CCRKBA: Withhold Federal Funds From Cities, States That Violate Second Amendment

The SAF-affiliated Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a tireless supporter of Second Amendment rights. In a strategic shift from their previous efforts in the courts, CCRKBA is now making a public appeal to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to put the squeeze on cities and states that limit their citizens’ right to armed self defense.

In a press release issued yesterday, the CCRKBA announced that…

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has written to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, requesting that the Department of Justice withhold funds from any local or state government that adopts policies that infringe on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

“The liberal municipal governments of such cities as New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle, and states including New Jersey, Connecticut, California and Massachusetts should not be receiving taxpayer funds while violating the constitutional rights of those taxpayers,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “It is ironic that all of those places are willing to spend millions of dollars to attack the rights of gun owners, when they should be protecting civil and constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment.”

Wins in the courts lately have been few and far between. The Ninth Circuit put the kibosh on Peruta v. San Diego County, leaving Californians at the mercy of their local chief law enforcement officers as to whether or not they have a good enough reason to justify carrying a concealed firearm. And SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal.

Maryland enacted an assault weapons ban after Sandy Hook that was was upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. And SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal.

Just last week, a US District Court judge ruled that the Massachusetts attorney general’s new interpretation of what constitutes an “assault weapon” can stand, based on his problematic reading of the high court’s Heller decision. That case may still reach the court of appeals and, eventually, SCOTUS. But given SCOTUS’s recent reluctance to touch 2A cases, that’s hardly a sure thing.

The CCRKBA may have been inspired by President Trump’s threat to cut off federal funds to states that refuse to enforce immigration laws. Given that, why not use the same strategy in service of gun rights?

What are the chances that CCRKBA’s request to choke off funding from states like California, New York and Maryland over Second Amendment rights will be granted? Probably somewhere between slim and none. Lower than the chances that the administration would follow through on their immigration law threat.

Cutting off the funding spigot to heavily gun-controlled states would take a degree of political conviction and courage that very few in government display and would surely be met with almost instantaneous court challenges and restraining orders issues by obscure Hawaiian judges. Still, you have to respect the audacity of the move by CCRKBA.

comments

  1. avatar Rickster A-15 says:

    One can only hope !!

  2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    Can we citizens withhold funds from a federal government that violates the second amendment?

    1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

      Citizens shouldn’t have to pay taxes to any state or business that violates the Constitution.

      1. avatar Jack Jouett (the Forgotten Revolutionary Rider) says:

        “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” — Thomas Jefferson

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          It’s against the law to fund abortions, but Planned Parenthood uses the money to harvest kids for food, medicine, cash, etc.

          F PP

    2. avatar John in AK says:

      Absolutely!

      However, you have to expect to suffer a few minor repercussions; You can look forward to seizure of your bank accounts, your business if you own one, your paycheck if you don’t, and any real-property assets. If you object to these takings, and get rude about it, you can expect a visit by armed men who will explain to you on your ride to jail just how rude you have been and how they will modify your behavior to be more suitable.

      How can they do this? It’s because, long before you were born, some long-dead white guys thought it was a good idea to finance a war by stealing money from the citizenry at large, and after the war was over, they thought it was a good idea to pay off the war debt with money stolen from the citizenry at large. After the debt was more-or-less paid for, and after the next war, the dead white guys realized that stealing money by force from the citizenry at large gave them huge amounts of money to spend on other people in order to obtain power, which allowed them to steal even MORE money from the citizenry at large to spend on other people and other things, and thus obtain more power still.
      Even though those long-dead white guys are long dead, they have been replaced with people of all sorts of colors and genders in positions of power who still know how to spend your money better than do you.

      Isn’t America grand?

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Are you suggesting that taxes are an American idea or a “white” idea? Because I’m pretty sure taxation has been around in every civilization.

  3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    “What are the chances that CCRKBA’s request to choke off funding from states like California, New York and Maryland over Second Amendment rights will be granted?”

    I’d say that number is less than zero. Trump signed into law a bill that gives preference the in Justice Department grant application process to states that have more gun control. That’s what FixNICS does. States that certify their compliance with NICS reporting “requirements” get preference for DoJ grants.

  4. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    Insufficient. Should a city’s leaders withhold from citizens the right to self defense, then citizens should be able to sue the city and its leadership (collectively and also personally) for any violent crime against that citizen. Do the the same for sanctuary cities who take glee in the release known violent criminal illegals back into society. This would end tyranny faster than anything. Its too bad we don’t still tar and feather those who seek to make themselves our masters. There is no modern equivalent.

  5. avatar DCJ says:

    I wonder what the point is of this action? Other than a principled stance? It won’t even make the news. I’m not saying I disagree with the idea, just that it seems a waste of time.

