Posted on 01/24/2020 2:06:13 PM PST by NoLibZone
The newly Democratic Virginia legislature’s bold push to codify as much gun control as humanly possible this session has hardly been met with cheers.
In fact, ranging from universal background checks and bans on so-called “assault weapons” to a “red flag” weapon seizure law that passed in the state Senate this week, the bills within disgraced Gov. Ralph Northam’s once-failed gun control package sparked immense nationwide controversy this year as they were brought up again in the state legislature, according to Vox.
Prompting several protests, including the non-violent marching of 22,000 gun rights advocates on the state capitol Monday, Northam’s proposals have even led officials around the state to publicly refuse to enforce any gun control deemed unconstitutional — a peaceful, democratic response that many conservatives and Second Amendment supporters have hailed as patriotic.
According to the gun control left, however, such dissent, namely the gun rights movement’s co-opting of the “sanctuary city” policy, is apparently an unthinkable and inadvisable act of “faithlessness in government.”
At least, that is what the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board argued in an piece published the day before before Monday’s demonstration — one of the largest Second Amendment rallies in U.S. history.
“The simple fact is: Local governments cannot decide willy-nilly that if they don’t like a state law, they don’t have to enforce it,” the editorial board wrote Sunday. “While states may have powers unique from the federal government’s, no such duality exists at the municipal level.”
“We all have the right to protest or mount a demonstration,” the editors continued. “Local governments also have a right to dissent from laws they dislike, and to lobby for changes. That is how democracy works.
“But it is irresponsible for local jurisdictions to pick and choose which laws they will enforce, especially when such stances undermine the legitimacy of a democratically elected government and play into the hands of extremists,” they claimed.
Of course, the claim was clearly made with anything remotely resembling self-awareness thrown to the wind, considering this is the same outlet that has supported sanctuary city policies since they were popularized by California’s progressives in an effort to protect illegal immigrants from deportation.
Heck, this is the same outlet responsible for editorial opinions and third-party Op-Eds carrying headlines such as “Don’t fulfill Trump’s false depiction of California as a ‘sanctuary state’ for undocumented immigrants” and “Why sanctuary cities must exist,” in which arguments were made in favor of local law enforcement declining to honor U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers.
I get it now. Only DemocRats are allowed to ignore laws they disagree with.
Gun grabbers in government need victims, and they know their efforts will not disarm those who will create victims that they need.
Just like the seriousness of the charges only going one way.
The Left is only interested in Just-Us.
Don’t forget how they refused to enforce or defend prop 8.
Notice also how the LA Times slices the baby here “local governments can dissent” EG if the town government declares itself a sanctuary city that’s OK - but it’s wrong for sheriffs to just pick and choice which laws they want to enforce (again DAs not enforcing laws on the books they dislike or pick and choosing what court cases they’ll defend or bring)
And Donald Trump is in their way!!!!
In one sense, the Times is right. The US government is a creation of the states, which have sovereign powers. Cities and counties are also creations of the states but they derive all of their powers from the states themselves.
This is not to say that I agree with the idea of states refusing to enforce federal laws/refusing to cooperate with federal agencies. Just, that the relationship between states and the federal government is fundamentally different that the relationship between counties and their state.
Hey, you catch on quick!
;-)
Valid point.
The states’ sovereignty is connected to the Constitution in as much as the states are prohibited from making laws that violate the Constitution just as the federal government is limited in what it can tell the states to do. Citizens are not required to obey laws that violate the Constitution regardless of what entity passed such laws, be it local, state or federal. I believe that also means that local governments can ignore federal and state laws that violate the Constitution.
If a state enacts laws that do not violate the Constitution, then the legality of cities and counties becoming sanctuaries and refusing to enforce those laws becomes a different matter.
By becoming part of the United States the states acknowledge the universal rights protected (not given) by the Constitution. One of which is the right to bear arms. There is no Constitutional right to impede the government’s duty to protect our borders.
Citizens have Constitutional rights that states may not restrict.
Localities that protect illegal aliens are violating not just federal laws, but the rights of the citizens.
Too late Leftists. You provided the blueprint. We’ll just use exactly the same tactics you used. Goose, Gander....etc.
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.