• 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!

Defiant U.S. sheriffs push gun sanctuaries, imitating liberals on immigration

Ahlevah

Ahlevah

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
14,812
Reaction score
5,130
Location
Pindostan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Remember the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary movement in Illinois last year? The idea seems to be catching on:

A rapidly growing number of counties in at least four states are declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, refusing to enforce gun-control laws that they consider to be infringements on the U.S. constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Organizers of the pro-gun sanctuaries admit they took the idea from liberals who have created immigration sanctuaries across the United States where local officials defy the Trump administration's efforts to enforce tougher immigration laws.

Now local conservatives are rebelling against majority Democratic rule in the states. Elected sheriffs and county commissioners say they might allow some people deemed to be threats under "red flag" laws to keep their firearms. In states where the legal age for gun ownership is raised to 21, authorities in some jurisdictions could refuse to confiscate guns from 18- to 20-year-olds.

Defiant U.S. sheriffs push gun sanctuaries, imitating liberals on immigration
Click to expand...

The divergence between the interests of major metropolitan areas and more rural areas of states will become a bigger problem going forward as politics become more polarized. We're seeing here in microcosm what would happen in the United States between states with large, urban centers and more rural states should the country ever institute a more direct democracy.
 
Last edited:
Ahlevah said:
Remember the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary movement in Illinois last year? The idea seems to be catching on:



The divergence between the interests of major metropolitan areas and more rural areas of states will become a bigger problem going forward as politics become more polarized. We're seeing here in microcosm what would happen in the United States between states with large, urban centers and more rural states should the country ever institute a more direct democracy.
Click to expand...

Reaffirming what this liberal has always believed- enforcement of laws passed hundreds of miles away should reflect local priorities and standards.
 
Grand Mal said:
Reaffirming what this liberal has always believed- enforcement of laws passed hundreds of miles away should reflect local priorities and standards.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the OP's parallel is supposed to be. As far as I know sanctuary cities aren't failing to enforce laws they're sworn to uphold. In almost every case that I've heard of, they're just not doing the Feds' job for the Feds. I remember one case of actual obstruction. But mostly they're doing what they're obligated to do by law.

So people who are refusing to enforce gun laws that their job description says they're supposed to enforce -- different situation.
 
Amelia said:
I'm not sure what the OP's parallel is supposed to be. As far as I know sanctuary cities aren't failing to enforce laws they're sworn to uphold. In almost every case that I've heard of, they're just not doing the Feds' job for the Feds. I remember one case of actual obstruction. But mostly they're doing what they're obligated to do by law.

So people who are refusing to enforce gun laws that their job description says they're supposed to enforce -- different situation.
Click to expand...
They are not required to enforce unconstitutional laws

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
They are not required to enforce unconstitutional laws

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

(A) The laws haven't been shown to be unconstitutional.

(B) Whatever your position on the constitutionality, it is a different situation from sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities aren't refusing to enforce laws. They're simply not complying with orders that the law doesn't say they have to comply with. These sheriffs aren't "imitating liberals". Their refusal to enforce laws is completely different than liberals refusing to go above and beyond what the law says they have to do.
 
Last edited:
Amelia said:
I'm not sure what the OP's parallel is supposed to be. As far as I know sanctuary cities aren't failing to enforce laws they're sworn to uphold. In almost every case that I've heard of, they're just not doing the Feds' job for the Feds. I remember one case of actual obstruction. But mostly they're doing what they're obligated to do by law.

So people who are refusing to enforce gun laws that their job description says they're supposed to enforce -- different situation.
Click to expand...

Okay, if ICE requests someone be held on an immigration detainer it's just that: a request. But it seems a bit disingenuous for liberals to rail against "gun violence" while advocating a policy that permits criminal aliens to do just that: commit "gun violence":

An illegal immigrant accused of a triple murder in Missouri was previously jailed and released in New Jersey on domestic violence charges, authorities said, putting the spotlight on the conflict between local and immigration authorities nationwide.

