Is Support For One Type Of Legal Sanctuary While Opposing Another Inconsistent?

california second amendment sanctuary city

Bigstock

Specifically, conservative-leaning people tend to view illegal immigrant sanctuary cities with disdain, even as they cheer the growing Second Amendment sanctuary movement. Conversely, liberal-leaners tend to reverse the views. Are both sides being inconsistent? Some people think so.

If I am going to be consistent, I have to declare that sanctuary locales are sad, and silly, and a bit wrong-headed.

I’m not exactly “conservative” or “liberal,” but I am a constitutionalist. I see it as the best option currently available, if we’d just use it. On that basis, immigration sanctuaries are wrong, and the entire country should be a Second Amendment sanctuary exactly as originally intended. That view is not inconsistent.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly assigns the authority to regulate immigration to the federal government. While you might question the value of some of the specific laws, they are generally constitutional.

The Second Amendment explicitly forbids the government to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Any law that restricts the rights of honest people to any weapon is unconstitutional, and therefore void.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
— Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

Constitutionality — whether or or not a specific law is invalid — is a binary decision set. Yes/No. Thus, all laws restricting anything but the misuse of a firearm are unconstitutional.

Sadly, courts allowed an analog decision set to creep in: contrived levels of scrutiny nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The arguments became “Ok, the Constitution says we can’t do that, but it meant we can’t do it without a good reason.”

[expletive expurgated]

I oppose immigration sanctuaries because they are unconstitutional. I support Second Amendment sanctuaries because they are a tool against unconstitutional laws. They aren’t just taking back the Second Amendment, they’re taking back the Constitution.

They are taking back the rule of constitutional law, and they may be our last, best hope.

comments

  1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Hypocrisy is a well known Leftard virtue.

    1. avatar BlazinTheAmazin says:

      The Democrats/Lefties would have no standards if they didn’t have double standards:

      Obama separated families at the border… crickets, but Trump is literally Hitler.
      Biden actually admits to quid pro quo with Ukraine ON TAPE yet they only go after Trump.
      Eric Holder is Obama’s “wingman” but they claim Barr is too close with Trump.
      And let’s not forget living in gated communities and enjoying armed guards paid for by taxpayers yet denying the rest of us the right to self defense…

    2. avatar enuf says:

      Hypocrisy is a well known Partisan Fanned Idiot virtue.

      No quarter given to either camp in this thing. When it comes to Hypocrisy the Leftards and the Rightards are equally bad actors.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        “Fanned”? That was not the word I typed………

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Leave it as is for comic value.

        2. avatar Pat says:

          Your post was idiotic so just leave your typo. In the case of second Amendment sanctuary, that is sanctuary in defense of explicit constitutional rights. No Illegal alien has a constitutional right to come to this country, commit crimes, and not be deported.
          For you to claim these two as equivalent is absurd.

      2. avatar Dude says:

        Then what is the equivalent “Rightard” hypocrisy to something as absurd as illegal immigrant sanctuaries?

        If you’re going to claim they are exactly the same then back it up, or you’re just spewing ignorant BS.

      3. avatar Ing says:

        No one has a monopoly on hypocrisy. It definitely exists on both sides.

        However, as someone who was raised in a conservative environment, went liberal, and in recent years has come back around to being at least conservative-adjacent, I can tell you from my experience that while everyone partakes, America’s “liberals” eat, sleep, and breathe it.

        The Left exudes the disgusting essence of hypocrisy through its pores. Without it, they literally would have no beliefs or principles at all.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          I know what you mean. I was raised by democrats. As a matter of fact, my dad worked on local, state, and national campaigns, and was even a delegate in a presidential race. I’ve never been an ideologue and always keep an open mind, but the things I’ve witnessed lately, especially in the last few years, have blown my mind. I can’t imagine voting democrat for anything now.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          So, would you say you’re “woke” now? 🙂

        3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Argghh. Hit the Enter button by accident as I was typing. That reply above is meant for Dude.

        4. avatar Dude says:

          Took the red pill and can’t unsee the truth.

        5. avatar Ing says:

          Same here. (Of course, I thought I was woke before, too…)

    3. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      “Hypocrisy is a well known Leftard virtue.”
      And , apparently the author is not above reproach on this either
      “Any law that restricts the rights of honest people to any weapon is unconstitutional, and therefore void.”
      Where in “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” did you read “rights of honest people”? I could not find that phrase in my copy of the Constitution.

      1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        I refer to the author of the article, not Green…

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Where in “…. shall not be infringed,” did you read “rights of honest people”?”

