The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 7, 2019, 08:53 AM   #1
spacecoast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,457
Central Florida county passes 2A Sanctuary resolution

https://www.dailycommercial.com/news...ment-sanctuary

Text of the resolution:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Capture1.JPG (153.0 KB, 23 views)
File Type: jpg Capture2.JPG (87.4 KB, 16 views)
spacecoast is offline  
Old November 7, 2019, 09:18 AM   #2
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 5,149
Good for them! And they are not too far from anti-gun Disney and Orlando
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old November 7, 2019, 06:00 PM   #3
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,534
It's symbolic at best and dangerous at worst. How are Florida law-enforcement officials going to defend their citizens from the ATF? Is the state allotting funds to cover the legal defense of people who are charged with violating federal gun laws?

The question has already come up in Arkansas, and the state's resolution did nothing to protect the defendants. These resolutions create a false sense of safety that's going to get people in trouble.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 7, 2019, 07:20 PM   #4
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,360
It’s not beneficial to a certain political ideology, so it won’t hold up and will be very dangerous for those that seek sanctuary
rickyrick is offline  
Old November 7, 2019, 07:29 PM   #5
spacecoast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,457
Quote:
How are Florida law-enforcement officials going to defend their citizens from the ATF? Is the state allotting funds to cover the legal defense of people who are charged with violating federal gun laws?
What do you see in this resolution that is encouraging people to violate federal gun laws, or promising to defend them if they do? I understand that it is a 'symbolic' gesture, but I think it is a positive gesture in that it reminds the people that the principles of the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground (spelled out in state law) are honored in Lake County, as well as providing a means for the county sheriff to show his support for concealed carry. Florida is a battleground right now for 2A rights.
spacecoast is offline  
Old November 7, 2019, 07:33 PM   #6
L2R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 354
My take

is that it is symbolic.
Doubt anyone would really resist the ATF.
Counting on this past it being symbolic would be ridiculous.

I don't think it is a bad thing for those who only hear anti- gun rhetoric hear that others hold a different view.

I can't say it's all good or bad, kind of depends on whether someone actually tries to use it.
__________________
L2R
L2R is offline  
Old November 7, 2019, 08:59 PM   #7
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 5,149
Quote:
What do you see in this resolution that is encouraging people to violate federal gun laws, or promising to defend them if they do? I understand that it is a 'symbolic' gesture, but I think it is a positive gesture in that it reminds the people that the principles of the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground (spelled out in state law) are honored in Lake County, as well as providing a means for the county sheriff to show his support for concealed carry. Florida is a battleground right now for 2A rights.
Be nice to see every county do this; if nothing else, it would send a message to the Leftists running for office
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old November 8, 2019, 01:53 AM   #8
ronl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Posts: 1,087
The ATF would have no reason whatsoever to interfere in a locality which did not violate federal law.
ronl is offline  
Old November 8, 2019, 04:00 AM   #9
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,368
Other than the use of the phrase "Sanctuary county" (without a definition) I see nothing in the resolution that states they will do, or not do anything.

As I read it, all it really seems to say is that "because we have rights, we have rights". Mention is made of many court cases, and how the Fed cannot compel the state to enforce Fed laws and the state cannot compel the Fed to enforce state laws. But nowhere does it say they will not, only that they cannot be compelled to do so.

Did I miss an important part??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 8, 2019, 04:26 AM   #10
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,656
We managed quite well, prior to the ATF? Does President Trump have the power to manage without it once more, disband it?
Brit is offline  
Old November 8, 2019, 04:43 AM   #11
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,360
I think it sends the wrong message. As the term “sanctuary” has been used by entities to indicate that they do not intend to cooperate with federal authorities on a disagreeable Federal law, it will send the message to the other side that this county will not cooperate with the ATF in matters of gun crimes. Seems from this post most agree that this is meaningless, but the antigun side will not take it that way.

To some people on the gun—rights side of the coin, it can be interpreted that our constitutional right is in a state of irreversible peril.
Seems to me that the time to take a stand was in the early 20th century or maybe even before that.
rickyrick is offline  
Old November 8, 2019, 08:38 AM   #12
spacecoast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,457
Quote:
As I read it, all it really seems to say is that "because we have rights, we have rights". Mention is made of many court cases, and how the Fed cannot compel the state to enforce Fed laws and the state cannot compel the Fed to enforce state laws. But nowhere does it say they will not, only that they cannot be compelled to do so.
Well at least you read it...
spacecoast is offline  
Old November 18, 2019, 04:10 AM   #13
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,368
There is another drawback to creating a "2A Sanctuary" besides it being a meaningless gesture beyond a statement of opinion.

And that is that using their terms and their tactics, creating a "sanctuary" for our pet cause validates others creating (and having already created) "sanctuaries" for their pet causes.

it implies that since we have a sanctuary for our thing, then its ok for them to have a sanctuary for their thing (what ever it is) and I don't think that a good idea.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 18, 2019, 08:50 AM   #14
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
There is another drawback to creating a "2A Sanctuary" besides it being a meaningless gesture beyond a statement of opinion.

And that is that using their terms and their tactics, creating a "sanctuary" for our pet cause validates others creating (and having already created) "sanctuaries" for their pet causes.

it implies that since we have a sanctuary for our thing, then its ok for them to have a sanctuary for their thing (what
Yup, Boulder is a 'nuclear free zone'..copy to the Chinese and Russians..
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08915 seconds with 10 queries