Hey, Only the Left Is Supposed to Be Able to Ignore Laws They Don’t Like!

Jeff Hulbert Patriot Picket I Will not Comply

Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

Some on the left are angry, if not apoplectic, that conservatives are turning the tables on them and co-opting one of their own tactics against liberal policies. But turnabout, as they say, is fair play: Self-styled “progressives,” it seems, aren’t the only ones who can unilaterally decide which laws they will or will not enforce and/or comply with.

Across the country, a growing number of county sheriffs and other law enforcement officials, as well as other city and county officials, are announcing their refusal to enforce unduly restrictive gun laws that they believe run afoul of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. They’re declaring their jurisdictions “Second Amendment sanctuaries.”

If liberal “sanctuary” cities, counties and even states defiantly refuse to cooperate fully with federal immigration laws with respect to the detention and deportation of illegal aliens, then their objections should fall on deaf ears when other towns, cities and counties won’t go along when liberal governors and Democrat-controlled legislatures enact strict gun-control measures.

Even in purple states such as Colorado and in blue ones, such as New Mexico and Illinois, dozens of counties are defying Democratic governors and legislatures and telling them they won’t aid and abet the would-be gun grabbers in their efforts to “unconstitutionally restrict” the right to bear arms.

Closer to home, at least 10 counties across the central Piedmont and Appalachian Southwest regions of Virginia have already embraced the Second Amendment sanctuary movement. Led by the outgoing chairman of its Board of Supervisors, conservative activist Corey Stewart, Prince William County in increasingly blue Northern Virginia is poised to join their ranks. Dozens of other Virginia counties are reportedly looking at adopting the resolution, model language for which was drafted and circulated by Philip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

– Washington Times editorial, Second Amendment Sanctuaries

comments

  1. avatar Dude says:

    One group has the Constitution on it’s side.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      un Constitutional laws do not supersede the Constitution,sorry Leftards try again or let the games begin.

      1. avatar The Cold Backhand of God says:

        The games have already begun and have been going on for years in the form of legal attacks on language, cultural norms, and religious values. The contemporary Democrats as seen on the national debate stage are concrete evidence of that. Given no resistance or rebuke the degeneracy will continue until a counter-reaction is provoked, but then again, it’s what they’re counting on.
        Whether they receive what they intend, or reap what they sow, has yet to be seen. I’m betting it’s the latter.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Nice to see you again. Been perhaps a couple of months since I’ve seen your name here. That was back when I asked you what your moniker meant (hint: something about a beer/lager).

      2. avatar Grumpy F'er says:

        The games began years ago. Here in WA state, last election, the 2 houses and the gov (and really the SCoWA) all went Dem.

        There are now a whole raft of restrictive bills heading towards shore. And more after that. There are ZERO handgun bills pending. WA has had ZERO “assault rifle” issues or killings, but those are at the top of the stack. Everything you can think of and more.

        Protests are good, and I will attend (one is coming up)…however…they don’t give a rats ass what YOU think. And if the attendees are less than a million they have no worries. Seattle will keep voting them in. I think it only took 2 counties to actually take the election.

        Plus we have a highly corrupt “public initiative” system. Public my ass.

  2. avatar Higgs says:

    Yeah this is a case of obeying the law that has the most precedence and ignoring lesser laws that in effect should be void.

  3. avatar Eric O says:

    Illegal laws are no laws at all and offer no obligation to anyone to comply with them. We have a federal government that was explicitly informed their powers are a “misconstruction or abuse of its powers” as it pertains to the items in the BoR. We have states continuously attempting to press violating those same rights, despite the 14th Amendment (states respecting same, would never have led to incorporation doctoring, when the ratifying states never said “unless SCOTUS decides otherwise” in that Amendment).

    If we live in a nation of rule of law, and not a nation of the whims of SCOTUS opinion, there is no such thing as a legal gun control law in the US.

    1. avatar Eric O says:

      Sorry: incorporation doctrine*

    2. avatar Jim says:

      Who does determine what the law means if it is not some sort of supreme/ultimate/final court? Serious not a joke, not giving you a hard time, from my limited knowledge I would surmise that different people would interpret the laws/rules/constitution differently. So if the Supreme Court does not do it how are different interpretations handled?

      1. avatar ViejoTorro says:

        Fair question. However keep in mind that the Supreme Court does in fact reverse it’s self with some frequency.v

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          The Supreme Court reversing itself is actually rather rare. One classic example is The Slaughter House Cases. The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only protects the legal rights that are associated with federal citizenship, not those that pertain to state citizenship. The decision was castigated by legal scholars before the ink on the opinion was even dry, as it allowed Jim Crow laws to remain on the books for decades. Members of the Court itself (most recently Justice Thomas in Heller) recognizes that the case should be overturned, but the Court refuses to even consider doing so.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        The constitution says that the supreme court is indeed, the supreme court of the land.

        They rule on the various interpretations, and they are the final court of appeal.

        And it is to be expected that they reverse themselves, as new information becomes available and the scales fall from our eyes, many truths are revealed that were once hidden, by design or accident.

        Four instance, slavery. Once condoned by the constitution, along with the idea that slaves were only worth 3/5 of a full human.

        I thank providence that the court reversed itself and found that separate but equal was not equal.

        1. avatar Eric O says:

          The Supreme Court has no defacto Amendment powers. When their opinions are contrary to what powers the states have delegated them, their opinions carry no weight except for those who want validation. It is the states, by way of ratification, that decides what our Constitution says, not SCOTUS.

          The preamble to the BoR:

          “… In order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”

          The preamble addresses the entire federal government, not just Congress. Unless SCOTUS can explain exactly which powers (legislative, executive, or judicial) of the federal government escapes being explicitly informed that it is a misconstruction or abuse of power, which it has never done, with regard to any BoR item, then it is right there in plain English. You can believe what you yourself can see, read, and understand, or you can allow someone else to tell you what it means, no matter how tortured their argument’s reasoning. The Constitution is not written in some special language that only SCOTUS and lawyers can interpret. Because that, would negate living in a nation of rule of law, and replaces it with the whims of SCOTUS -where no one knows what the law is until after they’ve already broken it. If people’s rights are based on the approval of the institution that gave us Dred Scot, Plessy, Wickard v Filburn, and a host of other blatant mistakes, God help us all.

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          And that’s the danger of allowing traitorous ‘Progressives’ access to the nation’s “levers of power”.

          They will appoint justices like Kagen, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg, and reverse Heller, et. all.

          And that will be the day this nation’s renewal starts, and it will be an unhappy day for those on the political left… 🙂

        3. avatar arc says:

          We would have never had slavery if Jefferson’s paragraph was included in the declaration of independence.

        4. avatar Gordon in MO says:

          “And that’s the danger of allowing traitorous ‘Progressives’ access to the nation’s “levers of power”.

          They will appoint justices like Kagen, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg, and reverse Heller, et. all.

          And that will be the day this nation’s renewal starts, and it will be an unhappy day for those on the political left… ”

          I agree that it may be the start of a renewal but it will probably be an unhappy day for everyone in the long run. The outcome of civil war is unpredictable.

      3. Here are some answers:

        “The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. TRUTH, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.”–James Madison, The Federalist No. 46, Tuesday, January 29, 1788.

        The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any one state may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution; that they may do this consistently with the Constitution; that the true construction of that instrument permits a state to retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional. . . . If it should be said that public opinion is a sufficient check against the abuse of this power, it may be asked why it is not deemed a sufficient guard against the passage of an unconstitutional act by Congress. There is, however, a restraint, in this last case, which makes the assumed power of a state more indefensible, and which does not exist in the other. There are two appeals from an unconstitutional act passed by Congress–one to the judiciary, the other to the people and the states.–President Andrew Jackson, Dec. 10, 1833.

    3. avatar D Y says:

      The problem that arises in the courts at all levels is that they are NOT using the Constitution as the basis of their decisions. Is a law Constitutional or not? That simple.

      However, we have allowed the courts to decide that government in some cases knows better than the people, and things such as perceived safety are a viable reason to allow unconstitutional laws to stand.

      If all Court cases were decided using the Constitution as the basis, as intended by the Framers, then we’d have no reason to disapprove of the decisions, whether we personally agree or not, at least we would know the decisions is aligned with the reason this Country is so great. As is obviously the care however, decisions are often based on that judges ideological bent.

  4. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    If only it were that easy to have a county say we are a 2nd A Sanctuary. Unfortunately that in its self has no teeth at all. Now refuse, get arrested by some one other then the Sherriff who wont arrest you since he works for you.
    All you can count on is jury nullification at trial.
    By then though you are bankrupt gone kaput anyway.
    So other then having possible piece of mind that you did the right thing.
    Disobeying an unconstitutional law. Which for me would be a must.
    Where is all this going to get me in the end???
    3 hots and a cot is all.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      We need a right wing Bloomberg to fund the court fights and end this nonsense.

      1. avatar Dave G. says:

        Dude:
        Wrong. We need the people as a whole to “…to fund the court fights and end this nonsense.” We don’t need any more better-than-thou bigshots calling the tune, either right or left. Besides, we aren’t going to get that anyway. Don’t you know, they become bigshots to become “better” than you and me in the first place?

  5. avatar GS650G says:

    The left is wrong in both cases as usual.

  6. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Unintended consequences of previous actions, that creates precedent.

  7. avatar Huntmaster says:

    There’s a reason the 2nd amendment was comprised of only 2 sentences and 2 words. The men who wrote it were very, very, good with words. Yet they chose simple everyday words. They wanted it short, simple and to the point. Something that could not be parsed into something undecipherable. Those would try to bastardize it into something it is not, should be shown no mercy.

  8. avatar Huntmaster says:

    There’s a reason the 2nd amendment was comprised of only 2 sentences and 27 words. The men who wrote it were very, very, good with words. Yet they chose simple everyday words. They wanted it short, simple and to the point. Something that could not be parsed into something undecipherable. Those would try to bastardize it into something it is not, should be shown no mercy. Neither should those who removed the edit function.

    1. avatar The Grey Man says:

      Huntmaster…. Lolol for the last sentence of your repost!

  9. avatar Dennis says:

    Boy, dont they get pissed when people use their own tactics against em!? Kinda reminds me of high school when the entitled bullies got the tables turned on em.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      They’re all hypocrites. More people don’t see it simply because there’s little mainstream reporting on it or they’re so ideological, they just don’t care.

      For the ultimate in hypocrisy, compare and contrast Obama’s secret (it was a fluke that he got caught) payment of $400 million in cash to Iran, with the appropriated funds delivered to Ukraine by the Trump administration. Obama was going to pretend that he got the hostages as part of the Iran nuclear deal. Of course all of the major publications came out to defend it after the fact because it’s Obama, but if it was on the up and up, then why did they try to do it secretly?

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “Obama’s secret (it was a fluke that he got caught) payment of $400 million”

        Barack Hussein Obama didn’t pay anyone $400 million, and Barack Hussein Obama did not ask any foreign country to interfere in the election by investigating his political opponent.

        The fact is, Reagan was selling the fundamentalist Muslim extremists in Iran millions of dollars of weapons, he was holding the money and refused to return it to Iran. The money was Iran’s, as the International court in the Hague decided, of course the funds had to be transferred back.

        Remember the Iran Contra scandal, when Ronald Reagan was providing $millions of weapons to Iran, all in secret in violation of federal law?

        At the congressional hearings investigating the scandal, Reagan said I don’t recall hundreds of times. And now we have Trump.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          “Barack Hussein Obama didn’t pay anyone $400 million”

          I suppose he didn’t hand deliver it. Do you think his administration went behind his back to do it?

        2. avatar Dude says:

          “The fact is, Reagan..”

          Whataboutism. Your favorite tactic.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Again, no one paid Iran any amount of money for the hostages.

          The United States government did honor the court order from the international court in the Hague, and returned Iran’s money to them.

          Why is it so difficult for you to understand?

          Is it because it does not fit the fantasy you have a long held?

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          Do you dispute the facts, if so, what evidence do you have to support an alternative?

          “The $400 million was Iran’s to start with, placed into a US-based trust fund to support American military equipment purchases in the 1970s. When the Shah was ousted by a 1979 popular uprising that led to the creation of the Islamic Republic, the US froze the trust fund. Iran has been fighting for a return of the funds through international courts since 1981.

          In announcing the agreement, Obama said that paying the $400 million — plus $1.3 billion in interest — was saving American taxpayers billions of dollars. The Iranians had been seeking more than $10 billion at arbitration.”

        5. avatar arc says:

          Miner, international courts have no teeth without the US. Iran can have its alleged 400m back but an additional 1.3billion in CASH no less, is direct aid to the enemies of America. That cash vanished into funding proxy military and terror groups.

        6. avatar Dude says:

          “Again, no one paid Iran any amount of money for the hostages.”

          It was just a really unfortunate coincidence that the secret delivery of the $400 million was delivered exactly when they released the hostages? Yeah that sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, right? If it had nothing to do with the hostages, then why the secrecy and timing? Wouldn’t you go out of your way to do it at another time to avoid the appearance of a scandal? Of course you would. You’re not really that stupid. No one is.

          It’s not that the $400 million was paid. It was the secret way it was done to hide going against this country’s long standing policy on dealing with hostages. There’s a reason we have that policy. If Trump had done that, they would call for his impeachment. They’ve done it for much less.

        7. avatar Dude says:

          By the way Miner, Iran even admitted that they took the money in exchange for the hostages.

        8. avatar Miner49er says:

          The USA has owed that money to Iran for decades because Ronald Reagan reneged on a multi million dollar arms deal. That’s not how ransoms work.

          “In reality, the United States owed Iran $400 million as part of a longstanding dispute, and negotiators used that pending settlement as leverage to release the detained Americans. Experts said this kind of exchange is standard issue in U.S.-Iran relations over the past few decades.

          The important but subtle nuance is this: While settling the $400 million helped ensure that the prisoners got home, it wasn’t an illicit payment. Iran, according to the claim adjudicators, had a legitimate right to the money.

          In 1979, Iran’s then-monarch Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi paid $400 million to the United States government to purchase military parts. But that year’s revolution toppled the shah, and the military parts were never delivered.

          To regain its funds, Iran filed a claim against the United States in 1981 in the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, which adjudicates disputes between the two nations. The body, located at the Hague, was established amid negotiations to end the 1979-81 Iran hostage crisis, in which pro-revolution students took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

          The tribunal’s first priority was to address claims from private individuals, including 4,700 now-resolved U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran. Over the past several years, the tribunal has focused more of its attention on claims the two governments have made against each other, including this dispute over the $400 million weapons deal.

          The State Department announced its settlement in the dispute — the United States would pay Iran $400 million plus $1.3 billion in interest — on Jan. 17, the same day Obama announced the return of the Americans detained in Iran, as well as the formal implementation of the nuclear deal. The first installment of the settlement was also transferred that day, via an unmarked cargo plane, as first reported by the Wall Street Journal in early August.

          The administration paid the funds using various European currencies because U.S. law bars financial transactions with Iran in U.S. dollars, and Iran’s access to banking is limited because of international sanctions. “

        9. avatar Dude says:

          The payment itself was not the scandal. The scandal was the timing and the way it was delivered. Obama also got the cash from a Treasury Dept fund so it didn’t have to be appropriated and approved by Congress.

        10. avatar Dude says:

          “Experts said this kind of exchange is standard issue in U.S.-Iran relations over the past few decades.”
          Standard issue huh. When else have we done it like this?

          “the $400 million helped ensure that the prisoners got home” Yet it wasn’t money for hostages, right? Then why didn’t we pay them at a time when hostages weren’t released? Of course, the hostages were a condition. To say otherwise is to lie.

          I’m not saying he should have been impeached or anything. It was within the President’s power to do this, even if it was unconventional, against standard policy, possibly dangerous to future hostage situations, etc. It essentially amounts to a difference of opinion on how foreign policy is conducted. However, it is up to the President to conduct said policy. Now compare and contrast this event with the current impeachment hysteria and what you will see is unmitigated hypocrisy.

        11. avatar Miner49er says:

          Are you just being obtuse?

          It’s clearly two completely different situations.

          The United States had agreed to a settlement with a rant, and committed to pay the $400 million that the United States had owed I ran for decades, since 1979.

          Barack Hussein Obama wisely with held those funds until Iran had agreed to release the detained hostages.

          That’s what you call a good deal, we already owed them the money but Obama was able to get extra concessions out of them.
          You know, the art of the deal.

          And there was no connection between the 1979 debt to Iran and any political campaign or election in the United States.

          In the situation at hand, Trump violated the federal impoundment act by illegally blocking foreign aid military funds that had been appropriated by Congress, which under the constitutional has the power of the purse.

          Furthermore, Trump, like a two bit thug, extorted the Ukrainian president in order to force him into making a public announcement about an investigation into trumps political opponent.

          “Hey Ukraine, you got a nice country here, be a shame if something happened to it, what with the Russians and all. How about you do us a favor though and investigate my probable presidential campaign opponent, make a public announcement on CNN.”

          It is also a federal felony to solicit a thing of value from a foreign national or government in an election.

          Plus, there’s a whole raft of other violations, my favorite is the use of unencrypted cell phones in violation of every state department and diplomatic service security reg.

          That call between Trump and Sondland, where demented grandpa is yelling into his phone, is hilarious.

          But what do you expect, Sondland bought his ambassadorship for a $1 million contribution to trumps inaugural fund, he’s just a political hack with no diplomatic experience whatsoever.

          Only the best people, like Cohen, general Flynn, stone, Manafort etc.

        12. avatar Dude says:

          “In the situation at hand, Trump violated the federal impoundment act by illegally blocking foreign aid military funds that had been appropriated by Congress, which under the constitutional has the power of the purse.”

          The money was paid within the allotted time which is the fiscal year. It is within the power of the executive branch to execute the laws passed by Congress, which is why they didn’t go out of their way to try to prove a violation there; because there isn’t one.

          “Barack Hussein Obama wisely with held those funds until Iran had agreed to release the detained hostages.”

          You are admitting to what the administration tried to deny which is the hostages were a condition of receiving the payment. That isn’t how the U.S. conducts hostage negotiations, but it was within the power of the executive branch to do so, even if they tried to hide it, and then lied about it.

          “Hey Ukraine, you got a nice country here, be a shame if something happened to it, what with the Russians and all. How about you do us a favor though and investigate my probable presidential campaign opponent, make a public announcement on CNN.”

          That’s a fabricated quote. Adam Schiff completely made that up because he’s a complete joke. I suggest you read the actual source material of the phone call. None of the witnesses called disputed the record of the actual phone call.

          “It is also a federal felony to solicit a thing of value from a foreign national or government in an election.”

          Running for office does not shield you from investigation. There is zero precedence for that. Biden may not even be the nominee. It is well within the power of the executives branch to enforce the law. This includes investigating corruption at the highest levels. Biden used the power of his office to enrich his family. I know you aren’t okay with that.

          The real election interference that actually happened was in 2016 when the State Dept and the Hillary campaign colluded with Ukraine to dig up dirt on their rival campaign. Ukrainian officials even released their evidence to the U.S. media. This isn’t theoretical like your example, it actually happened (what you’re accusing the Trump campaign of). The media won’t report on it, because it makes Hillary and the Obama admin look bad. This doesn’t excuse Paul Manafort for being a crook. Bank Fraud, and Money Laundering, and Income Tax Fraud are crimes, and he should pay the price. Note that it has zero to do with the Trump campaign, even though the media tried to frame it as such.

          I don’t know if you watched the witnesses that Adam Schiff brought forth, but none of them could list any crimes committed or impeachable offenses when specifically asked to do so. It was all about how they didn’t appreciate how foreign policy was conducted. I suggest you watch it instead of the CNN or NBC recap. At the end of the day, it’s the President’s prerogative, not the administrative state that wasn’t elected.

        13. avatar Dude says:

          “Only the best people, like Cohen, general Flynn, stone, Manafort etc.”

          I agree, he has NOT hired the best people at all. Cohen and Manafort are slimy crooks. The jury’s out on Flynn. I’ll withhold judgement for now.

    2. avatar Kahlil says:

      Have seen it in my own county, the left’s knickers all twisted nice and tight when the right takes a tactic from their playbook. There’s no discussion with them either, they can’t look at common sense or real statistics either – it is all an emotional knee-jerk response they’ve internalized. I think the whole sanctuary movement thing as a whole is ridiculous, no matter the reason, but that’s just my opinion.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        “There’s no discussion with them either, they can’t look at common sense or real statistics either”

        Their attempted power grabs under the guise of virtuous policies (firearms, immigration, environment, etc.) fall completely apart when you use reason and actual data. They depend on propaganda, ignorance, and increasingly, limiting free speech (through tech sensors, schools, and politicians) to survive.