        My point exactly. Even the incarcerated were not excluded. Any exception to “shall not be infringed” is an exception of preference. If one exception is legitimate, than any other exception is just as legitimate. Every existing and proposed exception to the Second is based on opinion, each opinion being no more cosmically valid than the next.

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

          “Even the incarcerated were not excluded.”

          The purpose of arms is in defense against non-proportional force. A little old lady defending against an attack by a young thug. Might making right. It seems to me that incarceration, forcing all to be disarmed while ‘in custody’ is a form of achieving that goal. All prisoners being disarmed makes them all, more or less, equally non-armed…

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “All prisoners being disarmed makes them all, more or less, equally non-armed…”

          The outcomes may be analogous, even desirable, but is “outcome” a valid distinction between a right and a privilege? Or maybe, “Shall Not Be Infringed” is modified by the “due process” provisions of the 5th and 14th. Later amendments to the base document also modifying prior amendments.

      3. Whether the rights of criminals — or even accused — may be temporarily abrogated would have to be the topic of a separate column. Bone up on the Constitution (special emphasis on 3A, 4A, 5A, &6A), Declaration of Independence, English Common Law, The Law of Nations, and a couple of centuries of jurisprudence.

      4. In the meantime, some hypothetical questions for you. You needn’t answer them anywhere but to yourself.

        If someone attempts to rob you at gunpoint, and you manage to disarm him, technically speaking have you violated his 2A right to keep and bear arms?

        If you randomly disarm someone who has not aggressed against anyone, does that differ from the first scenario? Why, or why not?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If someone attempts to rob you at gunpoint, and you manage to disarm him, technically speaking have you violated his 2A right to keep and bear arms?”

          You are approaching something interesting, but there is a bit of a disconnect: individuals are not government. The scenario you put forth is, itself, a limited suspension of the attacker’s 2A protected RTKBA; limited. As an absolutist, the following is not easy to write, however….as a society we must have rules that deny certain freedoms and liberties for those of the people who would do/have done harm to others.

          That said, once a person has been disciplined IAW society’s rules, that person has balanced the scale, and must be restored as a full citizen of the society. Otherwise, you have a situation where a person who is once a risk to others, is punished for life.

          If a life sentence is considered the appropriate punishment for a harm to society, society bears responsibility to keep such persons imprisoned for life. What we have is life sentence on the cheap, with society trying to “have it both ways”. How is that just?

  2. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Only the Democrats in this country could approve such an inconsistency, especially about a constitutionally guaranteed unalienable right.
    Giving sanctuary to people who have illegally crossed our border and also after they have committed felonies here as Nutty Newsom did by pardoning two felons so they could be deported is not being pro-American or respecting your own citizens.
    A question for the left is; “How will you defend or protect yourselves from despotic rightist government when it comes after you” if the Second is negated.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “A question for the left is; “How will you defend or protect yourselves from despotic rightist government when it comes after you” if the Second is negated.”

      Simple. When the entire political system is controlled, there will be no rightist government to fear. The danger is between now, and then.

      You must understand (and adjust) that the only legitimate form of government is that imposed upon the unruly, ignorant and clueless mob (population). A form of government that is not controlled by the “best and brightest” of people is simply not capable of being great once, much less again. Once the populace is under effective control, non-compliance can be dealt with swiftly and effectively, reducing the demand on scarce resources that should go first to the “best and brightest”, such that they can prosper and proliferate.

      What part of “self-governance is stupid” do you not grasp? “Self-governance” is the reason the US has been the source of all pain and suffering, even before there was a US. Great empires and civilizations were not built at the ballot box. It is settled science that cream rises to the top, and rests over the substance from which it arises. Money talks, and cream floats.

      1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        Last I checked, sh1t floats too.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Last I checked, sh1t floats too.”

          You “broke the code”, though perhaps you are not being facetious.

        2. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          Well Sam,
          I’ll admit sometimes it sinks too.
          Sh1t! I meant stinks.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Well Sam,
          I’ll admit sometimes it sinks too.
          Sh1t! I meant stinks.”

          But cream or the other do float to the top. Either way, it indicates the nature of elite people. They say all is fair in love and war, but they got cards they ain’t showing.They can’t run their own lives, I’ll be damned if they’ll run mine.

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

          Huh, Hannibal. Mine both sinks *and* stinks… 😉

          (I am becoming a CZ ‘fan-boy’, and I *like* it!)

  3. avatar Dude says:

    I oppose immigration sanctuaries because they’re terrible ideas that do nothing but exacerbate the problem this country has with illegal aliens. It’s very telling that it’s always the left that has zero respect for the law.

    Regarding 2A sanctuaries, has anyone tried to legally challenge one? Couldn’t something like that make it to the Supreme Court and end up strengthening the right to bear arms?

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

      Good question.

      Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

  4. avatar No one of consequence says:

    I disagree with both in principle because both encourage a general disrespect for the law and the civil processes for changing bad laws. That way lies dissolution of civil society on other than the local / tribal level.

    That said, I think the gun sanctuaries, as the article points out, are an appeal to the highest legal framework in the country, while immigration sanctuaries are a rejection of same. So I am more sympathetic to the former.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      I disagree with both in principle because both encourage a general disrespect for the law and the civil processes for changing bad laws. That way lies dissolution of civil society on other than the local / tribal level.

      I’m very glad you posted this! I agree with both in principle specifically because they (at some point) will require action via legal and civil processes to rectify the problems. I’ve never cared for the taste of sanctuary cities, but I’ve always applauded the Sheriffs who institute the policies (on both sides of this argument, even) because they answer to the people. Municipalities going around the Sheriff are a different issue, but we’ll get there eventually.

      I hadn’t really considered your perspective, but the idea of a “civil society” past local communities always struck me as more of a novel idea than an actual reality. Society and community are broken down infinitely until you get to the individual anyway, which level is the sweet spot? *shrug* That part is just philosophy, isn’t it?

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        It is philosophy, u til we get to the part when we wish, or need, to work with someone else somewhere else. At that point having a standard set of rules we agree to work by, is important.

        Consider, for instance, if a locality astride an interstate decided to be a “pesticide free” zone and successfully banned the transport of any non-organically-farmed produce through it. (This isn’t far-fetched; for a long time Berkeley has been a self-declared “nuclear free zone.”)

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Well, there never were any nuclear weapons on campus at Berkeley, so that’s a pretty safe resolution to make. (Final Jeopardy: I’ll stake all my money on “Empty virtue signaling,” Alex.)

    2. avatar SoBe says:

      @No None
      Having been born in a country whose legal system was (emphasis on was) based on the Napoleonic code and not on common law and although I have spent 90% of my life in the US and consider myself “American as Apple Pie,” I could never understand the concept of passing a law to appease some protesting group with out ever having had any intention of enforcing that law. Also, I never understood the concept of intentionally passing an unconstitutional law with the intention that it would be in force until some court overruled it. For that matter, why do government employees including elected officials who take an oath to defend the Constitution never get prosecuted for treason when they blatantly advocate going against said Constitution? Last I checked, treason is still one of the few Federal Capital crimes.

  5. avatar Parnell says:

    To compare immigration sanctuary cities to Second Amendment sanctuary counties is not a logical comparison. There is no Constitutional protection of immigration whereas the protection of RTKBA is in the Bill of Rights.

    1. avatar Salty Bear says:

      But as we’re fond of saying here, the constitution doesn’t grant rights. It only recognizes [some] of them. Just because the right to keep and bear arms is mentioned does not mean that people don’t have a right to migrate.

  6. avatar Henry McCartier says:

    Never shrink from using the weapons of the enemy against them.

  7. avatar Omer says:

    Nullification has a long and noble history in North America. But nullified laws were argued to be unconstitutional, not immoral. I personally feel that if the welfare state were abolished, then immigration would take care of itself.

  8. avatar DrDKW says:

    Because the right to keep & bear arms is guaranteed by the US Constitution, but the right to enter our country and stay illegally is not. What could be so hard to understand?!

    1. avatar Salty Bear says:

      The constitution doesn’t grant rights. If you take out the RKBA, you still have that right. The right of all humans to migrate across imaginary map lines does not have to be written down for it to be a legitimate, inalienable right.

  9. avatar Prndll says:

    The USA is a national gun owner sanctuary. It has always been that way. It is that way per The Constitution.

    What we have here is a play on words in a process primarily fueled by fear based on the utter hatred the left has cultivated for the American way of life. It is about the desire of the left to turn our country into something it was never meant to be.

  10. avatar James W Crawford says:

    Very well reasoned.

