Second Amendment 'sanctuaries' pop up across the country as Republicans rebel against federal gun l

[riversedge]

Source: raw story







October 19, 2021


‘Gun Society’: Foreign countries issue warnings to their citizens about ‘indiscriminate’ US gun violence




Republicans funded by the National Rifle Association have borrowed from the ideology of the slave-holding South to try to nullify federal laws about guns.

The most extreme proponents of Second Amendment "sanctuaries," claim, like slaveholders more than 150 years ago, that the federal laws are invalid and can be nullified by states. Abolitionists also did this. Northern states passed "personal liberty laws" to try to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850.

.........................

Missouri state Sen. Eric Burlison (R-Battlefield), who pushed for a law that led to Kansas City police restricting federal access to their records, put it more succinctly: "We are telling President Biden to go pound sand."



More than 1,200 local governments have passed Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions in at least 43 states, including Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas and New Mexico. At least 17 states also have these laws......................................................................................

Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/republicans-across-the-country-rebel-against-federal-gun-laws/

---

This is beyond scary.

Link to tweet

?s=20







2nd Amendment sanctuaries pop up across US as GOP rebel against federal gun laws

Extreme proponents of 2nd Amendment sanctuaries,claim, like slaveholders more than 150 years ago, federal laws are invalid and can be nullified by states. WRONG!
#DemVoice1

Link to tweet

?s=20
Man holds gun in front of US flag (Shutterstock.com)

Link to tweet

?s=20

[The Jungle 1]

1. How come it was ok when trump was banning whole classes of guns

They said nothing when the lying turd banned bump stocks.
They make me puke.

[rambler_american]

2. Finally. An NRA member took my advice

[NickB79]

3. It's a spinoff of immigration sanctuary cities from the past few years

You don't have to reach back 150 yr to explain it.

In short, the argument is that if Democrat-led states and cities can refuse to assist ICE, Republican-led states and cities can refuse to assist the ATF.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-crime-idUSKBN20J25R

[stillcool]

5. I'm a big fan of rationalization...

and I suppose in a certain mindset protecting human beings is no different than protecting arsenals. Immigration doesn't kill people...well ICE will...but yeah, guns are far more important than people...and you can never have too many! In short, red states hate a lot of things...but top of the list is every one who doesn't look like they do, and they've been explaining every chance they get.

[NullTuples]

25. The difference though is substantial

A sanctuary jurisdiction typically refuses requests from federal immigration authorities to detain undocumented immigrants apprehended for low-level offenses.

It's a request. There's no obligation, no overriding federal law saying the sanctuary cities must comply.

[AZLD4Candidate]

4. As much as Andrew Jackson was a genocidal madman, didn't John C. Calhoun try this

and Jackson all but dared him, saying he would bring in the army to make sure nullification didn't succeed?

Thomas Jefferson was the first to scream states have the right to nullification. I also thought the US Civil War answered the debate rather convincingly.

[LiberatedUSA]

6. They are just doing what we do with marijuana.

Blue states ignore federal drug laws by legalizing it in their states. Now the right is doing the same with their pet issues.

Can’t scream “but federal law supersedes state law” when when we do it too.

[AZLD4Candidate]

9. Most federal drug laws are dealing with transport over states lines

Possession is a state crime.

Gun laws are interstate commerce clause issues. Guns produced in one state moved to another fall under regulating interstate commerce.

States are not trafficking weed. Here in Arizona, it's grown here and sold here. Same in Colorado. If Colorado shipped its weed to Montana, then we have issues.

But there are federal gun laws like serial numbers, bump stocks, magazine limits, etc. Since guns get shipped all over the country from the factory, it's a federal issue.

[LiberatedUSA]

11. Also like us...

…their rural sheriffs won’t enforce any sort of federal ban on “assault weapons” like our areas won’t enforce federal immigration laws. With red states like Missouri passing bills (in the same manner of weed) backing it up.

Basic point, no local red neck cop is turning in the locals they drink beer with in the bars and hayfields for keeping guns they own and keep as well in red states with governments run by individuals with the same feelings.

So I don’t know what to tell you about enforcing gun laws that ban guns we say are only good for murder from everyone but the cops we protest for murdering us (which seems like a weird concept).

Then of course is the Supreme Court, the Filibuster and the two holdouts.

[NickB79]

12. Texas found a way around that with silencers

If it's a silencer made in Texas, you don't need a permit to buy or own it if you live in Texas.

https://thetexan.news/state-legislature-exempts-texas-made-suppressors-from-federal-gun-laws/

And given how easy it is to crank out modern guns and silencers on modest CNC machines and 3D printers, that's a scary concept.

