Sanctuary county

[458winshooter]

I have heard all the ruckus about San Francisco and the very anti NRA bill they passed and just to let everyone know that my home county, Blount county, earlier this year became the 2nd county in Tennessee to become a sanctuary county for the second amendment. You folks may want to consider such a plan for your home town too.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 458winshooter

... my home county, Blount county, earlier this year became the 2nd county in Tennessee to become a sanctuary county for the second amendment.

Could you explain what this is supposed to mean, and what it's supposed to accomplish?

[Tom Servo]

Basically, the county is refusing to enforce any new gun-control laws the state legislature might pass.

It's a nice symbolic measure, but it's useless in practice, and it's worse than useless because it creates an illusion of safety.

[DockRock]

I oppose Sanctuary Cities that illegally attempt to shield criminal invaders from federal law, ergo I oppose other efforts to defy laws duly passed, whether I like them or not. The uninformed will imagine that the symbolic sanctuary will protect them. And it will not.

A simple resolution condemning specific laws that the state, county, or municipality opposes, or better, one that reaffirms one's individual and unalienable right to keep and bear arms would serve the political messaging needs of blow-hard politicians without putting any of their constituents at unnecessary risk.

[Aguila Blanca]

Hmmm ...

From the resolution (after all the "whereases"):

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Blount County Board of Commissioners hereby has, declared Blount County to be a “Second Amendment Sanctuary County”.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THIS RESOLUTION TAKE EFFECT FROM AND AFTER PASSAGE, THE PUBLIC WELFARE REQUIRING IT.

In other words, it's meaningless bloviating. According to the article:

This was mainly a symbolic move by the county commission. Supporters said it sends a message that Blount County will protect citizens from tighter gun laws.

Unfortunately, there isn't a single word in the resolution that would in any way even suggest that the County would (or could) protect anyone from tighter gun laws. And, while some might say that it means the County won't enforce strict gun laws enacted by the State ... it doesn't say that. The reality is that, after all the bloviating, it doesn't say anything.

[44 AMP]

Even if they meant it seriously and not as just a political gesture, the county controls what, the County Sheriff and deputies, only. And while the sheriff might agree and not enforce new gun control laws, in order to protect county residents from enforcement by OTHER LEO groups, the sheriff would have to arrest those law enforcement officers in order to keep them from doing "their duty", wouldn't they???

I understand this is a complex legal can of worms, and that under certain specific circumstances, the Sheriff MIGHT have the legal authority to refuse other LEO personnel from operating in his jurisdiction, this isn't an area where we have much legal precedent to go on.

The problem is the way we define things. I believe, it is established that one does not have a duty to obey an unconstitutional law. But, this is a Catch-22 thing (again). No law is unconstitutional, until declared so, by the High Court, at which time, it ceases to be a law.

You, or I, or the whole county can believe a law is unconstitutional but until the proper court rules so, that is just our opinion, and not fact.

[KyJim]

In my state, at least, sheriffs are completely independent from the county government except---and it's a big exception---for their budgets.

[MTT TL]

Even if they meant it seriously and not as just a political gesture, the county controls what, the County Sheriff and deputies, only. And while the sheriff might agree and not enforce new gun control laws, in order to protect county residents from enforcement by OTHER LEO groups, the sheriff would have to arrest those law enforcement officers in order to keep them from doing "their duty", wouldn't they???

I understand this is a complex legal can of worms, and that under certain specific circumstances, the Sheriff MIGHT have the legal authority to refuse other LEO personnel from operating in his jurisdiction, this isn't an area where we have much legal precedent to go on.

I don't see how that could be. The code is pretty clear that the Sheriff has no special power over State and Municipal Law Enforcement Officers.

Chapter 8 - Sheriffs Part 2 - Powers and Duties 8-8-221

Except for duly commissioned state and municipal law enforcement officers, no person shall go armed for law enforcement purposes

The state give the powers to all other agencies (and a bunch of other people) to enforce laws (38-3-103)

The judicial and ministerial officers of justice in the state, and the mayor, aldermen, marshals and police of cities and towns, and the director, commissioner, or similar head of any metropolitan or municipal police department, whether elected or appointed, are also conservators of the peace, and are required to aid in the prevention and suppression of public offenses, and for this purpose may act with all the power of the sheriff.