    As we recently witnessed at the Pensicola Naval Air Station, presuming that non-citizens have Constitutional rights is insane.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Immigrants may not have certain civil rights as afforded by the Constitution, but they have the same Human Rights endowed by their creator. The right to defend oneself included.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        True…but the Constitution doesn’t just say “people.” It says *the people,* as in the American people specifically. So while the right to self-defense doesn’t go away, the right to keep and bear arms definitely is restricted to citizens.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          No sir. The right to keep and bear arms is not dependant on the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. If either would cease to exist, the right would remain.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” If either would cease to exist, the right would remain.”

          Yet…..

          We only actually have whatever rights we can personally defend. Once a natural, human and civil right is declared by courts to be illegal, that right is effectively lost. One may exercise that right, but the consequences are not avoided on the basis that the determination of illegality violates the Constitution. So, what is the point/importance of a right the exercise of which results in government sanctioned punishment? While incarcerated, that now-illegal right is forcefully denied.

          The issue now is not “unalienable” rights, but the political power to preserve/enforce those rights. Once that power is lost, “rights” become captive of the opposition.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The SC ruled in a number of instances that foreign nationals resident in the US are protected by the Constitution.

          Here are two readings on the subject:
          https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/#ac512324f1de

          https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

        4. avatar Ing says:

          Not dependent on it…legally protected by it. The right to self-defense is pre-existing and can’t be removed by the Constitution, but the Constitution doesn’t protect the right *to keep and bear arms* if you’re not a part of “the people.”

          We usually assume self-defense and bearing arms are synonymous, but they’re not; one is an inherent human right, the other is a civil right set up by the law. (Firearms are a practical necessity, since you can’t effectively exercise your right to self-defense if you don’t have the right tools, but there are many ways to do the job.)

          And the Supreme Court wouldn’t know a consistent set of principles if it bit them on the ass. Either human rights are inherent in every individual and thus superior to all laws, or they aren’t. Pick one.

        5. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          jwtaylor is correct. Citizens are fully protected by the Constitution, but it (along with the DOI) recognizes “certain unalienable rights endowed by their Creator”.

        6. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          Sam,
          Agreed, the only rights retained by the people are the rights the people are willing to defend. By implication, the only rights, enumerated or not in the Constitution that the Constitution protects are those rights “retained by the people.” No piece of paper nor any court ruling will assure any right that the people are not willing to defend. In fact, the Constitution emphasizes the implication “retained by the people.” The “Little Orphan Amendment,” the Ninth Amendment states in its entirety, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “In fact, the Constitution emphasizes the implication “retained by the people.” ”

          Precisely why the Constitution has become a nest of rattlesnakes.

          From those retained rights (9th and 10th Amendments) emerge a host of things many people here wouldn’t like. All convoluted because the original Constitution was designed to control the central government. Once inverted and applied to the states, chaos ensues.

          The Constitution does not have words proclaiming “a right to privacy”, yet the central government is not given power to move where not specifically authorized. The “right to privacy” doesn’t need to be enumerated because it is a “retained right”. Even the right of the people of a state to permit abortion is a retained right, not subject to federal interference. But then….the Constitution is applied to the states and chaos ensues. Consider: the Constitution warns the central government that certain unlisted rights are retained by the States (“S” as understood in the beginning). However, the Constitution is imposed on the states (little “s” after 1868). So, by whom, or what, are the unlisted rights retained? The states, or “the people” without regard to states? If “the people” where is the necessity for a state to authorize exercise of a retained right?

          After the 14th, the Constitution folds onto and into itself, making meanings elastic, if not ephemeral. Essentially, we are driven to a place where the entity controlled by the Constitution becomes the final arbiter of the controls.

        8. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          “…entity controlled by the Constitution becomes the final arbiter of the controls…”
          Kind of like when Virginia threatens to unloose the National Guard upon those who dare to fail to adhere to their Anti 2A civil disarmament proscriptions, in violation of the very clear language in the Constitution.

    2. avatar Dan W says:

      The idea that constitutional rights can apply to foreigners outside the US is an obvious non starter. The only question is at what point are they afforded protections and then what process are they due?
      I’m not sure the founders have any writings on this. Since they were establishing the country for their posterity and not the entire world.

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      I’m not really seeing what the argument is here.

      The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Either, within US jurisdiction, US law including the Constitution applies or it does not.

      Are we to apply French law in Florida? Ugandan? Perhaps Japanese?

      You don’t go to other countries and assume that their laws do not apply in their territory. You don’t come here and assume some other country’s law is the rule of the day either.

      The US Constituion recognizes the legal rights of all US Citizens and other people who are within the jurisdiction of the United States or the Constitution is meaningless, our borders are meaningless and this who argument is meaningless because we don’t really have a country.

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

        “Are we to apply French law in Florida? Ugandan? Perhaps Japanese?

        You don’t go to other countries and assume that their laws do not apply in their territory.”

        As a matter of fact, Leftist judges in America have been citing foreign laws in their rulings, for quite some time. So, yes, they want that. Ruth Bader Ginsburg even commented to someone that the US constitution is not what she would recommend a new country model their new constitution on…

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I’m aware of Left leaning judges citing foreign law.

          What I’m not aware of is one of them suggesting that if a US citizen were to go to, say, Togo, that Togolese law would not apply to said US citizen while that person was actually in Togo.

          Even if a Lefty were to suggest such at thing the Lefty would still be stupid for doing it. I mean, hey brah, are you trying to say that the Togolese people don’t have a right to self-determination?

        2. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Strych9, what is the law and what are your rights are entirely different things. Your right to keep and bear arms does not disappear when you travel abroad.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          jwt:

          I didn’t say that it does. My point is that this guy was in US jurisdiction so US law applies. That includes enumerated rights recognized by our Constitution. We don’t throw out the Constitution because someone is a foreigner.

          The OP stated that “…presuming that non-citizens have Constitutional rights is insane.”

          I’m ignoring the human law vs. natural law thing here and pointing out that if a non-citizen doesn’t get to enjoy the rights enumerated in the Constitution then the Constitution is, effectively, NOT the highest law of the land because it’s not applicable to our entire territory. In effect that means we don’t have a country because our laws, regardless of what might be, are just opinions. You say people have the right to self-defense, well someone else disagrees. Who wins? The person with more political clout. That’s not the way the US is supposed to work. Everyone is equal before the law including those people who might just be visiting.

          We don’t tell people “Hey, welcome to America but be advised that you may not speak freely here because you’re Canadian… In fact, here’s a whole list of other countries in the world for which we selectively apply our own laws”.

          As soon as we start saying shit like this then the law, and by extension the Constitution, is meaningless because if the 3A doesn’t apply to Argentinians who own a house in Providence then why should immigration law, which is NOT the highest law of the land, apply to Hondurans living in El Paso? It’s all opinion at that point.

          My second point is that on some level the Left knows this is true and we can see that from a combination of the arguments that they make and those arguments which they carefully avoid making.

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    Gun ownership is a GOD given right. Invading America to suck on freedom’s teat is NOT! Simple ain’t it?😄

  12. avatar don says:

    Illegally immigrating to the United States is not a constitutionally protected right. Possessing and using firearms is a constitutionally protected right.

  13. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Is Support For One Type Of Legal Sanctuary, While Opposing Another, Inconsistent?”

    In a word, no…

    Having stated that, there IS a difference between trying to protect a Constitutionally protected right, and trying to protect illegal aliens…

  14. avatar former water walker says:

    Further comment from me…CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE is warrented. It sure did at the so-called Bundy ranch! Separate the wheat from the chaff as it were. The Constitution TRUMPS(get it?)illegal laws…l

  15. avatar LKB says:

    The author has it right — there’s a fundamental difference between declaring support for an explicit constitutional right (and refusing to enforce state laws that violate it) and asserting the right to ignore federal law.

    Another point to recall is that the left isn’t even consistent on their “Sanctuary City” concept. Recall what happened in the early aughts when various cities, counties, and states attempted to deal with the growing problem of illegal immigration by, for example, making it illegal to rent to persons who are in the country illegally. The left went nuts, and various Hacks in Black ruled that such laws were preempted by federal immigration laws — so there could be no local laws that touched even obliquely on immigration issues. But when the feds want to enforce such laws, the left suddenly claims that local laws and concerns are paramount, and thus they can ignore federal law.

    Barr needs to criminally prosecute some state officials (such as the Massachusetts judge who intentionally thwarted ICE officers from arresting an illegal who was in her courtroom) who are actively obstructing ICE activities or encouraging / aiding & abetting illegal immigration. Put a few of them behind bars and the price of virtue signaling will become too dear for them to pay.

  16. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

    Oh, god, the most boring thing anyone can do is make the “LOL INCONSISTENCY!!!!!” argument in a debate. Everyone’s inconsistent about something, so what? It devolves to the brainless level of arguments like: “OMG you’re inconsistent because you support immigration sanctuaries, but don’t want to give sanctuary to violent Nazis who murder babies!!!” Get real.

