|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 23, 2021, 12:32 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,955
|
Newton County Second Amendment Preservation Act
Newton County Missouri has passed a Bill that would allow its Sheriff to arrest Federal Agents who enforce Unconstitutional Federal Laws that they fell violate both the State and Federal Constitutions.
Here is the bill https://www.newtoncountymo.com/notic...eservation-act Here is one of many news articles on this. https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horow...cond-amendment What are the true legal aspects of this in regard to Federal Laws, The Supremecy Clause, the Interstate commerce Clause and a local sheriffs ability to arrest Federal Law Enforcement. This reminds me of the Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act, that got two gun owners arrested by the Feds for believing their state could nullify Federal Law. |
February 23, 2021, 12:38 PM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Not a lawyer, but IMHO a federal law is not "unconstitutional" if a county sheriff says so, or because a county board of commissioners says so, or because the Missouri state legislature says so. A federal law is unconstitutional only when the federal judiciary says it is unconstitutional.
These types of "sanctuary" laws are, IMHP, dangerous, because gullible people may actually believe they offer defense/protection for engaging in illegal activities. These laws are political grandstanding. They are pretty much reverse virtue signaling.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
February 23, 2021, 01:05 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
It isn't a good protection for the local individual, but it does set up potential cases to force courts to examine the constitutionality of certain laws.
|
February 23, 2021, 01:55 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 1,819
|
Same thing in Maine this week... just political headlines.
The Fort Fairfield, Maine Town Council just voted in favor of a resolution and declared the town a "Second Amendment sanctuary." Makes for good headlines, but that's about it. AB is right, Federal Law over rides it. |
February 23, 2021, 02:46 PM | #5 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Good for Fort Fairfield.
Fort Fairfield is potato farming country, in the extreme northeast corner of Maine. It directly abuts Canada, and 6% of the population speaks French as their native language. 2010 population was 3,496 and the population is declining -- it was 3,579 in 2000. I'd venture to guess that, except an occasional CBP agent, Fort Fairfield hasn't seen a federal LEO in decades. Political grandstanding. [edit to add] https://bangordailynews.com/2021/02/...w-enforcement/ According to the Bangor Daily News, the town manager says Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
February 23, 2021, 02:46 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 12, 2020
Posts: 1,177
|
Well, in fairness Federal immigration law overrides sanctuary status, and we saw how well that worked out.
|
February 23, 2021, 03:00 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,955
|
Is there any cases, or legal precedence that allows for Sheriffs or State LEO to arrest Federal agents for enforcing federal law?
|
February 23, 2021, 03:04 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 1,819
|
I don't think anyone in State or local law enforcement is that stupid, to attempt to arrest a Federal agent on an aforementioned "declaration".
But, then again, I am not always right and tend to overestimate the intelligence and grossly underestimate the ego of some of my fellow Americans. Last edited by shurshot; February 23, 2021 at 03:16 PM. |
February 23, 2021, 03:16 PM | #9 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
So the word is "precedent", not "precedence", and the plural is "precedents." In any event, 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 |
||||
February 23, 2021, 03:37 PM | #10 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,832
|
Quote:
Agents are expected to notify local LEOs, obey all laws and have the proper writs and warrants, and respect local authority. In other words, all the "i"'s dotted and "t"s crossed. When this doesn't happen, isn't enforced from the top down by the Fed, you can get monumental screw-ups like Ruby Ridge and Waco. I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, just an observation from the peanut gallery, about the way I understand things are supposed to work, and what can happen when the process isn't worked properly.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
February 24, 2021, 12:33 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
Don’t bet your freedom on it. To be fair, the feds likely aren’t coming after your average everyday joe who has an oil filter adapter... wait I mean “solvent trap”... but despite their lack of likely interest I still don’t care to bet my freedom on a town, county, or state declaring themselves as 2A sanctuaries.
Despite the confusion and possibly mistaken belief by some gullible citizens that they are safe, when they are not, I still support the 2A sanctuary movement. I believe it can have a “second thought” let’s think about this for a moment before larger governments enact gun bans. We saw that, sort of, in VA in late 2019 and early 2020
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
February 24, 2021, 02:10 AM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
February 24, 2021, 03:19 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,968
|
such laws are fluff and carry no weight in court which is where you will end up....
|
February 24, 2021, 01:23 PM | #14 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,832
|
The problem with sanctuary is that it never actually exists, without "good men, armed and ready to battle" to preserve it.
Thing is, it only happens when BOTH side AGREE to let it happen. It sort of worked in the Middle Ages, because of the power of the Church. And even then, it wasn't absolute. While, once granted sanctuary, the Church wouldn't turn over the "bad guy" to local authority, (if a deal was made,) the Church could (temporarily) "consecrate" some of the Lord's men who could then go in and remove the bad guy from the church. Kind of like breaking your word without technically breaking your word.... People are going to misinterpret the term "sanctuary" indeed its already done in this thread. Consider the idea that saying "sanctuary" does not mean the local govt doing so will shield and protect people from arrest and prosecution, but that they are declaring their town/county, etc. a sanctuary for the IDEA of the 2nd Amendment rights, (or whatever the cause is), meaning only that THEY will not prosecute (things which are usually well outside their jurisdiction anyway) or pass laws or ordinances against the idea and concept they have declared "safe" in their jurisdiction. This in no way means they will stop other authorities performing their duties, though it may mean they will not actively help them. This is not a case of riding a cathedral bell in the tower crying "Sanctuary!!!", but more a matter of, as Inigo Montoya says "I do not think that word means what you think it means..."
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
February 24, 2021, 01:40 PM | #15 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Quote:
Here's the Merriam-Webster definition of "sanctuary": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sanctuary The part that applies in this context is: Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
||
February 24, 2021, 06:24 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,784
|
If the sheriff has his own crack armored division of Marines, a squadron of F22's and a few spare nukes--then by all means, sure it's a great idea.
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk! |
May 12, 2021, 09:53 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 5, 2009
Location: French, currently living in US
Posts: 162
|
I can understand the argument that "sanctuary" laws are mostly symbolic fluff with no teeth...but if this is the case, then how do so many cities get away with passing such sanctuary "laws" regarding illegal immigrants and refusing to cooperate with federal immigration services (ICE)?
|
May 13, 2021, 06:36 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho, near WY
Posts: 507
|
"Agents are expected to notify local LEOs, obey all laws"
Well.....yes and no. When on-duty we were not restricted by any state laws on where to carry a weapon; other than in certain protected areas like prisons (jails), court rooms, etc. If we had to follow state laws, when I was working (long time ago...retired 2005), it would have been illegal to carry in many US cities, anywhere including the sidewalk on main street. And many of those conditions changed after 9/11. Also, on notification. Normally that will be done; however, quite a few times it is not. A few reasons why are: Local LE or Local LEO were being investigated Local LE not reliable to keep an investigation confidential.
__________________
I give MY OPINION (not often) based on many years shooting at, other than paper targets. I will not debate my experience vs. your experience based on dreams and "what ifs." I'm 73; I'm too damn old to care. |
|
|