|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Second Amendment ‘sanctuaries’ will never hold up in court
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
These resolutions, to the extent they conflict with state law, lack legal effect: In Tazewell County, Va., for example, the “Sanctuary Resolution” approved by the board of supervisors purports to prohibit any county employee from enforcing, and any county funds from being used for the enforcement of, new state gun laws the county deems unconstitutional. But Virginia state law prohibits local governments from enacting ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with state laws and, more directly, specifically prohibits local governments from regulating firearms. |
| Comment by:
hisself
(1/9/2020)
|
Since the county sheriff takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the US, and the 2nd Amendment guarantees that the government shall not infringe on the God-given right to keep and bear arms, it is hard to see how the sanctuaries will NOT hold up in court.
It is the gun-grabbers who should be worried! |
| Comment by:
jac
(1/9/2020)
|
It might not be technically lawful, but so long as the local law enforcement do not enforce unconstitutional laws it will have the desired effect.
It should also send a message to the democrats that are pushing unconstitutional laws. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/9/2020)
|
"clear limitations on gun rights"?
Buy a clue. The limitation in the Bill of Rights is on the GOVERNMENT, not on the people.
You idiots.
The precedents of U.S. v. Miller (1939), D.C. v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) form the outline of those limitations: individual right unconnected with service in a militia, in common use, reasonable relationship to the efficiency of a militia, could contribute to the common defense, or any part of the ordinary military equipment.
It could not be more clear. |
| Comment by:
punch
(1/9/2020)
|
| "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." -- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803) |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? [...] The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!" —Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (Chapter 1 "Arrest") |
|
|
