I personally do not support this. The idea of a sanctuary city is wrong whether it be for guns or illegal immigrants. Cities and counties do not get to arbitrarily select which laws they enforce. Doing something like this is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? What's next? Rape or murder sanctuary cities?
Sounds neat. I hope gun nuts who feel like their being attacks for loving guns so much that they can't stand one ounce of regulation flock to those cities.
That's what I was thinking -- are we going to have WMD sanctuaries? I could picture a violent liberal city like Austin building nuke, chemical, and biological weapon factories and justifying it by claiming sanctuary status.
Americans have too much prosperity, are bored and frankly have too much free time. This is insane. A good anti-vaxer inspired epidemic may put people back into the proper frame of mind.
They just released a new massive study that shows there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. I expect this to have zero effect on the anti-vax morons.
"Look....... Buck. You do you and we will do what we think is best for our family. If anything, the way our President has been railroaded just shows that scientists lie and cannot be trusted and doctors and the FBI all are incompetent. So those studies mean nothing, we know the media lies all the time. I know what I feel as a Christian and as a parent and those vaccines make babies sick and are made so big pharma can control us and democrats can take our babies or force abortions. I really fell for the black babies with the Planned Parenthood holocaust. I saw a special about it on TBN and read about it on Town Hall."
Guns don't kill people. Guns kill guns. So where's that problem with that?!? -Clarence Thomas's opening statement
It seems to fundamentally misunderstand sanctuary cities. Local police enforce state and city law and do not exist as a tool for federal law enforcement. We use federal agencies for those things -- like ICE. States can make legislation to force local law enforcement to cooperate on federal immigration enforcement if they want. Or, they don't have to if they don't want because they don't work for the feds. To have a gun sanctuary city, they'd have to decline to cooperate with federal gun control policy, which isn't a thing. The gun control policies are state laws, and local law enforcement is a creature of that state. State agencies cannot refuse to enforce the law of that state. It is especially ridiculous when we're talking about county sheriffs. A county is literally a subdivision of the state; they aren't even separately incorporated like a city is with its own charter, and its own legislative body. To compound the problem, a sheriff isn't empowered to make decisions regarding the constitutionality of state law. The rationale for immigration sanctuary is rooted in effective policing and not in respecting civil rights, but in this article they're saying they'll play the court's role in interpreting the law with gun sanctuary. So I think they're idiots. And I think sheriffs who won't enforce the law should be removed by the state and/or jailed. It is reminiscent of a few other instances of petty officials bucking the law. It reminds me of Kim Davis who refused to issue marriage licenses to gays and went to jail for it (she lost re-election in 2018, btw). Reminds me of Kim Ogg not pursuing capital punishment. Reminds me of Arpaio's many, many abuses as sheriff that eventually landed him in jail. Their jobs are to execute state law, not to make state law.
Just more evidence these folks live on some fantasy world. The wild west had pretty strict gun controls measures in many of its frontier towns that 2nd amendment folks would be appalled to learn about....
I think state agencies refuse to enforce certain laws all the time. And individual law enforcement entities engage in selective enforcement for good and bad reasons. How for example does what you argue here apply to the state trooper or county sheriff's deputy who elects NOT to write a ticket to someone driving 66 miles per hour in a posted 65 miles per hour speed zone?
At some point........... everyone is going to wake up and realize how 75% of all of this is bullshit and it is destructive bullshit. Everything from trying to evict people that have been in the USA for 20+ years, to complaining that some marginal socially relevant celebrity is politically incorrect....... to putting basic safety of the citizenry below gun rights..... to letting churches pay zero taxes while they either do little socially beneficial or continue prejudiced and out dated beliefs......... to liberals and Republicans losing their **** about gay people, transgender people while not giving a damn about throwing old people into homes......
Yes, agencies do engage in some discretion, and I think we as a citizenry want them to use some common sense in enforcing the law. We don't want cops writing tickets for speeding 1 mile over the limit. But, this kind of common sense discretion is different from a blanket ideological opposition to the will of the legislature. To take the earlier example of a murder sanctuary city, if the state says murder is a serious felony, some sheriff is not at any liberty to say that he won't arrest any murderers in his county. He'd be derelict in his duty. And we shouldn't have to wait until the next election to get a sheriff who will.
...have you, by any chance, had an opportunity to talk to one Sheriff Joe Arpaio? ...or to Sheriff David Clarke? ...you seem to know more about how to do their jobs than they ever did...!