    That said, arguing against something PURELY because it’s unconstitutional doesn’t carry much water anymore. Tell me whether it’s a good idea. If it is, the Constitution itself actually has a process by which it can be amended. If it isn’t, it doesn’t matter to anyone except a few barrister, jurists, and first year law students everywhere.

    I support second amendment sanctuaries because I want law-abiding people to be able to use deadly force to protect themselves against criminals, and at the moment this is a useful political tool to help achieve that goal. I oppose immigration sanctuaries because it’s in my interest (and, I believe, most other Americans’ interests) to limit immigration until such time as we’ve financially and culturally absorbed the folks who’ve come here under the immigration policies crafted by Ted Kennedy to allow full-throttle immigration from poor and culturally dissimilar nations since the late ’60s.

    And if the Constitution is construed to be in opposition to those positions by people with the power to make it stick, I’m in favor of changing the Constitution.

  17. avatar Dan W says:

    A government by the people and for the people. The left would just rather those people not be Americans.

    1. avatar TonyL says:

      Certainly not heterosexual, Christian, white males of European descent, that’s for sure.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

    — Ralph Waldo Emerson

  19. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    There wouldn’t be anything wrong with immigration if we didn’t have taxpayer funded well fare, public housing, healthcare, public education, and all of the other tax payer funded social programs. These allow people to come into the US and sponge off the system while working under the table. They get to earn money in a relatively free market, while taking resources from society and not making any contributions.

    Meanwhile the citizens get to pay for everything and find it harder to get the jobs that allow them to do so while maintaining the standard of living they had.

    Eliminate government and all of Mexico can move here. It’s only a problem because of government.

  20. avatar MarkPA says:

    “Sanctuary cities” is a modern term for the notion first named “Nullification”. Now we have 3 such Sanctuary/Nullification movements in force: marijuana; immigration; and, guns. All at the same time! Each gaining enough traction that it can’t be ignored.

    What is the Constitutional interpretation of Nullification? Arguably, it’s UN-Constitutional. Or, arguably, it is ENFORCING the Constitution on a Federal government that is “coloring outside the lines”.

    Clearly, states and municipalities that Nullified alcohol prohibition were in violation of the Constitution. It would be unreasonable to argue that violations of the Volstead Act were permitted by the Constitution, as amended, which made alcohol commerce and transportation unlawful.

    Marijuana is a fascinating case. Congress has prohibited pot under its Commerce Clause power. Yet, cultivation of a seed (which might have been carried across state lines by the wind or fauna) stretches the “herpes interpretation” of the Commerce Clause beyond any reasonable limit. Because a Hawaiian grows pot in his backyard he might affect demand for the illegal cultivation and sale of pot in California? Medical marijuana is clearly within the police power of the states to regulate the practice of medicine. Medicine is NOT interstate commerce or foreign-affairs.

    Guns are a tricky case. Is a law (whether Federal or state) one which “infringes” on “the right” of “the People” to “keep and bear” “arms”? That is the real question. In most cases, the key word is “infringe”. (Only occasionally is the key issue whether the weapon is an “arm” or its possessor a member of “the People”. Sometimes, the issue is “keeping” or “bearing” such as NYR&PA v NYC.)

    For example, do registration laws constitute an “infringement”? Arguably, they don’t “break” or “breach” any right; one may own an “arm” (e.g., a machine gun or silencer) provided that one registers it. ATF will cheerfully perform that service (if you have a check for $200 and a clean record). Felons are exempt from the registration requirement.
    Nevertheless, arguably, registration laws carry with them the implicit threat of confiscation – probably without proper compensation. Is an IMPLICIT threat a “breaking” or “breaching” of a right that must not be “infringed”?

    How do We the People (or some subset of us who are constituents of a particular state of residence) achieve a redress of grievance concerning the proper interpretation of the 2A (e.g., does this registration law infringe?)

    Short of Nullification, what recourse do we have? Theoretically, it is the duty of SCOTUS to step in and adjudicate such disputes. Yet, SCOTUS denies any compulsion to perform this duty. It claims the power to resolve Constitutional questions while denying the duty to do so!

    I hold that Nullification is a (relatively peaceful) tool vested in the hands of sub-polities (cities, counties, states) to insist that it’s disagreement with Constitutional interpretations be resolved.

    If one individual grows pot in his backyard he is a felon. If a majority of voters in a state/city elect legislators who refuse to enforce pot prohibition that seems NOT to be an act of lawlessness. Are we to criminalize the behavior of these legislators?

    Should the Medical Marijuana states go to war with the Federal government? Should they call-up their state National Guard forces and march on Washington?

