• 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

trouble13 said:
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
Click to expand...

You've moved the goal posts off the field we were on by bringing up BUTWHATABOUTCLINTON!?
 
MrWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thats true. You have follow the laws that each area is now picking and choosing to enforce per this growing trend. Furthermore the people in those countries are not safe from prosecution by state gov or fed gov. No different than marijuana laws and immigration laws. These counties are exercising their right to not cooperate with the higher tiers of law enforcement.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
MrWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...
They have as much a right to manufacture guns as illegals have to procreate and manufacture citizens. By your logic sanctuary cities that don't deport parents are comitting crimes.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
MrWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...
That would be an argument that would need to be heard by the scotus. You can't make a law that violates someone rights.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
JasperL said:
You've moved the goal posts off the field we were on by bringing up BUTWHATABOUTCLINTON!?
Click to expand...
I didn't move anything. Prosecutionary discretion is the argument and clintons case was an example of the fed gov exercising it. When a cop let's a speeder off with a warning is another example of it.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I didn't move anything. Prosecutionary discretion is the argument and clintons case was an example of the fed gov exercising it. When a cop let's a speeder off with a warning is another example of it.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my argument at all. What I'm pointing out is the Feds cannot obligate the states to do their job for them. Has nothing to do with prosecutorial discretion. IRS for example can impose no burden on local cops to arrest people on tax charges it has decided to bring. The prosecution has been determined - IRS will charge this guy under criminal statutes. The IRS has the job of serving the arrest warrant. The IRS can't call the sheriff and say "pick this guy up for us and hold him in your jail until we get around to picking him up a a few days or so." The Supreme Court has ruled on these matters.
 
JasperL said:
That wasn't my argument at all. What I'm pointing out is the Feds cannot obligate the states to do their job for them. Has nothing to do with prosecutorial discretion. IRS for example can impose no burden on local cops to arrest people on tax charges it has decided to bring. The prosecution has been determined - IRS will charge this guy under criminal statutes. The IRS has the job of serving the arrest warrant. The IRS can't call the sheriff and say "pick this guy up for us and hold him in your jail until we get around to picking him up a a few days or so." The Supreme Court has ruled on these matters.
Click to expand...
Its the same thing. It's at the discretion of local law enforcement.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
They have as much a right to manufacture guns as illegals have to procreate and manufacture citizens. By your logic sanctuary cities that don't deport parents are comitting crimes.
Click to expand...

No, the parents are committing the crime, the city is just ignoring those crimes because the city doesn't believe it should be a crime. You see in the case of guns the guns themselves would be illegal. That's why they couldn't be transported out. But a citizen born in America is by definition an legal citizen regardless of their parents status. You can't punish the child for the actions of their parents. If the feds want to deport the parents they can, but the local authorities don't have to help them. By the same token the feds could shut down a gun manufacturer, but the local police wouldn't be required to assist them.
 
MrWonka said:
No, the parents are committing the crime, the city is just ignoring those crimes because the city doesn't believe it should be a crime. You see in the case of guns the guns themselves would be illegal. That's why they couldn't be transported out. But a citizen born in America is by definition an legal citizen regardless of their parents status. You can't punish the child for the actions of their parents. If the feds want to deport the parents they can, but the local authorities don't have to help them. By the same token the feds could shut down a gun manufacturer, but the local police wouldn't be required to assist them.
Click to expand...
We basically agree.

Law enforcement enjoys the privilege of prosecutionary discretion and they are not obligated to assist outside agencies.



Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom