• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Illinois counties declare 'sanctuary' status for gun owners

Republicans are still dumb and still don’t know what a sanctuary city is.
 
Anagram said:
On the whole I'm more against gun regulations and sanctuary cities. But I'm not sure if this will legally work. If I'm remembering correctly sanctuary cities claim their protection due to federalism issues against the federal government commandeering state and local governments for federal programs. But that same issue wouldn't seem to work in a county-state relationship.

But I haven't really done any research on this. Going off memory.
Click to expand...

While that is certainly the claim made by sanctuary cities you also might recall that the federal government sued Arizona over SB 1070. In that case the feds prevailed based on the idea that they alone had authority to implement immigration law. Now, with a Republican administration, their claim is that the feds have no authority to implement immigration law in their states. It sure is a big ol' goofy world!
 
trouble13 said:
It will be interesting to hear what arguments anti-gunners will make that does not harm their sanctuary city arguments for protecting illegals.
Click to expand...

There won't be any arguments against it. If individual counties and cities want to do that it's well within their right. However, what they won't be allowed to do is manufacture guns in these counties that are illegal around it. They can own them(if they can get them), but they won't be allowed to manufacture them and ship them out of the county.
 
apdst said:
The sheriff and county government took an oath to uphold The Constitution of The United States. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that gives them legal authority to ignore state law.
Click to expand...

1/2 right and to the Constitution of the State of Illinois
No it does not provide legal authority to ignore State Laws.
 
apdst said:
So, local cops wouldn't enforce ANY federal warrant?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what they might agree to do. It would depend. What the courts have said is the Feds can't effectively draft, compel locals to do their job for them. They can bribe them with grants conditioned on them doing the job of the feds but can't otherwise obligate them to perform those tasks.

In this case, the counties saying to the Feds - "We ain't gonna enforce no Federal laws on guns, cause we don't want to" - appears OK to me. That's the job of ATF, or maybe FBI or whoever. But the OP is about locals enforcing STATE laws.
 
trouble13 said:
I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Click to expand...

The argument that Republicans want to make is that Immigrants are bad, immigrants are criminals, and they cause all kinds of problems. Well if an individual city, county, or a state doesn't have a problem with that then there is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to let them live there. So long as they don't leave the city, county, or state it's their problem. Now, if a city or state tried to give these immigrants citizenship so that they could travel freely throughout the country that would be whole other problem entirely.

The same would be true of guns. Liberals like me argue that guns(at least certain types) are generally bad, and are used to murder people more than they are used for defense. Well if an individual city, county, or state doesn't have a problem with that, and they want the guns there that are their right. So long as they don't leave the city, county, or state it's their problem. Now if a county or state tried to manufacture guns and then ship them to other parts of the state or country that is where they might run into a problem.
 
JANFU said:
So we have a county, that only selectively enforces State Laws.
Well with that, what happens when a local is murdered, in that county, do they not investigate and prosecute?
Click to expand...

Just because you don't enforce some laws doesn't mean you can't choose to enforce others.
 
Lutherf said:
While that is certainly the claim made by sanctuary cities you also might recall that the federal government sued Arizona over SB 1070. In that case the feds prevailed based on the idea that they alone had authority to implement immigration law. Now, with a Republican administration, their claim is that the feds have no authority to implement immigration law in their states. It sure is a big ol' goofy world!
Click to expand...

One plausible reason I could think of for that distinction is that the 1070 case dealt with preemption of federal law while sanctuary cities would be more about the issue of whether the federal government can commandeer state and local officials to implement a program or combat a particular problem as was found unconstitutional in Printz v. U.S..

I haven't really looked at either, so I can't really say whether agree with the Court legally that 1070 preempted federal law or whether sanctuary cities are protected under the theory found in Printz, but I do think that there are at least separate issues between the two.
 
trouble13 said:
It will be interesting to hear what arguments anti-gunners will make that does not harm their sanctuary city arguments for protecting illegals.
Click to expand...

See what's funny is that it's actually the other way around. It's conservatives that have the problem.

See Democrats could use the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution to block counties from manufacturing and shipping guns outside of their county. They can't use it to block them from owning guns, but they can block them from manufacturing and shipping them.

Now Republicans could use a similar argument to try and block sanctuary cities. They could argue that goods manufactured with cheap immigrant labor give California an unfair advantage on trade. They could then use the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution to block cities and states from allowing immigrants to work there. But if Republicans tried to do this they would be contradicting their own arguments that they've been making forever. The argument that immigrants are bad for the economy because they steal jobs and blah blah blah. They also hate the commerce clause because they think states are supposed to have unlimited rights.

So it's actually Conservatives who can't make an argument against sanctuary cities without contradicting themselves not Liberals.
 