  6. avatar Michael in AK says:

    Great idea with no chance of success.

    How much further will Americans allow our rights to be eroded? Sadly, I expect it to get much worse before it gets better.

  7. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Interesting concept, we’ll see where it goes. Probably nowhere but you never know. I say end police carve outs for weapons. It’s the least they can do to give the node to “equal protection.”

  8. avatar Hannibal says:

    It’s a nice idea but it won’t go anywhere. The courts- the same ones that refuse to protect the 2nd Amendment- have found that you can’t cut off funding arbitrarily or for policy reasons unconnected to the funding. Given the size of states like CA and NY, it would be a huge issue.

    Either way, if there was enough political will in the GOP white house and congress to get this passed, there would be enough will to get reciprocity.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      What I was going to say. The Ninth overturned a DOJ policy to deny federal funding to sanctuary cities on the basis, apparently, that the policy was “racis.” If the president cannot change immigration policy despite a clear rule that he has the discretionary authority to do so because he iws doing so “for reasons having to do with race and religion” (neither of which should make any difference to rules for nonresident aliens desiring to come here), then there is no possibility that a rule such as this will survive judicial scrutiny.

  9. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I wish.

  10. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

    Yeah, like thats going to happen. Sounds good and I support the idea. However, with a congress of spineless gray suits with massive egos, well, you get the picture.

  11. avatar Saintmike says:

    One thing you can do that makes a difference is comment on proposed ATF rules .They must respond to each comment. It took a little over 80,000 comments for the ATF to back off the “green tip” ammo ban. Please go comment and comment again, and again. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-00

  12. avatar former water walker says:

    Good luck with this ploy…you’ll need it!

  13. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    First you would have to wake the old buzzard up. Then give him a series of testosterone injections then maybe he might do something.

  14. avatar Jake says:

    States with ANY restrictions on “America’s rifle” : the AR-15, should have to forfeit all Pitman-Robertson Act funding. Since the AR is #1 purchased rifle in US why should these bad states reap the 11% excise tax paid by free states?

  15. avatar Nanashi says:

    Unless there are states that don’t require you comply with federal gun laws (all the ones I know of do), wouldn’t that be “all of them”? Not that I would disapprove of doing it to all of them…

  16. avatar ironicatbest says:

    not going to happen

  17. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I totally support the federal government squeezing these rebellious cities. But I’m sure the Libertarians totally support not having the federal government NOT intervening, when a state violates the civil rights of american citizens.

    1. avatar Adam says:

      Incorrect.

      1. Libertarians by and large do not even support Federal government giving funds to states, so yes, we would support stopping all pork funding to all states.

      2. Many libertarians believe that the sole purpose of the federal government is to protect our rights. Military, police, etc. That being the case, we absolutely believe that the federal government should do something when states enact laws that go against human rights, such as cutting their federal funding for their random pork projects.

      Please learn what libertarians actually think before you start running your mouth.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        He did use a capital L. The only thing I’ve heard from the Libertarian party is “legalize pot, criminalize guns.”

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          TX Lawyer
          I liked the Libertarian party when Andre Marrou, Nancy Lord, and Harry Brown represented it. They made sense and were very reasonable in their thinking.
          To bad Marrou turned out to be a crook.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Adam
        I don’t know were you get your information about Libertarians. I get my information from listening to them myself. Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie for example. They are open borders libertarians. Matt Welch has said keeping people on Ellis island to ensure they would not bring sickness like TB, for example, to the United States was wrong.

        So why not bring AIDS or the Black Death to america thru infected immigrants???? But Libertarians totally support this. They totally do. As well as supporting allowing rapists and serial murderers coming here thru open borders.

        Having Guns and being able to choose the guns you want is more important than legal marijuana intoxication or having sex with anything you put into your body. Libertarians can talk a good game. But when they keep talking their mask falls off eventually.

  18. avatar Adam says:

    It’s nice to see that SAF is trying from different angles but I doubt this will be successful. They can’t even get national concealed carry passed despite having Republican control. Makes sense considering that Republicans by and large are now siding with the gun grabbers.

    The only real hope for us at this point is Trump stuffing the upper and lower courts with more people like Gorsuch. Really, the only bright spot in Trump’s failure of a presidency is court nominations. Outside of that, we desperately need to elect more people like Rand Paul and less people like Paul Ryan. At this point, go libertarian or go home.

  19. avatar Craig in IA says:

    Nice idea but it would all hinge on who would determine the rights of citizens were being violated. I have an idea it wouldn’t be “us”…

  20. avatar GS650G says:

    PA is about to join the club on gun bans too

  21. avatar TYE KNOT says:

    THE OLD FASHION WAY LYNCH GATHERING

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email