It will be interesting to see how this plays out..
Funny, I don’t see HuffPo getting all indignant about sanctuary cities flipping the bird to our immigration laws.
I fail to see the problem with this. If the sheriff deems a law 'unconstitutional' he is only prohibited from using RESOURCES to enforce said law.
Hell, Bammy does this everyday.
So are so called sanctuary cities, HuffPo. What part of shall not infringe do you not understand?
The Huffpo learns that ignoring laws you don’t like can be a double-edged sword.
Less illegal than SANCTUARY CITIES. DISOBEDIENCE TO TYRANTS IS OBEDIENCE TO GOD!
A lot of Oregon’s Counties had similar edicts passed by their County Commissioners. Coos has a couple of weasels, so this was done by petition, pretty much as a stick in their eyes.
Each and every one of us can decide. And it’s time we started.
CO sheriffs said they wouldn’t enforce any more gun control laws.
This is even better!
Even if federal gun laws do not violate 2nd Amendment (2A), I hope that the sheriff understands the following. The sheriff has got to find specific constitutional clauses that are clearly delegations of specific power that Congress needs to justify a given federal gun law. And the only clause that comes close to relates to an express delegation of power for the feds to justfy gun laws imo, is Clause 16 of Section 8 of Article I, that clause concerned with arming state militias.
In fact, note that the Militia Acts of 1792, such acts examples of early federal gun laws, the acts actually requiring citizens to supply their own guns (BYOG).
But it is also disturbing to note that federal laws for regulating civilian firearms seem to have started appearing in the books during the time Constitution-ignoring FDR, FDR and his corrupt Congress infamous for making laws which blatatantly ignored the federal governments constitutionally limited powers.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
Regarding state gun laws, since the Founding States had originally decided that the states did not have to respect the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, I surmise that the states did not have to respect 2A protections (corrections welcome).
However, the congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of the 14th Amendment (14A), that amendment ratified under very questionable circumstances, had clarified that 14A did apply 2A to the states (see middle of middle column).
So whereas the states arguably had the 10th Amendment (10A)-protected power to regulate firearms, citizens having the 2A and 10A-protected power to bear arms as well, our pioneering ancestors arguably armed whenever they left their homes, I am not sure where the line of demarcation between states and citizens should be with respect to states regulating guns.
Note that Justice Reed had explained that it is the job of Constitution-respecting judges to balance between 10A-protected state powers and 14A-protected rights, rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.
Again, I am not sure where the line of demarcation should be between states and citizens where 2A rights are concerned. Insights welcome.
Very clever. This is the exact tactic used by states to prevent the return of fugitive slaves. When the Federal courts ruled that states could not be compelled to enforce Federal Laws, they passed laws forbidding state officials from enforcing the fugitive slave laws.
This puts the courts in a funny position. Because this so closely resembles the tactic used to stop the enforcement of fugitive slave laws, if the court says this tactic is invalid, they would have to legally invalidate what happened with the fugitive slaves.
I predict they will be loath to condemn this methodology because of it's prior history. No one wants to be seen as saying the fugitive slave laws should have been enforced.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot force Sheriffs to expend resources to enforce federal law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
It is called the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine.
The Huffington Post is just wrong on this. So, what else is new.
There is considerable precedent for local and state governments refusing to use resources to enforce federal law.