MrWonka said:
Just because you don't enforce some laws doesn't mean you can't choose to enforce others.
Click to expand...

My money is on they will be required to enforce State laws.
 
Reap what you sow!!!!

That being said is EXACTLY where this needs to start,

Communities, Counties, States, and then Nation.


The nation is SPLIT on Firearms possession. YET the nation itself wants sensible firearms laws. TOTALLY different topics.

Possessing said firearm vs legally sane to maintain a firearm.


Finally why a "county/community" that sustains a HORRIFIC loss, maintains the the RIGHTS of the nation. Fix your community/county first before you force your views on the nation.


Florida is a great example, an upscale neighborhood sustains a horrific loss of life, that being said MULTIPLE levels of failure beyond the STATE as a whole firearms legislation. Yet this community can rally for NATIONAL bans and Laws when there was systematic failures IN THEIR OWN Community.

So press on for this Sanctuary 2nd amendments... Glad its going this way I hope it wakes people up.... That YOUR individual view does NOT dictate the nation nor the Constitution.
 
JasperL said:
I have no idea what they might agree to do. It would depend. What the courts have said is the Feds can't effectively draft, compel locals to do their job for them. They can bribe them with grants conditioned on them doing the job of the feds but can't otherwise obligate them to perform those tasks.

In this case, the counties saying to the Feds - "We ain't gonna enforce no Federal laws on guns, cause we don't want to" - appears OK to me. That's the job of ATF, or maybe FBI or whoever. But the OP is about locals enforcing STATE laws.
Click to expand...

All law enforcement swear an oath to uphold The Constitution.
 
JANFU said:
1/2 right and to the Constitution of the State of Illinois
No it does not provide legal authority to ignore State Laws.
Click to expand...

The Constitution over rules any state Constitution.
 
apdst said:
All law enforcement swear an oath to uphold The Constitution.
Click to expand...

OK, whatever. Doesn't address my point but I'm glad you got that off your chest.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I’m pretty consistent in this. Local governments should not be obligated to use their resources to enforce non-local laws. I don’t care if it is guns, immigration, drugs, or whatever. If state governments want to enforce it then state law enforcement can enforce it. If the feds want to enforce it, then federal law enforcement can enforce it.

And fortunately, so far, the courts agree with me.
Click to expand...

As long it's not a right listed by the constitution or a legal authority that the constitution gave to the federal government then I would agree with you. The 10th amendment only covers things not mentioned in the constitution.
 
JasperL said:
OK, whatever. Doesn't address my point but I'm glad you got that off your chest.
Click to expand...

Did you forget what you wrote at the end of your post?
 
apdst said:
All law enforcement swear an oath to uphold The Constitution.
Click to expand...

I was just correcting your error. I rather enjoy that.
 
apdst said:
There was no error to correct.
Click to expand...

Yes there was and no need to thank me. Your rebuttal was more than enough thanks
 
JANFU said:
Yes there was and no need to thank me. Your rebuttal was more than enough thanks
Click to expand...

I didn't think there was. There was no need to muck up the thread over it, though.
 
apdst said:
I didn't think there was. There was no need to muck up the thread over it, though.
Click to expand...

My post was initially not a dig, it mentioned 1/2 right, as they also swear an Oath to the State.
 
JANFU said:
My post was initially not a dig, it mentioned 1/2 right, as they also swear an Oath to the State.
Click to expand...

The Constitution over rules state law.
 
JANFU said:
So we have a county, that only selectively enforces State Laws.
Well with that, what happens when a local is murdered, in that county, do they not investigate and prosecute?
Click to expand...

They are just not enforcing laws that violate the Constitution, the sheriff of my county stated several years ago that his office would not enforce any such laws.
 
JasperL said:
Seems to me the courts have pretty clearly argued the IRS cannot obligate locals to do their job of arresting and holding tax cheats.

The IRS might say, "Hey guys, here's a pot of money. If you accept it, you'll need to agree to serve tax warrants for us? We good?" and if the locals say, "Yes, thanks IRS, will do!" then IRS can require it, or yank the money conditioned on that agreement to help IRS nab tax cheats.
Click to expand...
Ideally all branches should cooperate with each other but when push comes to shove, the question is if they can be forced to. It really gets very messy because technically they are not even legally obligated to enforce laws they passed themselves. Look at how the doj decided to pass on prosecuting clinton. They determined laws were violated but it wasn't in their best interest to prosecute anyone. The right is now doing what the left is doing.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It will be interesting to hear what arguments anti-gunners will make that does not harm their sanctuary city arguments for protecting illegals.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

My rights our rights are granted to us by our creator (whoever that may be), they cannot be taken away by man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom