Agree or Disagree with 'Gun Sanctuaries'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
I have to say that I do not agree with any type of sanctuaries at all whether it be for illegal immigrants, marijuana, or anywhere else. You cannot have laws that are against Federal law. If you do not like Federal laws then change them. I think if you want to not enforce or violate Federal laws then you should lose Federal funding and be charged. I don't think governments or departments should be able to avoid, not enforce, or fight against Federal law. It's a slippery slope when you choose which Federal laws your going to abide by and which ones you are going to violate.If a government or department chooses to violate such laws with a sanctuary of any type you are in fact obstructing justice and secondly violating the law.

As much as I support the 2nd Amendment I do not believe gun sanctuaries are the way to go. Do you agree or disagree?

7B465761-B6DD-496B-A711-F0ABC8DF6ED7.jpeg


https://www.myjournalcourier.com/ne...ld-ban-gun-8216-sanctuaries-8217-13642035.php
 
If they can have sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants might as well do it for citizens so they can do other stuff we actually have the right to do.

I say we take it to the Supreme Court.

Illinois is a dumpster fire. Cut your losses and run.
In NM curry, Roosevelt, Lincoln, quay and sheriffs from few other counties have banded together and said they will not enforce any state gun laws that go above and beyond federal laws.
We don't have a gun problem, we have a government problem.
No new gun laws have been passed in NM yet.
 
Last edited:
Aim1 said:
As much as I support the 2nd Amendment I do not believe gun sanctuaries are the way to go. Do you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...
I would not be able to answer that question until someone 'splained to me exactly what a "gun sanctuary" is (or, rather, would be). :)

EDIT: Aaahhh ... missed the link. Nope, can of worms, that is. IMO, we have enough problems without every little jusidiction being able to pick & choose which laws they will enforce.
 
There is no such thing as a gun sanctuary state, violate Federal law and the ATF people will come down on you.

You’ll be standing there going “but, but, they said I was safe here” as they snap the cuffs on.

The feds let the marijuana people get away with it because there’s big money to be made there. As we know, money trumps everything.
 
Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (that provides that the federal constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land), local laws that attempt to override federal laws are themselves null and void

But even though they have no legal effect, they might still be useful as expressions of local opinion. That's basically what all these "sanctuary" ordinances are -- P.R. stunts and "virtue signalling."
 
Frankly, apart from the constitution, I'm against both Federal laws and Federal funding.

But while the ATF is a thing still, no place will be safe from them, sanctuary city or no.
 
AlexanderA said:
Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (that provides that the federal constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land), local laws that attempt to override federal laws are themselves null and void

But even though they have no legal effect, they might still be useful as expressions of local opinion. That's basically what all these "sanctuary" ordinances are -- P.R. stunts and "virtue signalling."
Click to expand...


It's not just virtue signalling, cities in places like California, Minnesota, and others are not enforcing and choosing not cooperate with federal authorities on immigration laws.
 
In what I see in the link, they (sanctuary cities/counties) have my support. They are in protest of state gun laws those communities find unconstitutional. When you have states which are heavily influenced by urban centers passing laws which restrict the civil rights of all the state's law-abiding residents, I think those in the outlying communities which have had their political voice silenced are welcome to engage in civil disobedience and peaceful protest, and even more of my support goes to the local authorities who support and facilitate such protest.
 
While the Seattle city council and mayor go about crafting more and more firearms regulations stricter than state or federal law (in violation of the state preemption as well), the mayor has de facto legalized possession of amounts of Schedule 1 controlled substances (specifically meth and heroin) found on users -- as well as supporting legal injection sites (at taxpayer expense, no less) AND the city has proclaimed itself a sanctuary city for illegal aliens.

If a city or jurisdiction can do this on any social issue, why would you argue against a sanctuary city for firearms?

What causes MORE crime, ultimately? Increasing your city's numbers of illegals, addicts and the drug flow ... or the guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens?
 
I think instead what we should do is add an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that says something along the lines of.. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That will make it clear as day for everyone that you can't make laws to take away, or even infringe upon that right.

Sanctuary cities is a weird way to describe it. I support the rule of law... but If the law itself is not lawful, ie breaks the Constitution, then it is not the rule of law it is Tyranny and is everyone's duty including local governments and police to find a way to resist it if they can.

Its a tough spot to think about. Say another amendment was infringed. What do you do if the government starts shutting down newspapers that criticize it?
 
Last edited:
Since the 1st of the year there have been hundreds of new gun laws proposed by just about every state in the union. I have looked at many of them and have been surprised, and encouraged, by the number that support gun ownership. Others, such as proposed laws in Washington State and Oregon that would raise the minimum age to own a rifle to 21; can't tell me that these two states aren't violating the 2nd Amendment. It seems to me that the Supreme Court at some point in time will have to clearly define, once and for all, what the personal rights regarding gun ownership as outlined in the 2nd Amendment are because it just isn't clear to many of these legislative types and their new proposals.
 
Aim1 said:
I have to say that I do not agree with any type of sanctuaries at all whether it be for illegal immigrants, marijuana, or anywhere else. You cannot have laws that are against Federal law. If you do not like Federal laws then change them. I think if you want to not enforce or violate Federal laws then you should lose Federal funding and be charged. I don't think governments or departments should be able to avoid, not enforce, or fight against Federal law. It's a slippery slope when you choose which Federal laws your going to abide by and which ones you are going to violate.If a government or department chooses to violate such laws with a sanctuary of any type you are in fact obstructing justice and secondly violating the law.