[AZLD4Candidate]

13. Until it crosses a state line, it is a state issue, unless the illegal silencer goes onto federal

land. Then it's a federal crime.

[AZLD4Candidate]

19. The farmer violated the law and this was a wartime case in 1942

This is the same court that legalized "internment camps."

Next time we have a bumper crop of harvested suppressors from a Suppressor farm, the AAA of 1938 would apply.

The Fillburn case dealt with farming goods, not guns.

[melm00se]

34. I would beg to differ with you here

the Court held

“The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. . . . The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. . . . It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.”

This excerpt essentially grants Congress the power to exert its "plenary and complete" power over interstate commerce over anything that impacts interstate commerce.

Based upon this and that Congress has "plenary and complete" power over interstate commerce, who do you think can determine if an intrastate commercial activity interferes or obstructs interstate commerce?

Additionally, this is an important issue that comes into play with Supreme Court rulings. Unless the Court specifically states that this is ruling is limited in scope, the theories, justifications and applicability can (and is) used in cases that aren't directly linked to the case being put in front of not only the Supreme Court but other courts as well.

More on point, the Filburn case has been referenced in gun cases in the past. Justices Breyer and Souter have both referenced this case at least once in the late 20th century so brushing the case aside with &quot t)he Fillburn (sic) case dealt with farming goods, not guns" is not in line with reality.

[ripcord]

27. Possession is also a federal crime

It carries up to one year in jail or a $1000 fine.

[ancianita]

7. How a totalitarian state looks --

-- like a christo-fascist gun infested sharia run Afghanistan. While civilized people talk nullification, gun humpers say, "whatcha gonna do, huh?"

All talk stops where guns show up.

[LiberatedUSA]

8. If your definition of a totalitarian state...

…is making state laws that conflict with and ignore federal laws, then all states that have legalized marijuana (state law ignoring a federal ban) are totalitarian states by your definition.

The right sees what we do and copies it to ignore laws banning things they like. Follow the leader.

[ancianita]

10. Of course I don't. That discussion is beside the point of gun sanctuary purposes.

They can play at doing what blue states do for immigrants, but we and courts know that objects are not as equal before the law as humans. Guns are tools, for good or ill. The people who own them know that marijuana does not have the same life and death power that guns have.

You can't take immigration laws or marijuana laws to a gun fight. Which is, like it or not, their ultimate point, isn't it. Violence is 'might makes right' rule in totalitarian states. That's my definition. That's where these gun sanctuaryists are heading -- a whole different place from a more perfect union.

[christx30]

18. I mean, a law is either there,

or it’s not. Can a state decide that they are just not going to participate with the feds in enforcement of certain laws? Local sheriff knows that under federal law, Jim Bob’s rifle is illegal, is he obligated to confiscate the weapon and arrest Jim Bob? Or if Officer Jones catches Mike with a 1/2 of weed, is he obligated to arrest Mike for possession, if there are no state laws again pot?
I’d say no. Let the ATF have to track down that weapon. Let the DTA have to detect and arrest Mike.

[ancianita]

20. I hear you.

Sure. But this isn't about whether the law is there or it's not. It is. It's really about whether the law is enforced or enforceable. An unenforced law is no law at all. That's what the gun sanctuary claimers are challenging this government to do. Enforce all gun control laws. It's pretty libertarian, even nihilist. Sure, states have told the feds to pound sand. But those times, guns weren't involved.

Even if SCOTUS ruled with BATF and against sanctuaryists, the sanctuaryists and their enablers in statehouses would still be like Andrew Jackson and say, "good luck enforcing that ruling."

I agree that BATF should be the enforcer. So you're on the right track. It's painstaking work, done through the National Tracking Center, NIBIN, and they're so understaffed by design. But they know the penalties are so weak, their arrest and conviction such a revolving door that people will be back in their war of attrition, that they're worn out and discouraged. The Senate makes sure they stay weak.

The ATF has been hamstrung from collecting data on gun ownership and gun use, as well as the capability to conduct inspections of gun sellers. Due to pressure from the gun lobby, Congress has undermined the ATF's capabilities. In 2006, Congress made the ATF head subject to Senate confirmation; since then, only one nominee has not been blocked from heading the ATF in the Senate.

Rightness lands on a cross. Presidents and Reverends are shot dead. Mass shootings go on. This is, imo, about gun manufacturers having the lobby power to keep the fight up. If they will pick off these guys one at a time, maybe this can work. That's been the strategy so far with the DOJ and the armed militia participants in Jan 6.

