Sanctuary county - Page 2

MTT TL · September 11, 2019, 08:41 AM

Quote:

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.

It's not about the money, it is about the power. He won't quit until he has sucked all the life out of the organization.

**Aguila Blanca** · September 11, 2019, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTT TL

It's not about the money, it is about the power. He won't quit until he has sucked all the life out of the organization.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

**44 AMP** · September 12, 2019, 02:00 PM

First off, the deeds and misdeeds of NRA leadership are off topic for this thread.

next, there is this,

Quote:

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.

This is exactly what the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has done, with the NRA, except they didn't say "hate group" they used the phrase "Domestic Terrorist".

We think it was a stupid idea for them (and apparently they are being sued) and it would be an equally stupid idea for us.

A personal gripe here, the whole "red/blue" thing now in common use, bothers me. For generations, worldwide, red has been the chosen color of identification with Communism. I think adopting the colors used by a news group (ABC??) during one election some time ago, identifying Republican areas as "red" and Democrat as blue on their map was a slick ploy on their part, turning the party most associated with socialism and communism from red to blue. I don't think we should be repeating that, but it seems entrenched now, so all I can do is gripe a bit, and preach to the choir.

I am fully in agreement that any government body can make statements about what they feel, and what they think ought to be done, WITHOUT making it any kind of law. Send a message, fine. make it a law just to send a message, its folly.

As many have noted before, when you make a law that is meaningless, one that has "no teeth" and/or is impossible to enforce, all it does is create more scofflaw behavior, and that diminishes the actual valid laws to a degree that I cannot measure, but believe exists, nonetheless.

Traditionally, from the Middle Ages on, if you claimed the right of "sanctuary" it meant the church would not allow officers of the crown to enter the church and seize your person, AS LONG as you remained in the church.

Today it's being used to describe places where the local government is refusing to enforce laws they disagree with. This does not prevent other law enforcement people from enforcing those laws within the jurisdiction of the local government. it does not "protect" people from that. All it does is say the LOCAL authorities won't be doing the enforcement.

In other words, today, the "church" won't kick you out, but they won't stop the "crown authorities" from coming in and arresting you.

Once again, we see a term that has been held to have one meaning for centuries, being used to mean something else, today, with the bulk of people still thinking it means what it always did, and that is simply, not the case, today.

Pass a resolution, make a statement, all fine, but don't claim you are protecting people, when you aren't.

What is the answer to the endless propaganda we are bombarded with? I don't have one, (or rather one that would be both legal and socially accepted,

) all we can really do is lead by example and clearly state how their side is propaganda and our side is the truth.

However, the other side says exactly the same thing, and they tell very convincing lies, much better than we tell the truth.

MTT TL · September 12, 2019, 02:19 PM

Quote:

In other words, today, the "church" won't kick you out, but they won't stop the "crown authorities" from coming in and arresting you.

This is actually untrue.

https://patch.com/california/studioc...ails-years-end

Quote:

This is exactly what the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has done, with the NRA, except they didn't say "hate group" they used the phrase "Domestic Terrorist".

We think it was a stupid idea for them (and apparently they are being sued) and it would be an equally stupid idea for us.

It does not convey well in 2019, but this is at least partly satire.

Quote:

What is the answer to the endless propaganda we are bombarded with? I don't have one, (or rather one that would be both legal and socially accepted, ) all we can really do is lead by example and clearly state how their side is propaganda and our side is the truth.

On the playground, with no adults present, he who shouts loudest and has the most friends shouting with him normally wins. I haven't seen a notable adult voice in this debate in nearly 20 years. Every year it gets a little more immature as noted by this thread.

**44 AMP** · September 12, 2019, 03:04 PM

Quote:

In other words, today, the "church" won't kick you out, but they won't stop the "crown authorities" from coming in and arresting you.
This is actually untrue.

https://patch.com/california/studioc...ails-years-end

ok, I see I should amend the statement to say that SOME places won't let "crown authorities" into the church building, but they won't stop them operating in the parish the church serves.

in other words, the county sheriff might bar ICE officials from his jail, but can't (won't?) stop them from operating on the street in "his" county.

Is this essentially correct as you see it?

**Aguila Blanca** · September 12, 2019, 04:43 PM

I wonder if a county sheriff even has the legal authority to bar federal agents from his jail. The feds might not want to push the issue, but I sort of doubt the sheriff would win if the feds decided to make an issue of it.

MTT TL · September 12, 2019, 05:14 PM

Quote:

in other words, the county sheriff might bar ICE officials from his jail, but can't (won't?) stop them from operating on the street in "his" county.

It goes a little bit past the jail, although not much. Here is some analysis by the CPOA.

https://cpoa.org/truth-act-trust-act...w-enforcement/

All of it, including the sheriff's actions are based upon California Law.

458winshooter · October 9, 2019, 12:27 PM

A press release says that Hood county in Texas just declared itself a second amendment sanctuary.

**Aguila Blanca** · October 9, 2019, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 458winshooter

A press release says that Hood county in Texas just declared itself a second amendment sanctuary.

I found a link to an article about this, but I haven't found the actual text of the resolution. If anyone has a link to that, please post it.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ctuary-status/

USNRet93 · October 11, 2019, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

I wonder if a county sheriff even has the legal authority to bar federal agents from his jail. The feds might not want to push the issue, but I sort of doubt the sheriff would win if the feds decided to make an issue of it.

They do not.

Quote:

Resolutions passed at the state and county level do not supersede a law passed by the federal government.

September 12, 2019, 04:43 PM	#31
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,460	I wonder if a county sheriff even has the legal authority to bar federal agents from his jail. The feds might not want to push the issue, but I sort of doubt the sheriff would win if the feds decided to make an issue of it. __________________ NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic

October 9, 2019, 12:27 PM	#33
458winshooter Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2008 Location: Transplanted to Ridgeland,SC Posts: 606	Way to go Hood!!!! A press release says that Hood county in Texas just declared itself a second amendment sanctuary.