    Until SCOTUS undertakes to resolve the pot prohibition dispute (Commerce Clause, herpes theory, states’ rights to regulate medicine and agriculture), Nullification is a practical and peaceful tool for a sub-polity to assert its legitimate dispute on the Constitutionality of a law.

    Likewise, with guns and immigration.

    So long as SCOTUS neglects its duty it remains for us to see whether Congress will enforce its will at the point of a sword. And should it try to do so, whether it will prevail.

    Let us be thankful that Jefferson and Madison articulated the constitutional theory of Nullification (in 1798) which provides the People a peaceable tool to force a resolution of Constitutional disputes.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      @MarkPA

      I don’t like commentary that requires analytical thinking, abandoning self-serving prejudicial, or questioning whether my understanding of something is wrong.

      Stick to the Second Amendment: “RTKBA” and “Shall Not Be Infringed” are suitable commentary to get your point across, without muddying the water with important concepts and questions.

      Keep it brief !

    2. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants (and a gang of hairless apes itching for a fight with some righteous Romans) says:

      Sam may be right. Your comment is too articulate and well stated for a forum of chest thumping opinionated hormone overladen opinionated hairless apes.

      1. avatar Sherman, from the lagoon says:

        That’s hairless BEACH ape, fella….

  21. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    Under our Federal system, state and local governments are under no obligation to enforce Federal law. The Feds cannot order a state or local government to spend resources to enforce Federal law or to cooperate with Federal employees. They can use the stick and carrot approach by offering money to the state and local governments to entice them to take actions the Feds want.
    But no, a city or state telling it’s employees not to spend time or money enforcing Federal law is not nullification. They are not acting to prevent the Feds from enforcing the law, they are not helping.

    Sad that this simple concept has to be explained, but that is what you get with allowing immigrants into your nation. They don’t understand basic concepts of governance.

    State laws do not have to mirror Federal laws. Nothing in the Constitution requires states to make illegal the same actions covered by Federal law.

    Federal drug laws should be overturned since they are unconstitutional.

    1. avatar Tom says:

      This is where you are wrong. The problem with sanctuary laws is that most of them direct law enforcement to stop communicating with ICE. No one is forcing local law Enforcement to enforce immigration laws. They are simply asking that the local police call ICE when an illegal is about to be released from custody. 8 USC 1324 specifically prohibits anyone from harboring, shielding from detection, or aiding and abetting illegal aliens. When you have a sheriff saying we are going to ignore ICE’s request for notification, and then allow the illegal to roam free on the street, you have just violated the law. Furthermore, state laws can not override Federal laws. The individual states have no authority to write or control immigration laws or policies.

      There are other programs such as 287g wherein local law Enforcement are trained, and deputized to screen and process illegal aliens for ICE to pick up. That is a voluntary program, and ICE pays most of the costs of that program to include housing for illegals.

  22. avatar Peegeetwo says:

    LMAO!!! Like the hypocrisy of the gun owners that defend their rights 24/7 while at the same time suddenly support government control over many other aspects of a persons life including health care decisions and mandatory vaccines?? This forum is comedy gold😂😂😂😂

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Governments are a waste. People should be able to arrange for themselves whatever they want/need. We herald and enshrine evolution, yet constantly try to interfere with it.

      Now, that is hypocrisy.

    2. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      …aaaand, he’s back.

      Pg(2) = Pg(II) = Gp(2) = Peegeetwo

      1. avatar Peegeetwo says:

        Guesty bragging that he can read… no wonder gun owners are such easy targets for ridicule.

        1. avatar Geoff "Anti-Vaxxers need to get cancer and die" PR says:

          Do you ever talk guns, ppgg22? On course not, the only thing your brain is locked on is nut-ball anti-vaxxxx crap.

          The real comedy gold is one-trick-pony peegeetwo who is only capable of spewing his nutball crapola.

          Dance, peegeetwo, I order you to respond… 😉

        2. avatar Peegeetwo says:

          lmao, watching you throw hissy fits like a 10 year old kid is priceless.!!!!

    3. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      Do you propose instead that we, who defend our Constitutional Rights be limited to a 40 hour week with no overtime and a mandatory 2 weeks off per year plus 13 legal holidays during which we are not allowed to defend our rights? The assault on our rights is a 24hours/7days, 52 weeks a year, 365 days a year plus an extra day every leap year.

  23. avatar Join the GOA says:

    When the tar & feathering followed by rope starts they will wise up & stop the tyranny!

