Ah! That makes sense.I was a Beer Bong Champ in college.
Actually....
I had already started the 12ver and I said I would like to finish it off.
How can you extrapolate "we are not going to enforce anti-2A laws" to "we are going to make and enforce laws that are unlawful"?OK, so I have been reading and watching the development of 2A Sanctuary Cities. Here is the only problem as I see it. Please help me understand how this could not be used against us?
We have pre-emption in Indiana. Many states have similar preemption laws. Part of the benefit of the preemption statutes are that local municipalities, towns, cities, counties, etc., cannot regulate the ownership, sale, transfer or use of firearms. Here is where it get's tricky. Let's say you now declare a 2A sanctuary and claim that your municipality, town, county, etc., is now "exempt" from state regulation, does that not now invalidate the protections we wanted under pre-emption?
Perhaps a liberal town or county decided to declare itself a 2A sanctuary so that it can further restrict firearms?
Please I am NOT against 2A Sanctuary, just concerned about the ramifications.
I agree with you on this. I also think SB436 needs to die a horrible death.I'm concerned about a "sanctuary" to save you from the law of the land. Again, that is copying the liberal's actions that we despise.
The president is at a rally right now talking about sanctuary cities and the problem with them.
As I understand it, the State is not a republic of counties and counties and municipalities have no sovereignty. Our nation IS a republic and the 2a sanctuary movement is the States way of saying we did not cede this authority to the federal government.
Just in
SB 436 (reportedly a possible response to rogue marion Co Prosecutor Curry's non pursuit of Marijuana charges) would have a major undoing of the movement ...
it allow an AG to appoint a special prosecutor to place charges if a local prosecutor fails. and could be used to undo the movement - it is a MAJOR shift of power from individuals and localities to the "smaller central" state offices..
So, in Pulaski County at a commissioner meeting a couple of weeks ago the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance was given to the commissioners and to the county attorney for review to be voted on the 3rd of February. And they seemed very receptive as well as the Sheriff . Well today it has come to my attention that the county attorney does not recommend passing then sanctuary ordinance, he says it will allow murderers just released from jail to buy a gun and it will take away all the gun laws. Now the sheriff is against it. Plus now the time that was allotted for that vote is not on the agenda for the 3rd of February.
"allow murderers just released from jail to buy a gun"
I could read that 100 time and I still won't ever get what he's talking about.
And he's a cop?
Dead Duck just for clarification, it wad the county attorney that said the absurdities the, the sheriff after that was said is now against the 2A ordinance. And apparently the commissioners are scared away too.
Dead Duck. Oh... well crap. I think the idea of this movement is great but I DO now understand how it can be completely interpreted incorrectly than it was originally meant to be. Especially since the dems are using their illegal alien sanctuary city status incorrectly. I just want my constitutional rights continuously constitutionalized correctly dammit![/QUOTE said:You said it, interpreted. That is very relative. Yes me too
How can you extrapolate "we are not going to enforce anti-2A laws" to "we are going to make and enforce laws that are unlawful"?
They have not said they are exempt from those laws. They've said they will not help enforce them. That is an important distinction. They couldn't even enforce the laws if they wanted to. All they could do is assist the Feds in doing so.OK, so let's look at sanctuary cities in the form of immigration laws. Cities and States have declared themselves to be exempt from Federal Laws that they feel violate the rights of certain people within their locations. By making this declaration they have decided to defy the Federal Laws and render them invalid within their jurisdiction. (State Government or Local Government ignores Federal Laws).
A 2A Sanctuary jurisdiction is essentially doing the same but against a State Law that they feel violated the rights of people within their jurisdiction. You pass a state law that on Universal BG Checks, we declare that is not valid, so we do not enforce it. (Local government ignores state government).
Now Enter preemption. A State law we like. We want to rely on preemption over the desire of local government to pass laws or regulations that impact our gun rights.
But Hey, we are a 2A Sanctuary County. We decide which laws we will and will not follow.
Now comes liberal Anti-2A City (we shall use a fictitious city and call it Fake City). So Fake City decides to declare Sanctuary from laws they feel are dangerous to their citizens and refuse to recognize preemption and instead adopts all kinds of restrictions in direct violation.
What I am saying is that declaring a Sanctuary jurisdiction could potentially be used for evil. If jurisdictions are given the legal ability to decide what laws they will, or will not, follow it can go in both directions.
Bob
But Hey, we are a 2A Sanctuary County. We decide which laws we will and will not follow.