|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 17, 2018, 12:27 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,875
|
Can the sancturary city/state lawsuits backfire on the anti's ?
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 .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
March 17, 2018, 05:05 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 532
|
You’re conflating two different issues, one having nothing to do with the other.
|
March 17, 2018, 05:28 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,875
|
Can you explain what you mean by that . Like I said I don’t completely understand how precedents work .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
March 17, 2018, 06:00 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 11, 2013
Location: Near Heart of Texas
Posts: 870
|
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.
__________________
Visit my fictional blog "The dr Chronicles" about a laid-back Texan named dr - Enjoy! |
March 17, 2018, 07:20 PM | #5 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
So it’s impossible to really discuss the questions raised by the OP without actual court opinions to refer to.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
March 17, 2018, 07:39 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 917
|
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.
|
March 17, 2018, 08:25 PM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
March 18, 2018, 02:28 AM | #8 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
I. The Relationship Between State and Federal Law
II. State nullification of federal law is a chimera.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||||||
March 18, 2018, 09:44 AM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,458
|
Quote:
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. |
|
March 18, 2018, 12:09 PM | #10 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,875
|
Thanks Frank great info as usual ,
Quote:
Quote:
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 ?
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . Last edited by Metal god; March 18, 2018 at 12:22 PM. |
||
March 18, 2018, 09:32 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2018
Posts: 380
|
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. |
March 18, 2018, 10:35 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
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 ] |
March 18, 2018, 11:40 PM | #13 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
March 18, 2018, 11:47 PM | #14 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
March 19, 2018, 03:04 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2018
Posts: 380
|
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. Last edited by In The Ten Ring; March 19, 2018 at 03:52 AM. |
March 19, 2018, 07:44 AM | #16 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
March 20, 2018, 10:04 AM | #17 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Politics is off-topic here.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
March 20, 2018, 12:14 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
To me, ultimately, a States Rights argument becomes an individual right argument. I like them.
|
March 20, 2018, 12:56 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
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. |
March 20, 2018, 03:46 PM | #20 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,875
|
Quote:
Quote:
The Feds can both create gun control laws as well as immigration laws so what are we talking about ? Quote:
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . Last edited by Metal god; March 20, 2018 at 05:11 PM. |
|||
March 21, 2018, 10:22 AM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
March 21, 2018, 02:48 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
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. |
March 21, 2018, 02:55 PM | #23 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The whole federal vs. state thing was laid out in post 8. How does your so called elaboration add anything useful?
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
March 21, 2018, 08:28 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
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
|
March 21, 2018, 09:06 PM | #25 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|