Current Events > WTF is a 2nd amendment sanctuary?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Everywhere in the US has the second amendment.

ok

---

It is a republican thing where no gun laws can be put into place there.

---

Its for snowflakes who think the government is gonna take away their security blankets

---

Well there's Florida, which is basically a testing ground for all the batshit insane NRA-backed firearm policies.
---

You know how paranoid people have zombie shelters and stuff?

It's sorta the Republican equivalent.

---

Cheater87 posted...

It is a republican thing where no gun laws can be put into place there.

But 100% of those places have gun laws. I really don't understand.

If I had to guess id say it was a place where local law enforcement refuse to enforce federal firearms laws.

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

If I had to guess id say it was a place where local law enforcement refuse to enforce federal firearms laws.

Like which ones? There aren't any that deny people the right to own or carry a gun. So, wtf are these things.

short answer: sanctuary cities for guns

long answer: preemptive county-level commitment to nullification of state and federal laws that might be deemed as excessive encroachment on the right to bear arms

---

TheMikh posted...

short answer: sanctuary cities for guns

long answer: preemptive county-level commitment to nullification of state and federal laws that might be deemed as excessive encroachment on the right to bear arms

How do they disobey state laws? States have a certain degree of sovereignty, so I get how federal laws can be ignored, but there aren't even any federal laws that disallow anyone to own or carry a gun.

Similar to sanctuary cities for illegals, local authorities have refused to commit resources to enforce gun laws that they consider to be most likely unconstitutional unless and until the SCOTUS rules otherwise. If the state wants those laws enforced, they will have to commit their own resources to do so.
---

Paragon21XX posted...

Similar to sanctuary cities for illegals, local authorities have refused to commit resources to enforce gun laws that they consider to be most likely unconstitutional unless and until the SCOTUS rules otherwise. If the state wants those laws enforced, they will have to commit their own resources to do so.

But there aren't any federal laws that prevent anyone from owning or carrying a gun.

Ex-Kefiroth posted...

It more-or-less amounts to gun worshippers in local governments throwing temper tantrums. Unenforceable and unconstitutional; they function more as propaganda than actual enforceable law.

I would just place an ATF task force in each of them.

---

Paragon21XX posted...

Similar to sanctuary cities for illegals, local authorities have refused to commit resources to enforce gun laws that they consider to be most likely unconstitutional unless and until the SCOTUS rules otherwise. If the state wants those laws enforced, they will have to commit their own resources to do so.

It actually sounds like it's the local courts refusing to enforce it and not like, the police or anything.
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

I would just place an ATF task force in each of them.

That's a pretty expensive and complicated plan. Also, what would they even do?

Scott_Farkus posted...

How do they disobey state laws? States have a certain degree of sovereignty, so I get how federal laws can be ignored, but there aren't even any federal laws that disallow anyone to own or carry a gun.

in such counties, law enforcement would simply refuse to enforce state laws

the state-federal dynamic doesn't matter so much to advocates; in virginia, for instance, it's believed that representation at the state level has been compromised by ongoing shifts in voter demographics (see: the shift from red to blue from 2008 onward), and that the local government no longer represents their interests

consequently, a dynamic has emerged similar to the states rights movement, except where municipalities are the new states and states are perceived as an extension of the fed

as it presently stands, it's perfectly legal to own and carry a gun, but red flag laws from the gop and the increased anti-gun (independent of type) rhetoric of more radical gun control advocates in the dnc have spooked gun rights types, catalyzing these 2a sanctuary developments

---

TheMikh posted...

in such counties, law enforcement would simply refuse to enforce state laws

the state-federal dynamic doesn't matter so much to advocates; in virginia, for instance, it's believed that representation at the state level has been compromised by ongoing shifts in voter demographics (see: the shift from red to blue from 2008 onward), and that the local government no longer represents their interests

consequently, a dynamic has emerged similar to the states rights movement, except where municipalities are the new states and states are perceived as an extension of the fed

as it presently stands, it's perfectly legal to own and carry a gun, but red flag laws from the gop and the increased anti-gun (independent of type) rhetoric of more radical gun control advocates in the dnc have spooked gun rights types, catalyzing these 2a sanctuary developments

So, second amendment sanctuaries are actually illegal, since they are refusing to enforce laws they have no room to not enforce.

Scott_Farkus posted...

So, second amendment sanctuaries are actually illegal, since they are refusing to enforce laws they have no room to not enforce.

pretty much

it's tantamount to a civil insurgency, however peaceful for now

---

Scott_Farkus posted...

That's a pretty expensive and complicated plan. Also, what would they even do?

Enforce the federal laws that aren't being enforced by the locals.

---

A shooting range

---

The issue isn't really the Federal part, it's more the State laws part.

For example the Democrats in Kentucky put forward legislation that if passed, anyone convicted of a crime related to domestic violence anywhere would not be able to own firearms in Kentucky. Thus, if you had a DV conviction and were found with a firearm, you'd be charged for it (I don't know the penalties, I just know the law was put forth).

So in a "2nd amendment sanctuary" county, the idea would be that this law wouldn't be enforced and either no one would be charged for it, or the charges could be dropped for no real reason.

The Municipal-County-State relationship is far more nuanced than the Municipal-Federal one, so local officials telling people to completely ignore State-level law and that they won't be enforcing it, is a lot messier than the other "sanctuary" thing they're trying to draw a parallel to. For example I believe in Oregon it's directly in their State Constitution that only the State Legislature can regulate firearms, so these counties passing these are violating the law.

In fact I wouldn't even directly compare this to "Sanctuary Cities" even though that's obviously the parallel they're trying to draw, because the US Government has continually asserted that it is to be sole arbiter and enforcer of immigration laws, and continually fought all State-level laws all the way to the Supreme Court (Arizona SB 1070 from 2020, for example), and local law enforcement is not required to help enforce federal law. This has absolutely no happened with any type of firearm laws.
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Enforce the federal laws that aren't being enforced by the locals.

Which ones aren't being enforced?

I heard you can't just refuse to enforce the law. But I guess that only applies to deporting illegals

---

Unjust laws should always be challenged.

Like we did in the past.

---

Scott_Farkus posted...

But there aren't any federal laws that prevent anyone from owning or carrying a gun.

There are federal laws that prevent people from owning certain accessories. Thanks Trump.

---

Malcrasternus posted...

Unjust laws should always be challenged.

Like we did in the past.

Which laws, exactly, are unjust?

And what exactly are you implying by like we did in the past? This country has done plenty of reprehensible things in the past.

---

meralonne posted...

Which laws, exactly, are unjust?

How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail"
---

TheMikh posted...

the state-federal dynamic doesn't matter so much to advocates; in virginia, for instance, it's believed that representation at the state level has been compromised by ongoing shifts in voter demographics (see: the shift from red to blue from 2008 onward), and that the local government no longer represents their interests

So the interests of the people have changed, the elections reflect that and because of that, the people are not being represented?

---

Paragon21XX posted...

How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

Thank you for telling me what Dr King felt is an unjust law, but that doesnt tell me what you think is an unjust law.

That also ignored my second question entirely.


---

Mr Hangman posted...

but they are very exposed in doing it if it turns out their state legislatures are not willing to tolerate it.

I think it would be an executive branch thing in most cases

---

Ex-Kefiroth posted...

https://i.imgur.com/AeATkQB.png

meralonne posted...

Its for snowflakes who think the government is gonna take away their security blankets

---