Luis Rodrigo Perez, 23, a native of Mexico, is charged with fatally shooting two men and wounding two others on Nov. 1 and fatally shooting a woman the next day.

He was being held on domestic violence charges at the Middlesex County Jail in New Jersey in December 2017 and was released in February, NJ.com reported.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials said they placed a detainer on Perez while he was in custody, but the request was not honored nor was the agency notified when he was let go, said Corey Price, acting executive director of ICE.

Illegal immigrant killed 3 after 'sanctuary' release from custody, ICE says
Click to expand...
 
Ahlevah said:
Okay, if ICE requests someone be held on an immigration detainer it's just that: a request. But it seems a bit disingenuous for liberals to rail against "gun violence" while advocating a policy that permits criminal aliens to do just that: commit "gun violence":
Click to expand...

You take an extreme situation and want all to accept it as normal.
 
Ahlevah said:
Okay, if ICE requests someone be held on an immigration detainer it's just that: a request. But it seems a bit disingenuous for liberals to rail against "gun violence" while advocating a policy that permits criminal aliens to do just that: commit "gun violence":
Click to expand...

There are pros and cons to encouraging your mostly non-violent alien community not to fear that their dealings with local law enforcement will fast-track them to ICE. Leftwingers stress the pros. Rightwingers stress the cons.

But that's a completely different subject from sheriffs refusing to follow the law. Not analogous. That's all I'm saying.
 
In a matter of a few short months, it's more than a little likely that California's referendum process is going to take up the matter of turning over criminal aliens to ICE to work the problem. Even a majority of liberals who don't want ICE raids and other random punitive measures do want criminal aliens apprehended and deported.

You saw it here first...the pendulum will swing in the direction of rational compromise.
 
Old Trapper said:
You take an extreme situation and want all to accept it as normal.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what gun control is all about-very few legal gun owners commit crime with their guns but you all want laws that restrict all legal gun owners from say owing 20 round magazines or semi auto rifles?
 
Old Trapper said:
You take an extreme situation and want all to accept it as normal.
Click to expand...

Parkland was an extreme situation. It certainly wasn't normal. And yet liberals use it as justification to outlaw an entire class of firearms (so-called "assault weapons") when, on average, about three hundred people a year are killed with long guns of all types. Compare that to the 70,000-plus people who die from drug overdoses. That's what I call a misalignment of priorities, otherwise known as stupidity.
 
The difference here of course is that by creating a sanctuary city for gun owners, a law enforcement official is actually upholding his or her oath to the Constitution and the protected rights of US citizens, whereas a sanctuary city is a specific act to defy and sanction breaking existing US immigration law by illegal immigrants.
 
As long as it doesn’t infringe on personal and civil liberties, local governments should be able to run things the way they want. Power should be as localized as possible.
 
TurtleDude said:
Isn't that what gun control is all about-very few legal gun owners commit crime with their guns but you all want laws that restrict all legal gun owners from say owing 20 round magazines or semi auto rifles?
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt you have a cue as to what the left wants. Anything not promoted by the NRA is beyond your understanding. I own around 25 guns, rifles, shotguns, pistols, revolvers. My Glock27, 45 cal., has 8 magazines, two 32 round, 2 20 round, 2 15 rounds, and 2 10 round. But the question a rational person would be asking is how do you pass a law that is designed to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal types without affecting all gun owners?

Got any ideas?
 
Ahlevah said:
Parkland was an extreme situation. It certainly wasn't normal. And yet liberals use it as justification to outlaw an entire class of firearms (so-called "assault weapons") when, on average, about three hundred people a year are killed with long guns of all types. Compare that to the 70,000-plus people who die from drug overdoses. That's what I call a misalignment of priorities, otherwise known as stupidity.
Click to expand...

Parkland is more normal then the example used of an illegal. Do you even have a clue as to how many mass shootings there were last year especially at schools?

Are you saying that we have no strict drug laws?
 
