testtest

Do Second Amendment Sanctuary Laws Really Carry Any Weight?

The article makes some good points. One point it failed to address is the fact that if the feds ( or anyone) successfully wins a court case based on those criteria then every state that has legalized marijuana or city/state that has deemed themselves a "Sanctuary city" for illegal aliens is going to see themselves hauled into court. This is in effect going to present liberal activists and judges with a little problem. What do they want more, federal gun control laws or legalized weed and mass infiltration by "Undocumented" foreigners.
 
The states have more authority under the Tenth and Second Amendments to legislate Second Amendment sanctuary laws, than states, etc have the authority to enact illegal immigrant sanctuary laws. The Constitution states than they (states) have no authority to interfer with the federal governments' jurisdiction over all matters concerning immigration (e.g. illegal immigrant sanctuary laws).

In addition, the courts have stated that the Second and Fourth amendments only protect against infringement by national government.

Since the USA is a Republic vs. a Democracy, each state is itself a sovereign entity, and as such, reserves the right to organize in any way (within the above stated parameter of Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution) deemed appropriate by its people.

44 US states include the right to bear arms in the state constitutions in some fashion,;some for self-defense and the defense of the state. However, California, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin do not have a specific guarantee to arms in their constitutions. However, six of those states guarantee to all persons the natural or inalienable right to self-defense.

And the Tenth Amendment allows for the states to enact laws not delegated to the Federal Government. But, over time, the Federal government has worked around the Second Amendment by managing firearms commerce through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

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.

Therefore, states have no right to enact sanctuary laws for illegal immgration.

But the states have the right to enact Second Amendment sanctuary laws, as they do for posession and carry laws, within state boundaries when the federal Second Amendment, and state specific guarantees to arms, are infringed upon by the National Government.

My .02
 
SoNic said:
I doubt that any city that deemed itself "sanctuary" for weed or illegals would also decide to be 2A sanctuary.
Click to expand...
Ya think? You missed my point brother. If a city can deem itself a sanctuary city for illegals or a state can deem itself a legalized weed state, the argument made in the article and by most people currently opposing 2A sanctuary states HAS to apply to those cities as well. No court on the planet is going to say it is illegal to not enforce federal laws, but only certain ones.
 
Talyn said:
The states have more authority under the Tenth and Second Amendments to legislate Second Amendment sanctuary laws, than states, etc have the authority to enact illegal immigrant sanctuary laws. The Constitution states than they (states) have no authority to interfer with the federal governments' jurisdiction over all matters concerning immigration (e.g. illegal immigrant sanctuary laws).

In addition, the courts have stated that the Second and Fourth amendments only protect against infringement by national government.

Since the USA is a Republic vs. a Democracy, each state is itself a sovereign entity, and as such, reserves the right to organize in any way (within the above stated parameter of Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution) deemed appropriate by its people.

44 US states include the right to bear arms in the state constitutions in some fashion,;some for self-defense and the defense of the state. However, California, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin do not have a specific guarantee to arms in their constitutions. However, six of those states guarantee to all persons the natural or inalienable right to self-defense.

And the Tenth Amendment allows for the states to enact laws not delegated to the Federal Government. But, over time, the Federal government has worked around the Second Amendment by managing firearms commerce through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

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.

Therefore, states have no right to enact sanctuary laws for illegal immgration.

But the states have the right to enact Second Amendment sanctuary laws, as they do for posession and carry laws, within state boundaries when the federal Second Amendment, and state specific guarantees to arms, are infringed upon by the National Government.

My .02
Click to expand...
Not true. Heller specifically disallowed Chicago and DC from infringing on 2A rights.
 
Bassbob said:
Not true. Heller specifically disallowed Chicago and DC from infringing on 2A rights.
Click to expand...
So, there are "no" firearms regs in MO?

Heller did not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Heller reinforced the right to keep and bear arms in those locale by striking down draconian licensing, possesion, and storage laws that both municipalities ahd enacted to deny the individual right to bear arms.

However, states and municipalities can still enact licensing and possesion laws (i.e. Minnsota's "permit to purchase", NYC licensing law, and those states that don't permit the ownership of Class 3 machine guns).

And all those state and municipal regulations are an example of Tenth Amendment rights.

In many ways the NFA of 1934/86 is unconstitutional at the Federal level.
 
Talyn said:
So, there are "no" firearms regs in MO?

Heller did not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Heller reinforced the right to keep and bear arms in those locale by striking down draconian licensing, possesion, and storage laws that both municipalities ahd enacted to deny the individual right to bear arms.

However, states and municipalities can still enact licensing and possesion laws (i.e. Minnsota's "permit to purchase", NYC licensing law, and those states that don't permit the ownership of Class 3 machine guns).

And all those state and municipal regulations are an example of Tenth Amendment rights.

In many ways the NFA of 1934/86 is unconstitutional at the Federal level.
Click to expand...
This statement stood alone in your post.
"In addition, the courts have stated that the Second and Fourth amendments only protect against infringement by national government."

Taken that way one would have to assume that states and municipalities were free to infringe on your 2A rights. Which they are not.
 
It all depend on what infringement means. As I stated previously....

However, states and municipalities can still enact licensing and possesion laws (i.e. Minnsota's "permit to purchase", NYC licensing law, and those states that don't permit the ownership of Class 3 machine guns).

Some would say all those examples are "infringement", as well as the NFA and current regulations by the BATFE.
 
Talyn said:
It all depend on what infringement means. As I stated previously....

However, states and municipalities can still enact licensing and possesion laws (i.e. Minnsota's "permit to purchase", NYC licensing law, and those states that don't permit the ownership of Class 3 machine guns).

Some would say all those examples are "infringement", as well as the NFA and current regulations by the BATFE.
Click to expand...
True enough. I think they're an infringement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top