Posted on 06/08/2019 6:18:43 AM PDT by Twotone
Last fall, The Advocate reported on a new type of local sanctuary law being passed in counties around Oregon, known broadly as “Second Amendment sanctuary” laws. They give local law enforcement officials like sheriffs the authority to interpret whether state and federal gun laws conflict with the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and allows them to restrict local resources from being used to enforce conflicting laws.
Eight Oregon counties passed a version of this law in last November’s elections: Baker, Columbia, Douglas, Klamath, Lake, Linn, Umatilla and Union. Two counties, Lincoln and Jackson, rejected it.
Supporters believe they are a necessary legal defense against state and federal governments passing laws which infringe on their legal right to carry firearms. Some legal experts and supporters of gun control laws argue localities like cities and counties cannot decide for themselves to override federal and state law.
In Oregon, gun rights activists and members of controversial militia groups backed these laws, and are beginning to turn success at the ballot box into a national movement of localities passing these laws in order to “nullify” state and federal gun control laws. Some of these “nullification” laws are being challenged in the courts, and the outcome of these political and legal battles has the potential to affect the entire legal framework for sanctuary cities, including those established to protect illegal immigrants from federal immigration enforcement.
From Congress to City Council Much of the debate around gun control has historically centered around Washington, D.C., using the time-tested tools of influence like expensive lobbying to control outcomes in the law. Today, the important political fight has moved to city council chambers.
(Excerpt) Read more at corvallisadvocate.com ...
The Left Coast. Hard at work to destroy the Constitution.
I’m in one of these “sanctuary counties.” As I recall, the wording was something about the Sheriff could not use resources to enforce such laws that were designed to interfere with the otherwise lawful possession of firearms by citizens of the county.
It would appear that these local ordinances are in favor of the Second Amendment, and the supporters are trying to stem the tide of infringement.
Yes, that’s the intent of the gun sanctuary movement. The author of this article is biased in the extreme. Virtually every person mentioned he attempts to smear. But I thought it was worth posting anyway.
When this was presented to our county GOP it also was said that if passed, it meant that those counties that passed it could not be challenged regarding sanctuary for non citizens also. In other words if there is a sanctuary for non-citizens then there is a sanctuary for gun owners. Or something like that. (Unfortunately our county commissioners failed to pass it.)
ie...nullification
If abortion is a right and the government has to pay to assure it is protected, why don’t they have to buy everybody a firearm?
The Leftist Gun Grabbers have been absolutely furious to discover that defenders of the Constitution can play the same game they’ve been playing by passing local ordinances nullifying their dictates.
Gun sanctuary and immigrant sanctuary are completely different and the first (gun) cannot logically lead to the second (immigrant).
Gun sanctuary laws protect and enforce the Citizens right to posses guns from local and State attempts to limit that right.
Immigrant sanctuary laws violate Federal law and infringe on the Citizens right to lawful immigration policies.
IMHO these are two different issues and cannot be conflated.
Yes, and it read two ways for me. Leaving anything to interpretation when it comes to the Constitution is NFG. That bothered me. I hope you are right....
Sanctuary for G-d given Bill of Rights, or illegal alien lawbreakers?
Which you prefer defines your party.
But, as I understand it...there is this thing called “nullification.” If a county is a “Sanctuary” county for illegals, and it passes a “sanctuary” county for gun rights...then they cannot be challenged legally.
Fine. Take 'em up on it. At some point, hopefully, the SC court will ban this Sanctuary crap but reinforce the 2nd Amendment. Until then, pull a Cloward-Piven on 'em and do the same with anti-abortion and any other crack-brained liberal law. Sactuary the Hell out of 'em.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.