Second Amendment ‘sanctuaries’ will never hold up in court

WAPO ^ | Jan. 8, 2020 | Mary B. McCord

[DesertRhino]

Golly! Foiled again. I guess if the court rules we have to we’ll all come down and turn in our guns. Morons oh, so you want a court case, there’s still that little problem you have of going and collecting them up without getting shot dead

[ConservativeWarrior]

Thanks for posting. I already had a good idea of what this withered ole hag looked like without an prior knowledge.

Ms. you say? Inconceivable!

[SuperLuminal]

"Overblown alarm over reasonable gun-control laws proposed in statehouses across the country..."

Stop!

Anyone who bothers to read beyond that initial BS has to be addicted to self-flagellation...

[stylin19a]

thanks for that. Somewhere down the road, this all goes to SCOTUS and they wont touch it.

some might want to try this.

https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome

[bk1000]

Sorry, you can’t pick and choose. If you can declare an area a sanctuary for illegal aliens, you can declare a sanctuary for 2A. Sauce for the goose,

[KarlInOhio]

If it weren’t for double standards Democrats would have no standards at all.

[cowboyusa]

We are not asking the courts, commies.

[Badboo]

Conflating the two issues is absurd and diminishes the argument for gun rights.

1. The 2nd amendment protects pre-existing rights for self defense. Thus any infringement on this pre-existing right is unconstitutional. Thus gun sanctuaries set up to defend this pre-existing right are constitutional. Infringing laws are unconstitutional and should be voided by the courts and if not, opposed by the citizens themselves by all possible means.

2. Protection of illegal aliens is no where found in the Constitution. Aside from basic human rights, not to be murdered, etc., they possess no citizenship protections whatsoever. It isn’t a question of constitutional or citizen, or pre-existing rights. Illegal alien sanctuaries are clearly subject to the federal criminal code (harboring criminals). It is only because we have such cowards at the leadership of the DoJ, and in Congress, and in the executive branch that these sanctuaries allowed to exist.

Stop saying if it is good for one it is good for the other. Absolutely a moronic statement.

[LeonardFMason]

WHO, except the most ardent Leftists, even reads this Liberal rag?

[ConservativeMind]

They allow the gun law to be challenged in court.

They will likely cause anti-gun legislation to be overturned. In the mean time, hundreds of thousands of new deputies will be created!

[MileHi]

These resolutions, to the extent they conflict with state law, lack legal effect

These state laws, to the extent they conflict with the US Constitution, lack legal effect

[Spirochete]

Never hold up in court

The jury nullifications *will* hold up. There will be non-compliance and jury nullification on a epic scale.

The trials are required to be held in the county where the offense allegedly took place.

[Harpotoo]

What has Barr done to date that gives you confidence in him? Only one I see smiling today with Barr in charge of the DOJ is illary.

[Tenacious 1]

The resolution, and others like it, demonstrate how their proponents operate on a fundamental misunderstanding of the rights afforded Americans by the Second Amendment and, importantly, the limitations on those rights.

WRONG!!!!! The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not "afforded" by the Constitution. THEY ARE PROTECTED by the Constitution. Exactly protected from Government.

In this case, the State Laws being considered and passed are unconstitutional as they violate (infringe) on the citizens individual right to "bear arms".

[RightGeek]

[Tenacious 1]

And how they’ve spurred extremists who want to stand up local militias to engage in armed rebellion against the state — action that isn’t just dangerous but that also runs counter to the Constitution.

Not exactly. Writers and supporters of the Constitution noted that from time to time, it may be necessary to over throw a tyrannical or despotic government when it becomes to powerful. Several letters back and forth and even the Declaration of Independence notes this concern and expectation.

[MileHi]

Politics is show business for the ugly.

Limbaugh

[bigbob]

WaPo didn’t write the laws

[daltec]

From the article at WaPO (emphasis mine):

"In Heller, the court struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handgun possession in the home as unconstitutional, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.
...
It further recognized what it called “another important limitation”: that the types of weapons protected for possession and use were “those ‘in common use at the time’” of the Second Amendment’s ratification, while pointedly explaining that the protection did not extend to “weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”

Do these people just stick ridiculous crap like that in there, thinking we won't see it? The author even helpfully provided a link to the Heller decision, where we can read for ourselves what Scalia actually said! Did she think that nobody would bother to take a look?

Or does she actually believe her own BS?

[Antoninus]

Thus spake the Bezos Post.