The TBI and TN-DHS Officers are by statue empowered to make arrests under any part of Title 39, anywhere in the State. The Highway Patrol is allowed to make arrests on the behalf of TBI for non-traffic offenses. The County Sheriff has no powers to stop them from doing so. The sheriff is required to keep such prisoners in his jail as arrested by those agencies 38-3-114(d).

Federal Officers are specifically authorized by State Statue to make arrests (38-3-113) for non-Federal felonies and misdemeanor breach of the peace under TN Code.

The sheriff and his deputies can be charged for neglect of duty for failing to make an arrest (38-3-107)

[44 AMP]

I don't see how that could be. The code is pretty clear that the Sheriff has no special power over State and Municipal Law Enforcement Officers.

As I said, it would have to be some very special (unusual) circumstances, and not any kind of general authority. One scenario I can envision is IF state/Federal officers were not obeying the law.

IF for example, they were attempting to conduct an illegal search (such s without a valid search warrant) the Sheriff could tell them, to stop, and go away, and come back when you have a valid search warrant. I believe the Sheriff would be within their authority to do that, and even arrest the agents if they failed to comply.

However, that is a far fetched and highly unlikely situation, though not an absolutely impossible one. The Sheriff does not have the authority to interfere just because they don't like the law the agents are enforcing. They would have to be doing something outside the law for the sheriff to be valid taking action, but if they were, he could.

[MTT TL]

They would have to be doing something outside the law for the sheriff to be valid taking action, but if they were, he could.

Possibly, although that is normally how such things works. It would have to be two very dysfunctional agencies that went head to head like that, or at least one extremely so. Federal LEAs have tried a lot harder in the last ten years or so to comply with the law and integrate their activities with local departments.

But what we are talking about here is the sheriff stopping some other LEA from taking lawful actions under TN code due to a county ordinance. If that happened the sheriff could be charged for interfering. If the sheriff starts waving around his pocket copy of the constitution and telling TBI they can't arrest people because it is against the law he is going to have a bad day. I don't think that is too far fetched either. That is the kind of political nonsense a tiny number of sheriff's engage in.

[458winshooter]

I don't know the legalities of it all but I think it makes a statement to gun grabbers that the vast majority of this county ( about 130,000) supports the 2nd amendment. I would venture a guess that it has about as much legal standing as the sanctuary cities for illegals does. I do know that just as the police in Nashville did nothing to help ICE agents a few weeks ago during an attempted arrest that the police have said they wouldn't help state or federal agents in enforcement of any gun confiscations. Heck one of the police captains held a pro gun political rally a few years ago across the street from the court house.I do think though that if enough people get together to do this and show some willingness to stand up the gun haters will tread lightly. Besides if you come to East Tennessee, or go to see the Smokey mountains you will know that you have friends here.

[Tom Servo]

I don't know the legalities of it all but I think it makes a statement to gun grabbers that the vast majority of this county ( about 130,000) supports the 2nd amendment.

It's a bad idea to pass laws as a way of making a statement. As a society, we already have a bad habit of passing legislating pretty much everything. Using the process to pass laws with no teeth just makes things worse.

And this is toothless. If there's a statement to be made, the gun-control lobby won't notice and doesn't care. It won't deter them.

[458winshooter]

At least it's something! I live in the real world where I interact with lots of people every day. All I hear is people complaining that nobody is listening to them. They've lost hope and have given up that their values, beliefs, and opinions matter. All they hear is negativity and see how the laws and morals of society are sneered at by people who want to take away their rights, and exert control over them. Yes, it may be futile, useless, pointless, worthless or a waste of time, but at least someone is trying to do something. It has to start somewhere ,somehow, some way.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 458winshooter

Yes, it may be futile, useless, pointless, worthless or a waste of time, but at least someone is trying to do something. It has to start somewhere ,somehow, some way.

I am all in favor of people on our side doing something. The question is: How is adopting a meaningless, toothless resolution that is (in your own words) "futile, pointless, worthless [and] a waste of time" in any way doing something?

It reminds me of a video clip I saw several years ago of some city or county governing board that was discussing a vote on some anti-gun ordinance they were considering. A member of the audience spoke up and reminded them that the state had a preemption law, so the ordinance they were discussing could not be enforced. And one of the lawmakers then went on record as saying he didn't care if it couldn't be enforced, because "we've got to do something."

Perhaps I'm even more of a curmudgeon than I thought but, for me, doing something means DOING something, not throwing out a bunch of hot air and empty words. As Shakespeare said in Macbeth, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[MTT TL]

It's a bad idea to pass laws as a way of making a statement. As a society, we already have a bad habit of passing legislating pretty much everything. Using the process to pass laws with no teeth just makes things worse.

They could pass a resolution naming the Brady Campaign and EGS as a hate groups. They would be named as prejudicial, bigoted and intolerant organizations that engage in discriminatory practices that puts the lives of people in danger. They can then demand the county not do business with them or of their 84 members nationwide.

[458winshooter]

Shakespeare also said " First we kill the lawyers "but......If you think it's pointless then I would love to hear some ideas as to what to do. I hope since it seems staff is all that is answering that no one is getting angry to shut this off. There is no animosity on this side. I think that this would have the same legal standing in court as sanctuary cities does, I'm sorry to say that I didn't know until recently that Nashville's mayor has made it one. And heaven knows they are clogging up the works on that front. As far as I know they don't have anymore legal precedent than this does. And as I said before people are getting frustrated so they feel they must try something. It's very hard for me to just keep sending the NRA money and expecting it to do something when they aren't attacking like I want them to. The story about the $6 million mansion doesn't help.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 458winshooter

And as I said before people are getting frustrated so they feel they must try something. It's very hard for me to just keep sending the NRA money and expecting it to do something when they aren't attacking like I want them to. The story about the $6 million mansion doesn't help.

Speaking for myself, not as a moderator on TFL, I do not advocate sending the NRA or the NRA-ILA one more cent until Wayne LaPierre is gone and the board of directors has been purged of LaPierre's sycophants. It's obvious that LaPierre is (and probably has been for some time, but that's debatable) now MUCH more of a liability than he is an asset. The man has been earning a million dollars a year for some time, and he has a cushy retirement package in place. If the man had a shred of decency and/or if he cared even a little bit about the NRA and its members and mission ... he would already have retired. At this point he is an albatross, hanging around the neck of the entire NRA organization. It appears that the board members who haven't already departed support LaPierre and won't take any action to clean house unless they are forced to do so, and the only way the members can force that is to cut off the flow of funds. That means NO contributions or donations until there has been a house cleaning at NRA headquarters.

That said, this is a response to your comment but I don't see quite how it relates to San Francisco labeling the NRA a terrorist organization. I view that as both inflammatory and libelous, and completely unrelated to LaPierre's peccadilloes.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 458winshooter

Shakespeare also said " First we kill the lawyers ".....

Shakespeare didn't say that. A character in one of Shakespeare's plays "Henry VI", said that; and that character was Dick The Butcher. He wasn't called "the butcher" because he was in the meat business.

[458winshooter]

So far there are numerous posts saying this is a bad idea. So I will ask again what do you suggest people like me do? More of the same is not the answer. Becoming a mass shooter or doing something drastic is not the answer. Voting for politicians who eventually cave or demand favors in exchange for their vote hasn't helped. Remaining silent is definitely not the answer. So what are your ideas? What I am seeing is that y'all seem unwilling to do anything unless you can claim some legal precedent. I would also like to state that all these county commissioners either are or have lawyers working for them so to make this statement they must know more about the legalities of it than most of us. This is a solid red county so there is no need to put on a show for votes. Remember I said there is a lot of negativity out there. It's very easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize others. I'm asking in all sincerity what you think should be done? I would truly hate to see this country if we needed to wait on legal precedent to do anything.