As much as I support the 2nd Amendment I do not believe gun sanctuaries are the way to go. Do you agree or disagree?

View attachment 828397
This is a noble sentiment, but it doesn't address the practical reality of government. If we were just simply to say the law is the law, and it will be equally and impartially enforced, it wouldn't matter much who we elected to the executive branches. One sheriff, one governor--at least in his executive role--would be bound to the law same as the next. Governments can and do choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore. Part of it is practical. A government prosecutor is justified in refusing to put resources in a case doomed to fail. Much of it is political as well.

Laws can be likened to groceries on a shelf. The agency responsible for enforcing them uses the ones they want and allows the others to collect dust.

As a citizen, you can't go to a police agency or a government bureaucracy, copy of the law in hand, and demand they apply it. In most cases if a government agency refuses to honor a law, the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity protects them. Your only recourse, then, being political.

Of course to more narrowly address the issue the OP had in mind, In modern America federal law almost always trumps state law. We contested that back in '61. Didn't end well for us.

https://www.myjournalcourier.com/ne...ld-ban-gun-8216-sanctuaries-8217-13642035.php
Click to expand...
 
It’s silly this is even a thing. But I fully support it. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

I think we tried playing nice and proper with immigration, marijuana, and the Constitution. And had faith that Truth & Justice would prevail. But, in too many places, Truth & Justice saw dollar signs and decided money, power, and the re-election of those that would keep the gravy train with biscuit wheels rolling their way, were more important.

And when discussing with those (or for yourself) that would like to claim illegal immigration isn’t a problem, here’s just one of many sites dedicated to posting those killed by illegals. Doesn’t really matter their job title. They were living American citizens. Grandparents, moms, dads, children. Too many faces on this page. Take a minute to scroll. http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp

And a link to https://www.dps.texas.gov/administration/crime_records/pages/txcriminalalienstatistics.htm

Take another couple minutes to read unbiased numbers from just one state. And their explanation of how they got their numbers.

I’m sorry. But when honest, good people you know get killed by anyone, but especially by an illegal alien who shouldn’t even be here, and he gets convicted and sentenced to 2 years probation and deported (for the 4th time), it has a tendency to not sit well.

Think I should just leave this thread alone for awhile....
 
Tit for tat, I guess. That is what freedom is all about. They can do what they want, we can do what we want. I always wonder what stops families of murder victims from hiring a hit man, when the convicted killer is released into the community. I guess that truly is the definition of good people.
 
Kaybee said:
I think instead what we should do is add an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that says something along the lines of.. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That will make it clear as day for everyone that you can't make laws to take away, or even infringe upon that right.

Sanctuary cities is a weird way to describe it. I support the rule of law... but If the law itself is not lawful, ie breaks the Constitution, then it is not the rule of law it is Tyranny and is everyone's duty including local governments and police to find a way to resist it if they can.

Its a tough spot to think about. Say another amendment was infringed. What do you do if the government starts shutting down newspapers that criticize it?
Click to expand...

I speculate that opening the amendment process will not broaden gun rights beyond what the 2A already does...
 
I really hate the "sanctuary" anything phrase.

The idea is sound if you are for states governing themselves, however when federal law or specifically the constitution is ignored "just because", that's no good.

I agree that it's all a PR stunt mostly so I dont think it makes a difference.

True Patriots are going to keep their guns under tyranny regardless of whether where they live has a stupid label or not.
 
Do I have this straight?

They are making a law to ban communities that will uphold the constitution.
Rural counties are thumbing their nose at Chicago's strangle-hold over the state legislature.
Yet, Illinois thumbs her nose at the entire country as she opresses the rest of the state, goaded on by Chicago, whose anti-gun laws have a laughable track record.

So, they are trying to make following Federal law illegal in the State of Illinois.

Right?:confused:

The constitution doesn't need sanctuary, it needs advertisement.
 
I feel bad for any 2A supporting citizen who’s right is ignored by some city wishing to be a gun free zone. Unless they are willing to buy him a new house in the area of his choosing. And pay for the move.
 
So, they are trying to make following Federal law illegal in the State of Illinois.

Soft secession, no civil war. Several states are moving this matrix,
 
No. Because decent people are going to end up in jail, or dead. The President and Attorney General, in typical Republican fashion, allow wayward Leftist states and cities to flaunt the law, whether it's immigration or "legalization" of drugs. But when one of those Communists like Warren, or Booker, or Harris are in the White House, it'll be Ruby Ridge and send in the National Guard to enforce federal firearms laws.
 
Depends on the sanctuary being offered. I don’t begrudge any state or local government not using its own resources to enforce federal laws with which it doesn’t agree.

Preventing the federal government from enforcing federal law? That’s something else entirely. I don’t agree with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Tucson to ignore Arizona's 'Second Amendment sanctuary' law
Replies
17
Views
1K
GEM
G
hps1
  • Locked
Sheriff Calls for ‘Sanctuary County’ to Protect Gun Rights
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Jammersix
Jammersix
N
  • Locked
It's not just gun control... Rudy Giuliani is Vehemently Pro Illegal Immigration!
Replies
24
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
Craig_AR
  • Locked
2A Sanctuaries in Virginia
Replies
2
Views
768
GEM
G
4
  • Locked
Guns in Mount Rainier National Park
Replies
9
Views
814
4Freedom
4
Back
Top