[christx30]

23. So you have to have local cooperation to

enforce these things. And if the locals won’t, then it’s all on the ATF. Top-down enforcement won’t work. If SCOTUS rules local law enforcement is required to assist, and they either refuse, or give minimum lawful effort, a LOT of lawbreakers are going to get past them. Congress can put whatever laws into place it wants. The alphabet agencies can adopt any rules it wants. You need local cooperation. You need consent of the governed. And if they refuse consent, what do you do? Arrest sheriff Billy Joe and his deputies? Who replaces them? If the voters of that are able to, you’ll get more of the same put back into power. “Do it or else” doesn’t work above a certain level.

Or you need a lot more people with guns to force it.

[ancianita]

24. You don't have to, but yes, local cooperation is supposed to

coordinate in the combined local and national interests. The more locals are decoupled from national goals, the less likely they are to work together over time.

I'm all for consent of the governed, but the consent must be informed consent, not ignorant, tribe driven culture and turf protection. Sheriffs are a big problem in reinforcing local control toward alt-right and white supremacy ends.

Yes, arrest Billybob and his cracker deputies, too. Let the states fight obstruction of justice issues and see where it gets them.

[christx30]

28. So the local sheriff doesn't cooperate.won't send

deputies to assist in the arrest of the offenders. Won’t allow federal officials the use of his jail space, even temporarily, to hold offenders pending transport to a federal facility. In the eventuality of a shootout between the offenders and the feds, sheriff sends a “best of luck” reply to a call for aid.
“That’s a federal matter. We’re state cops. Not our problem.”

[ancianita]

29. Maybe. It's more hypothetical than probable. Coordination's got to be a two way street, right?

Sheriffs are sworn to uphold not just local constitutional rights, but national interests.

[Calista241]

30. There have ALWAYS been tensions between federal agencies and local law enforcement.

Whether it's the FBI, ATF, ICE, DOJ, whatever. Who prosecutes a case, who has a better case, that's my evidence not yours, etc.

It's nothing new, and this cycle of distrust between state and federal agencies will go on regardless of what happens here. And it's not really a massive change. The ATF was and still is PNG in many states after Waco and Ruby Ridge. Unofficially of course.

[ancianita]

31. What I'm saying. We can't just hypothesize that local will likely ignore federal or vice versa.

They still have to do their jobs. That's been my point. Feds, worst case scenario, can operate without local holding and processing and transport. So, even though sheriffs across red states tend to be biased toward whites and gun humpers, excessively forceful with everyone else, especially the obviously poor, Americans should still demand that they do their job or get bounced out in the next election.

[LiberatedUSA]

32. "Hey you cops we don't trust...

…and protest for killing people, we want you to be armed with guns we think are only good for killing people so you can take those same guns from the very people you live hang with, hunt with, shoot those same guns with because you personally own them as well and drink beer in the corn fields with.”

That may happen in blue state cities, it won’t happen in the cornfield states.

Supreme Court blocks the kick, ball goes into the stands.

[Ford_Prefect]

14. Sounds like the 2nd amendment has just run out of time...It has morphed into toxic waste.

[Turbineguy]

15. Maybe they are expecting a reduction

in deaths due to Covid-19 and are exploring alternative ways to kill more people.

[J_William_Ryan]

21. States and local jurisdictions cannot be compelled by the Federal government to enforce Federal laws

But state and local jurisdictions have no authority to prohibit Federal authorities from enforcing Federal laws in the states and local jurisdictions – the states have no authority to ‘nullify’ Federal laws.

If another Federal AWB is enacted, firearm dealers licensed by the Federal government to sell guns will be prohibited from selling AR 15s, and there’s nothing state and local jurisdictions can do about it.

[keithbvadu2]

22. Repubs used to have this thing called 'Rule of Law'... They got over that.

[Grins]

26. I remember when Republicans HATED sanctuary cities.

Even proposed laws to prohibit them. Idaho, Tennessee, Iowa, Texas, Florida, Montana...

All promoted by the screaming hell-beasts like Breitbart, CAIR, Dinesh D'Souza, Laura Ingraham (and, of course, Carlson), Cliff Kincaid, National Review, the list goes on and on. Just the "usual suspects."

And now....!!!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. In my unprofessional, untrained but somewhat studied opinion...

...federal laws written and passed with explicit preemption or preemption that can be inferred by the courts are not subject to state nullification.

I consider the term "state's rights" to be an oxymoron.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

States have powers, rights are reserved only to the people.

[dchill]

35. MAGA gun church.

Separately or together, those are dangerous words.

That's all I got.

[ripcord]

36. Local juritictions aren't required to enforce federal laws.