[thallub]

Nothing new here.

Political hacks at the state and county level pander to folks who have only a dim idea how the US government operates. Some have received prison sentences for believing that "sanctuary" actually means freedom from federal prosecution.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 458winshooter

I would also like to state that all these county commissioners either are or have lawyers working for them so to make this statement they must know more about the legalities of it than most of us.

I have to disagree with you.

Sadly, I can't find the video that best demonstrates this, but I have mentioned it in other discussions here. Perhaps a year or two ago, I saw a video on Youtube of a meeting of some city council or county board at which a proposed anti-gun ordinance was being discussed. A gentleman from the audience got his turn at the public microphone and reminded the members of the legislative panel that the State (whichever state it was) had a firearms preemption law so, if they enacted the proposed law, it would be null, void, and unenforceable. This prompted one of the members of the legislative body (a male, probably in his 30s or early 40s) to make an impassioned speech to the effect that he didn't care if the law could be enforced or not, he was going to vote for it "because we've got to do something."

You decide if you think that was virtue signaling, putting on a show to get votes, or just a demonstration of thinking so addled that he probably should not have been allowed to graduate high school. Whatever his thinking and his motives, the fact was that this was a legislator who was willing to go on record as voting for a law that he knew was illegal. They are out there; do not fall into the trap of thinking that "they must know more about the legalities of it than most of us." The fact is that many of us know more about laws and the Constitution than a great many of our elected [so-called] representatives.

[458winshooter]

More negative responses but no suggestions. For the third time I ask what is the answer then?

[Tom Servo]

For the third time I ask what is the answer then?

Why are we obligated to provide "the answer?" This is a rhetorical tactic I hear all the time from the gun-control lobby: "if you don't want [background checks/bans/registration], what's your solution?"

We can criticize a bad policy on its own merits. It's not a zero-sum game, and we're not required to offer up an alternative to do so.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 458winshooter

More negative responses but no suggestions. For the third time I ask what is the answer then?

I don't think pointing out that an illegal "law" that can't be enforced, or a resolution that says nothing and does nothing, is a dumb idea is "negativity." That said, I agree with Tom Servo. Why am I (or we) obligated to provide answers to problems we didn't create?

More to the point, you wrote, "[W]hat is the answer then?" "The" is a singular modifier, implying that there is ONE answer. I respectfully submit that the problem of a violent society (meaning "violence," not limited to "gun violence") is a complex issue that does not lend itself to any single, simple answer. If there were a simple, single answer I'm sure someone would have proposed it before now. But ... there isn't a single, simple answer.

My answer for the moment is that we need to put more pressure on the media and the politicians to stop harping on "gun violence" and start addressing the fact that too many people in today's world look at violence (of some kind, and definitely NOT limited to gun violence) as the first resort in any sort of dispute or disagreement.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by 458winshooter

. . . . What I am seeing is that y'all seem unwilling to do anything unless you can claim some legal precedent....

This is Law & Civil Rights. Precedent is kind of a big deal in this forum.

Originally Posted by 458winshooter

. . . .I would also like to state that all these county commissioners either are or have lawyers working for them so to make this statement they must know more about the legalities of it than most of us....

I wouldn't bet on that. My experience with local politicians (which amounts to about 10 years of being their lawyer) is that most of them have only slightly more than a passing familiarity with the law. They like to rely heavily on their lawyers to find them ways to get what they want, not necessarily to figure out if what they want is either legal or a good idea.

Originally Posted by 458winshooter

This is a solid red county so there is no need to put on a show for votes....

From the looks of the resolution, that's exactly what it was. A show for votes. There is actually no mechanism in it, at all. To paraphrase, it says: (1) The General Assembly passed a red flag law; and (2) We're a 2nd Amendment sanctuary city. It does not even go so far as to say "We think RFLs are bad."

ETA: I'm saddened to hear that Nashville has become a sanctuary city. I lived there years ago and have very fond memories of it. With that said, I'm afraid that Little Rock is on its way to becoming a sanctuary city, as well, given our BoD/gov't composition.