Old Trapper said:
Parkland is more normal then the example used of an illegal. Do you even have a clue as to how many mass shootings there were last year especially at schools?
Click to expand...
Yes, tell us how many mass shootings where the shooter used an AR-15 we've had at schools. Heck, tell us, on average each year, how many people have been killed by someone using an "assault weapon" in a mass shooting since 2004.

Are you saying that we have no strict drug laws?
Click to expand...

We have strict drug laws. Do they work?
 
daeler said:
This is a great link very informative. It mentions a lot of people that legally obtained guns that really should not have been able to.
Click to expand...

If only Minority Report was true.
 
Rucker61 said:
If only Minority Report was true.
Click to expand...

So do you think a guy who escapes from a mental institution and has a history of violent crimes should be able to legally obtain a firearm in the US?
 
daeler said:
So do you think a guy who escapes from a mental institution and has a history of violent crimes should be able to legally obtain a firearm in the US?
Click to expand...

No one who was committed to a mental institution, has been convicted of a felony, is under indictment for a crime with a punishment greater than one year or has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor can legally obtain a firearm in the US.
 
daeler said:
So do you think a guy who escapes from a mental institution and has a history of violent crimes should be able to legally obtain a firearm in the US?
Click to expand...

You need to get your facts straight. If someone is mentally ill and housed in an inpatient mental facility, he certainly can't legally obtain a firearm in the U.S. and hasn't been able to at least since 1968. Thanks to liberal court rulings and the mainstreaming movement, people with severe mental illness walk the streets now, or they end up in our prisons where they don't receive proper care. Even if a person has been judged mentally incompetent, he can't be held against his will for more than 72-hours unless he's deemed to be a threat to himself or others. So he can't sign a contract but he can make a determination about whether he's well enough to walk the streets. More liberal stupidity.
 
Rucker61 said:
No one who was committed to a mental institution, has been convicted of a felony, is under indictment for a crime with a punishment greater than one year or has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor can legally obtain a firearm in the US.
Click to expand...

That is why I said the link had some interesting information, since some of the people contained in it that committed mass shootings had purchased firearms legally. Including a person that escaped from a mental institution and had also committed violent crimes. Some of the information is a bit older which may explain some of the odd bits of people getting legal purchases then that they can not do now.
 
Ahlevah said:
You need to get your facts straight. If someone is mentally ill and housed in an inpatient mental facility, he certainly can't legally obtain a firearm in the U.S. and hasn't been able to at least since 1968. Thanks to liberal court rulings and the mainstreaming movement, people with severe mental illness walk the streets now, or they end up in our prisons where they don't receive proper care. Even if a person has been judged mentally incompetent, he can't be held against his will for more than 72-hours unless he's deemed to be a threat to himself or others. So he can't sign a contract but he can make a determination about whether he's well enough to walk the streets. More liberal stupidity.
Click to expand...

Not sure what facts I am supposed to get straight there. I asked a question, I did not present any facts....
 
Old Trapper said:
I seriously doubt you have a cue as to what the left wants. Anything not promoted by the NRA is beyond your understanding. I own around 25 guns, rifles, shotguns, pistols, revolvers. My Glock27, 45 cal., has 8 magazines, two 32 round, 2 20 round, 2 15 rounds, and 2 10 round. But the question a rational person would be asking is how do you pass a law that is designed to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal types without affecting all gun owners?

Got any ideas?
Click to expand...

Well you are flat out wrong. I have spent over 40 years dealing with Anti rights coalition including publicly debating-among others

Howard Metzenbaum
Sarah Brady
Nelson "Pete" Shields

In addition, my late mother was a big time women's rights advocates and if pneumonia had not killed her a few months before the DNC of 2008, she would have been a delegate for Hillary Clinton (I cannot recall how Ohio went in the primary). And as a result, she-a pro gun but hard core abortions rights advocate-got all sorts of position papers from various left wing groups.

The only valid laws are ones that absolutely hammer criminals caught with guns. Not criminalizing objectively non-harmful activity hoping it will deter criminals who already violate laws banning objectively harmful activity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom