New York state are promising not to enforce the SAFE act.

All well and good, right? Well, it is until the local regime changes and decides they will start enforcing the law as written. That can happen at any time, and someone finding themselves subject to prosecution won't have a leg to stand on.

The problem with all of these policies is that they provide a very dangerous illusion of safety that can be shattered on a whim.

[Frank Ettin]

I. The Relationship Between State and Federal Law

1. Our's is a federal system. States are sovereign, political entities. At the time of the founding of our nation each State or Commonwealth effectively ceded some measure of sovereignty to join with the others to become the United States. How much sovereignty each would cede was a central issue in hashing out the Constitution. Our nation would not have come into existence had the States/Commonwealths not retained an acceptable degree of sovereignty.
   
   
2. A fundamental attribute of government is what's known as police power:

   The inherent authority of a government to impose restrictions on private rights for the sake of public welfare, order, and security.

3. The police powers of States are broad and general.
   
   
4. However, as our federal government has been established under the Constitution the federal government has no general police powers. Instead, its powers are specifically described in the Constitution. So, for example, Congress only has the power to pass laws consistent with the specific powers granted to it under Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (subject to certain limitations set out in Section 9 of Article I).
   
   
5. That arrangement is acknowledged by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

   The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

6. Deciding whether a law or other act of the federal government is within its power.
   
   
   1. The first issue will be whether a law or act of the federal government is within a power granted to it by the Constitution. So for example, the scope of the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause to pass laws regulating marijuana has been defined and confirmed under a number of Supreme Court decisions, most recently Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
      
      
   2. A second issue will be whether a particular federal law impairs rights protected under the Bill of Rights. However, the courts have ruled that some regulation of rights protected by the Bill of Rights is permissible.
      
      
   3. The Founding Fathers assigned to the federal courts the authority to decide what the Constitution means and how it applies to matters in controversy (Constitution, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

      Section 1.
      

      The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...

      Section 2.
      

      The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,...

   
   
7. Deciding whether a law or other act of a state government is within its power.
   
   
   1. While the police powers of a State are general and broad, each State/Commonwealth has its own constitution. A State's constitution may circumscribe powers of the State government and provide explicit protection of some rights.
      
      
   2. Since in the United States each State or Commonwealth has its own government in the form of a representative democracy, the people in each have the opportunity to influence what laws are adopted and how they are implemented.
      
      
   3. While the Supreme Court ruled in 1833 that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States (Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)), some years following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment the doctrine evolved of applying some, but not all, of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the States on a piecemeal basis, using the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus those enumerated rights found applicable to the State have also become limiting factor on the exercise by States of their police power.
      
      
   4. To the extent that the question of the validity of a state law raises an issue under the United States Constitution, the meaning and application of the Constitution is finally a matter to be decided by the federal courts.
   
   
8. What about when there's federal law and state law on the same subject?
   
   
   1. The whole area of choice of law (where the laws of multiple jurisdictions could be applicable) is a huge, complex, and pretty much non-intuitive subject.
      
      
   2. In general federal law will supercede state law. See The Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Clause 2:

      This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, 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.

   3. If the particular issue addressed by the state law is also addressed by the federal law, there's the question of whether the particular federal law was intended to "occupy the field", i. e., be the final word on the subject. In that case the federal law preempts the state law and applies instead of the state law.
      
      
   4. On the other hand, if a court decides that the federal law did not reflect an intent to occupy the field, in order to decide if federal law or state law applies a court will need to decide if the state law is consistent a federal policy concern or would, on the other hand, frustrate the federal policy furthered by the law. Or a federal law could be found to preempt state law if either expressly or by inference the federal law was intended to promote national uniformity with regard to a particular issue.
      
      
   5. Sometimes federal law will be explicit about how a conflict between federal law and state law is to be resolved. An example which comes immediately to mind involves the confidentiality of medical information regulation under HIPAA. Those regulations expressly provide that they don't supersede state laws to the extent providing greater protection of an individual's confidentiality interests. For another example, with regard to firearms regulation, federal law (the Gun Control Act of 1968) expressly doesn't preempt state laws. See 18 USC 927:

      No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.

   6. Sometimes there's no conflict between federal and state laws. If something is a crime under federal law but not state law, the crime would be prosecuted by the federal government, and visa versa. An act that is both a federal and state crime can be prosecuted by either, or both, the state and federal governments.

II. State nullification of federal law is a chimera.

1. The Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2, emphasis added):

   This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

2. There's some 200 years of Supreme Court precedent rejecting State nullification of federal law:
   
   
   • United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809)
     
     
   • Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816)
     
     
   • Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)
     
     
   • McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
     
     
   • Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824)
     
     
   • Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)
     
     
   • Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842)
     
     
   • Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)
     
     
   • Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)
     
     
   • Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La. 1960), aff'd 364 U.S. 500 (1960).
   
   
3. The Ninth Circuit has specifically ruled against Montana in a "firearm freedom law" case, Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013).
   
   
4. A State may decide not to enforce federal law or assist with the furtherance of federal policy (Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997)), but a State may not nullify federal law; and the federal agents may still enforce federal law without a State's help.
   
   
5. In connection with state marijuana laws, see Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011) in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that a Sheriff was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. But the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted (at pp. 1065 - 1066, emphasis added):

   ...Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...

6. A Kansas “firearm freedom” law didn't work for Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler who made suppressors in Kansas and were then were convicted in federal court in Kansas for violating the NFA.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

All well and good, right? Well, it is until the local regime changes and decides they will start enforcing the law as written. That can happen at any time, and someone finding themselves subject to prosecution won't have a leg to stand on.

Until last year, my little town had a local ordinance that made it illegal to possess a loaded firearm on town-owned property -- which includes every public street and road in town except for a couple of state routes that cut through. I live on a town road, which meant that not only could I not exercise the right privilege to carry granted me by my state-issued carry permit when driving around town, I couldn't even be armed when walking out to my mailbox, because the mailbox is located within the street right-of-way.

In preparing to seek repeal of this ordinance, I spoke with the deputy chief of the police department. He acknowledged that the ordinance applied to public streets and roads, but (he said) "Nobody's going to jail over this." [But the ordinance did include a penalty of a fine or 30 days in jail, or both.] Apparently the current attitude of the Police Department was to pretty much ignore that ordinance -- unless they wanted to throw the book at some unfortunate schmuck. But the town government has been moving increasingly toward the liberal and anti-gun side in recent years, so the attitude of "benign neglect" could change overnight.

We weren't able to get the ordinance repealed, but we did finally win some revisions that don't solve all my issues as a resident, but did fix the public roads thing so people from other towns don't have to worry about getting a weapons charge added to a traffic ticket when driving through my town.

[Metal god]

Thanks Frank great info as usual ,

..Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...

A Kansas law similar to the Montana law cited in the OP didn't work for Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler who made suppressors in Kansas and were then were convicted in federal court in Kansas for violating the NFA.

These are my points in a nutshell . It seems we are at a point that any state can refuse to follow any federal law or right laws directly contradicting federal law and just claim - yes are law contradicts federal law BUUUUT it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials... ??? Or at least that's the precedent I fear is going to be set ???

Then local and state officials can refuse to help the feds ( secure streets for the raids , traffic control refuse to hold people needing to be held do to federal violations that are not state violations etc ). I know they can now but generally don't refuse helping out .

Before pot was legal here I had a friend that invested in a medical marijuana farm . The feds raided it but there were far more local sheriffs and PD in support then there were Feds on site . If we get to a point where states flat out refuse to help the feds , we as a nation will be in a bad place . You will then see administrations start pulling out ICE agents from states in retaliation like was proposed by the current administration in respect to CA . Which CA quickly freaked out about because they seem to want illegal immigration but when posed with the possibility of having to deal with it on there own they cried foul .

It's seems pretty clear the states and federal governments need each other . When are they going to realize that ?

[In The Ten Ring]

Many sheriffs in my state signed a letter to then President Obama that they would not enforce any new gun laws or regulations. Some went further and promised to direct their officers to arrest federal officers attempting to enforce new such laws.

To my knowledge, the federal govt. did not take action against the signers of that letter. No new laws were passed, it wasn't put to the test.

Sanctuary cities exist because the Left needs the votes to prop up their failed ideology. They need the anchor babies as they know the parents are easy to get addicted to and dependent on welfare monies, these people will be a new guaranteed voting block. If the illegals were voting Republican, that wall would have been built decades ago.

[TDL]

The legal spheres will be decided by the courts, so it won't be a legal backfire.

Where it can present issues are:
1) public perception of double standards of one set of laws being given federal precedence and one state precedence.

2) the long term effect of legalizing and enfranchising illegal immigrants or more legal immigrants from demographic groups shown on average in multiple surveys to place low value on the Second Amendment
[It is funny since politifact went out of its way to label this as "false" when a GOP candidate mentioned it:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ill-destroy-s/
When in fact gun control darling Adam Winkler asserted it is true:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.53fe9055aa95 ]

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by In The Ten Ring

....To my knowledge, the federal govt. did not take action against the signers of that letter......

What make you think you would know what sort of fallout resulted from those letters?

Originally Posted by In The Ten Ring

...Sanctuary cities exist because the Left needs the votes to prop up their failed ideology. They need the anchor babies as they know the parents are easy to get addicted to and dependent on welfare monies, these people will be a new guaranteed voting block....

And what evidence do you have to support that drivel?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by TDL

...2) the long term effect of legalizing and enfranchising illegal immigrants or more legal immigrants from demographic groups shown on average in multiple surveys to place low value on the Second Amendment
[It is funny since politifact went out of its way to label this as "false" when a GOP candidate mentioned it:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ill-destroy-s/
When in fact gun control darling Adam Winkler asserted it is true:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.53fe9055aa95 ].

So we have conflicting conjectures, imagine that. While each side of that question states reasons for their respective opinion, neither really has solid evidence to support his conjecture. So we have inconsistent hypotheses which need to be tested. And that sort of thing goes on all the time.

[In The Ten Ring]

What make you think you would know what sort of fallout resulted from those letters?

Whoa! Somebody is feeling sassy today!

Probably the same degree of knowledge that allows you to believe something did.

My comment was prefaced with "to my knowledge," do you have insider info?

***

And what evidence do you have to support that drivel?

So the Left isn't hoping to win votes with anchor babies. R I G H T, which explains why CA is issuing driver's licenses, granting instate college tuition rates, and allowing illegals to vote. Certainly drivel for sure.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/...l-aliens-vote/

And in case breitbart isn't your thing, maybe a little NYT will work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/us...ns-rights.html

How about some LA TIMES?

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/reade...318-story.html

https://townhall.com/columnists/denn...izens-n2441508

And since the avatar claims San Francisco, here's two names that should ring a bell: Kate Steinle and Jose Inez Garcia Zarate.

[Tom Servo]

So the Left isn't hoping to win votes with anchor babies. R I G H T, which explains why CA is issuing driver's licenses, granting instate college tuition rates, and allowing illegals to vote.

Whether or not that is the case, it is outside the scope of this forum.

[Frank Ettin]

Politics is off-topic here.

[Lohman446]

To me, ultimately, a States Rights argument becomes an individual right argument. I like them.

[Lohman446]

Kind of. Even the rights of states have limits. The sanctuary city argument is not about the state enacting cumbersome laws but choosing not to enforce federal laws they find unappealing.

I'm not ok with States violating the rights of individuals as enumerated specifically in the Bill of Rights and then expanded on by later amendments. For instance I don't care if David Duke were to gain power in Louisiana - we are not turning back civil rights.

To me ultimately States Rights arguments strengthen the rights of individuals against cumbersome laws that impede on those rights. If the Federal government does not have an authority (be it moral or legal) to impact individuals (because the current argument is that State cannot be forced to act against individuals) then the State governments do not either.

[Metal god]

If the Federal government does not have an authority....

.....current argument is that State cannot be forced to act against individuals) then the State governments do not either.

Can you elaborate on this ? I'm sure it's not but it sounds like double talk to me with no direction . Are you saying if the feds can't do something then the states should not be able to either ?

The Feds can both create gun control laws as well as immigration laws so what are we talking about ?

, I believe the emphasis should be on the border and building a wall. Let States exercise their rights but work to drastically reduce the influx of illegals.

On it's face that sounds good but it also sounds like you said , make it very hard to enter the country illegally and if you're so lucky/good to get in then you can stay if you get to a special zone inside the US ??? Can we do that with guns , You can't have evil rifles but if you get your hands on some you can keep them if your state says it's OK , err-wait what ???

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If you want to discuss the abstract view of what powers lie with the state or Feds, ok.

I don't care about your opinion about immigration issue itself. Deleting those.

[Lohman446]

Let me try to elaborate.

In theory the powers of the Federal government are enumerated and limited within the Constitution. Even under current rulings it appears the Federal government cannot force the states to act to enforce federal law.

Meanwhile the states are clearly limited in the rules and regulations they can impose on their citizens. We have had to make some adjustments through amendments but we have enumerated this own list.

A Constitutional argument that gives credence to the rule of law and not popular rule likely always favors a pro-gun stance. I get it there are a lot of ways people can be killed. Still it seems that few are as terrifying as an armed gun man. Rule of the populace will often over react and be knee jerk. Rule of law perhaps less so.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

Let me try to elaborate....

Please don't try. You're not doing a very good job of it.

The whole federal vs. state thing was laid out in post 8. How does your so called elaboration add anything useful?

[Lohman446]

Yeh. My connecting premises kind of fell apart in there somewhere and the articulation, perhaps the thought itself, became a jumbled mess. Gonna abandon that argument before it gets worse because I can’t figure out how to get it back

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

...My connecting premises kind of fell apart in there somewhere and the articulation, perhaps the thought itself, became a jumbled mess.....

I'm not sure where you were trying to go. I think the notion that, "...the rule of law and not popular rule likely always favors a pro-gun stance...." is at least premature. The thing is that hasn't really been worked out yet. Post Heller Second Amendment jurisprudence is still in its infancy.

And while the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment arguably restrain to some extent populism insofar as it can limit important, minority rights; there is still an accepted school of constitutional construction that allows some consideration of accepted, popular values.