    They will realize their BS is not worth dying for!

    Gun Owners & Good Americans have been playing nice for far too long…. for generations in fact!

    Beto confirmed to all what the agenda is…that we knew for decades!

    The Declaration of Independence spelled out the corrections needed.

    Its our duty!

    They have threatened to use the National Guard if we their masters don’t follow their illegal Unconstitutional Laws! This is true Tyranny! When they are crying & dying in a puddle of piss & blood will they think they did the right thing giving up their life of luxury by pushing Commie Laws of Tyranny on Citizens!

  24. avatar strych9 says:

    I’m personally not particularly comfortable with “sanctuary” policies for a variety of reasons.

    That said, they do lay the groundwork for legal maneuvering that may well come out in our favor. Two wrongs may not make a right, but sometimes they create legal standing.

  25. avatar Xaun Loc says:

    I am confident that SOME supporters of either sanctuary movement while opposing the other are inconsistent — and others are completely consistent.

    The difference lies entirely in WHY a person supports one sanctuary movement and opposes the other.

    If a person argues AGAINST either kind of sanctuary because they say that local government agents and agencies are duty-bound to follow the laws of their parent jurisdiction then that person is being inconsistent if they support one and oppose the other. This is an argument often used to oppose each kind of sanctuary, but if you honestly believe it, you should probably be opposed to both sanctuary movements.

    If a person argues FOR either kind of sanctuary on the basis of “human rights” then they should probably support both kinds of sanctuaries if they are truly consistent, but you could make an argument for supporting one and not the other depending on your view of human rights. While I personally cannot accept a viewpoint that denies the basic right of self defense, I know that there are people who sincerely believe that no one ever has a right to take a life even in self defense. Such poor souls would be consistent in supporting immigration sanctuaries while opposing second amendment sanctuaries.

    My personal position, which I see as being consistent (others might disagree) is that local governments have a duty to follow the valid laws of higher jurisdiction and equally a duty to reject invalid laws. On that basis, I support the concept of second amendment sanctuaries because the constitution is the highest law of this nation and any law contrary to the constitution cannot be valid.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Shall Not Be Infringed” and “RTKBA” would be sufficient.

      All that analysis and pondering is too much.

      Be brief. Repeat the mantras.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        MuH gOd gIveN RugHTz!

        How’d I do?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “MuH gOd gIveN RugHTz!
          How’d I do?”

          Great !

          You can use that one, too. Short, sweet, to the point.

        2. avatar Geoff "Anti-Vaxxers need to get cancer and die" PR says:

          Murrica!

  26. avatar Merle 0 says:

    The right to keep and bear arms is in the bill of rights. Immigration isn’t in the bill of rights. Period.

    1. avatar TonyL says:

      Merle, the Constitution Doesn’t give us rights, it defines the limits of the Federal government. Too many gun owners wrongly think our right to own firearms comes from the 2nd Amendment.

      1. avatar Merle 0 says:

        I very much agree. But I was kind of going for the abridged version of rights, because anything more advanced and leftists go crosseyed and start drooling everywhere.

  27. avatar GS650G says:

    The left intends to use guns to disarm people. That’s hypocrtitical.

  28. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The Left has always used hypocrisy. They hate the traditional family. But support homosexual marriage. They hate capitalism. But love the capitalism of the Crack Dealer. They support protests at military bases. But want laws against protests at abortion centers.
    The Liberals and the Left have never supported Civil Rights. Thank god for the Founders who acknowledged and wrote our basic rights down on paper.

    The real question is are the police and state military willing to take a bullet for the Virginia governor???
    We will see.

  29. avatar Pa John says:

    A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state…

    There is your answer as provided by our nation’s founders, and nothing less will work.

  30. avatar MAGA says:

    It’s not hypocrisy at all, and here is why:

    If you come to our sanctuary counties to take our guns, we will SHOOT you.

    If you come to their sanctuary counties to deport illegal aliens, they might hit you with a spatula.

    As Robert Heinlein wrote in the book Starship Troopers, “Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived.”

    Remember. Gun control is not about GUNS. It’s about CONTROL.

  31. avatar G.Washington says:

    It’s simply a breakdown in constitutional law and order. The Dems refuse to follow the constitution, unless of course it advances their goals of destroying the constitutional order.
    The difference here is illegal alien sanctuary cities defy constitutional order.
    2nd Amendment sanctuary cities SUPPORT the constitutional order.
    The CONSTITUTION is the highest law of the land.
    God Bless all and Merry Christmas.

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