        1. avatar The Cold Backhand of God says:

          People of the Lie, certainly not People of the Gun.
          Moral relativists with questionable ethics exist everywhere and none are to be trusted with power until their intent is revealed.

  10. avatar Salty Bear says:

    The sanctuary movement is just unofficial, selective secession, and I like it. “Going to a place” is not a real crime, and neither is “possessing a thing.”

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      In a word,Nullification.

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    For Christian’s it is permissible or even mandated that we are to disobey evil,unconstitutional or unjust laws. I am commanded to provide for my family(if I DON’T I’m “worse than an infidel”). That includes protection ie guns. St. Peter also declares “we shall obey GOD rather than men”. So there!!!

    1. avatar The Cold Backhand of God says:

      “I would burn in hell to keep you safe.”
      It’s a very dangerous oath to swear, a dangerous double-edged sword, even if it’s said by people who have the best intent. We must choose wisely and act accordingly, God is watching.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        GOD is in me by HIS HOLY SPIRIT. GOD is light,life and love. You are deceived. Oh and Nietzsche is burning in hell. Oops!

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Please share whatever evidence you have to prove your claim that Nietzsche is roasting in hell.

          Thanks!

  12. avatar Miner49er says:

    “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.”
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Yet the left will take it on faith when it comes to lying women with conflicting accounts and zero proof of anything as long as it furthers their political goals. Let’s all chant together now: “I believe women…” (except the women that contradict what I want to believe. So yeah, once again, hypocrites.

    2. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

      Yeah and without faith, where did Nietzsche end up? That’s right the lunatic asylum. All his brilliance did not help him after unmooring himself from right and wrong, truth, and God. You can have Nietzsche, I will take the witness of Christ and the Apostles.

    3. avatar The Grey Man says:

      A casual stroll through San Francisco????

  13. avatar strych9 says:

    They’re also getting increasingly vocal. Today there’s a protest against the new “red flag” laws in Denver 11am-1pm.

    That’ll put a bee in the bonnet of some Denverites.

  14. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    I like the sheriff who threatens to deputize thousands of people. A sheriff could also declare a permanent posse comitatus which can include people as young as 15.

  15. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Ooooppps.

    There goes the “Gun owners are the mostest law-bidinest people of all” meme.

    1. avatar Brandan says:

      Some laws are so egregious that they demand to be met with noncompliance.

      Is there nothing you wouldn’t resist, even passively with noncompliance?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Some laws are so egregious that they demand to be met with noncompliance.
        Is there nothing you wouldn’t resist, even passively with noncompliance?”

        Consistency is my concern. We are not Schrödinger’s cat. If a person “will not comply”, then “gun owners are the most law abiding citizens” has to drop from any justification presented in support of the Second Amendment. That’s it.

        Don’t care if you comply or not. Don’t care if a person insists that they are not bound by any law they think unconstitutional. Don’t care about any of that. Just be truthful about yourself; truthful and consistent.

  16. avatar John Lychwick says:

    FREEDOM IS DANGEROUS. Real freedom requires great courage. A large portion of our population are being led around like lemmings by the mass media and cowardly liberal politicians. ARE WE STILL THE HOME OF THE BRAVE?

  17. avatar enuf says:

    “Only the Left Is Supposed to Be Able to Ignore Laws They Don’t Like”

    That is a completely false statement. All political sides do this and deny they do it while accusing the other side of doing it.

    A cornerstone of political partisanship is Hypocrisy.

  18. avatar Kyle says:

    This is where we are now.

    The left has just finally pushed gun owners to the wall. Your gun laws are doing nothing to stop criminal behavior and they’re hurting american citizens.

    So, Nope. We are done with compliance. Hell, even honest law enforcement doesn’t buy the BS of the left anymore. Only the mostly political cops of the urban centers are still talking gun control.

    1. avatar Mark Masters says:

      nowhere in Article 1 Section 8 “Enumeration of Powers” does our Constitution delegate government the power to infringe on our Bill-of-Rights. The infringements arise when Constitutional powers are ignored and instead fascist powers are employed…

      and this does eventually come back around as: Nullification…

      checkout Publius Holda:

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