Central Florida county passes 2A Sanctuary resolution

spacecoast · November 7, 2019, 08:53 AM

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

Text of the resolution:

FITASC · November 7, 2019, 09:18 AM

Good for them! And they are not too far from anti-gun Disney and Orlando

**Tom Servo** · November 7, 2019, 06:00 PM

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.

rickyrick · November 7, 2019, 07:20 PM

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

spacecoast · November 7, 2019, 07:29 PM

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.

L2R · November 7, 2019, 07:33 PM

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.

FITASC · November 7, 2019, 08:59 PM

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

ronl · November 8, 2019, 01:53 AM

The ATF would have no reason whatsoever to interfere in a locality which did not violate federal law.

**44 AMP** · November 8, 2019, 04:00 AM

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??

Brit · November 8, 2019, 04:26 AM

We managed quite well, prior to the ATF? Does President Trump have the power to manage without it once more, disband it?

rickyrick · November 8, 2019, 04:43 AM

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.

spacecoast · November 8, 2019, 08:38 AM

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...

**44 AMP** · November 18, 2019, 04:10 AM

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.

USNRet93 · November 18, 2019, 08:50 AM

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..

November 7, 2019, 09:18 AM	#2
FITASC Senior Member Join Date: December 6, 2014 Posts: 6,443	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

November 7, 2019, 06:00 PM	#3
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	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

November 7, 2019, 07:33 PM	#6
L2R Senior Member Join Date: November 5, 2010 Location: North Carolina Posts: 358	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

November 8, 2019, 04:00 AM	#9
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,820	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.

November 18, 2019, 04:10 AM	#13
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,820	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.

November 7, 2019, 07:20 PM	#4
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,236	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

November 8, 2019, 01:53 AM	#8
ronl Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 2007 Posts: 1,100	The ATF would have no reason whatsoever to interfere in a locality which did not violate federal law.

November 8, 2019, 04:26 AM	#10
Brit Senior Member Join Date: January 29, 2005 Location: Orlando FL Posts: 1,934	We managed quite well, prior to the ATF? Does President Trump have the power to manage without it once more, disband it?

November 8, 2019, 04:43 AM	#11
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,236	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.