Can the sancturary city/state lawsuits backfire on the anti's ?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If you want to discuss the abstract view of what powers lie with the state or Feds, ok.

I don't care about your opinion about immigration issue itself. Deleting those.

 

[Lohman446]

Let me try to elaborate.

In theory the powers of the Federal government are enumerated and limited within the Constitution. Even under current rulings it appears the Federal government cannot force the states to act to enforce federal law.

Meanwhile the states are clearly limited in the rules and regulations they can impose on their citizens. We have had to make some adjustments through amendments but we have enumerated this own list.

A Constitutional argument that gives credence to the rule of law and not popular rule likely always favors a pro-gun stance. I get it there are a lot of ways people can be killed. Still it seems that few are as terrifying as an armed gun man. Rule of the populace will often over react and be knee jerk. Rule of law perhaps less so.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Let me try to elaborate....

Please don't try. You're not doing a very good job of it.

The whole federal vs. state thing was laid out in post 8. How does your so called elaboration add anything useful?

 

[Lohman446]

Yeh. My connecting premises kind of fell apart in there somewhere and the articulation, perhaps the thought itself, became a jumbled mess. Gonna abandon that argument before it gets worse because I can’t figure out how to get it back

 

[Frank Ettin]

...My connecting premises kind of fell apart in there somewhere and the articulation, perhaps the thought itself, became a jumbled mess.....

I'm not sure where you were trying to go. I think the notion that, "...the rule of law and not popular rule likely always favors a pro-gun stance...." is at least premature. The thing is that hasn't really been worked out yet. Post Heller Second Amendment jurisprudence is still in its infancy.

And while the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment arguably restrain to some extent populism insofar as it can limit important, minority rights; there is still an accepted school of constitutional construction that allows some consideration of accepted, popular values.

 

[Metal god]

there is still an accepted school of constitutional construction that allows some consideration of accepted, popular values.

I think the problem you can run into there is what constitutes “popular” ? The first example that comes to mind is all this transgender stuff going on . The number of transgender people that any law (for or against ) will effect is so very small yet it’s talked about / covered in the media like 50% of the population will be effected .

My point is just because something is popular and being talked about does not constitute a necessity to pass a law either way . That’s where our activist judges come in and actually create a problem that will have worked it’s self out through natural cultural change . Like I said earlier some people just want what they want and they wanted now and don’t care what effect it will have on the rest of the country as a whole as long as they get what they want now .

Obviously that’s my opinion YMMV . When I say YMMV I'm speaking to the board and not anyone specifically . I only used the quote as a pretext to my over all point in this post .

 

[Lohman446]

I'm not sure where you were trying to go

I think I figured out where I was going but I'm not sure it was a valid argument. In my mind it kind of had a "downhill" approach in that if the power of the Federal government where limited, especially due to moral and legal grounds, then the power of the States must also be limited in regards to the individual.

I think the argument lacked a solid foundation to begin with the more I consider it and it only went downhill as I tried to elaborate it.

 

[LogicMan]

IMO, if states and localities could very much decide to ignore Federal gun law if states and localities can decide to ignore Federal immigration law. It isn't right, but if the government will not stop selective ignoring of the law in one way, then others will start arguing for the same with other laws they don't like and see as too extreme. As for certain Federal gun laws, I would say that the idea that states have to obey all of those based on the principle of rule of law is not true. To the contrary, I would say (again, in principle) that states and localities have a right and even a duty to flat-out ignore such laws and undermine Federal enforcement of such as much as they can. But it depends on the law.

A federal assault weapons ban IMO, given the arbitrary and capricious, not to mention outright ridiculous and absurd, substance of an assault weapons ban, would fall under state and local governments not having to abide by it (in principle). Such bans constitute a blatant violation and infringement on people's rights and there is a limit to how far the law can go before people have a right to disobey it.

For example, if the government decided to say blacks could be slaves again, I would say that states and localities have a right and duty to disobey such laws, along with ordinary citizens. Similarly, just arbitrarily making a bunch of law-abiding citizens into criminals because they possess a type of gun that is fictional and arbitrarily-defined, also falls into that realm. A Supreme Court decision in the 1930s said that women could be forcibly sterilized by the government. Today it is considered one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in history, but at the time, it was the Law of the Land. That said, every person at the time I would say had a moral right to disobey said law and work to undermine it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....I would say that the idea that states have to obey all of those based on the principle of rule of law is not true. ... I would say (again, in principle) ...

...IMO, ...

... I would say that ...every person at the time I would say had....

Thank you for that peek at your alternate universe. But in fact, what you would say doesn't mean squat. No one really cares, and the world will continue to go about its business without consideration of what you would say.

In contrast to your alternate universe things work in the real world work as I outlined in post 8. Folks can spend their time and energy chasing chimera and fantastical notions about how things should be, but at the end of the day they will find themselves nowhere and perhaps even more vexed than they started out to be.

Or folks can spend their time and energy trying to understand reality and how to work within its constraints. That's how whatever can be accomplished will get accomplished.

 

[LogicMan]

Thank you for that peek at your alternate universe. But in fact, what you would say doesn't mean squat. No one really cares, and the world will continue to go about its business without consideration of what you would say.

In contrast to your alternate universe things work in the real world work as I outlined in post 8. Folks can spend their time and energy chasing chimera and fantastical notions about how things should be, but at the end of the day they will find themselves nowhere and perhaps even more vexed than they started out to be.

Or folks can spend their time and energy trying to understand reality and how to work within its constraints. That's how whatever can be accomplished will get accomplished.

Yes, was expecting a response saying this. But I think you misunderstand my point. A few things:

1) In the real world, what the "The Law" says is not always relevant. "The Law" can say that a certain behavior or action is illegal, but that doesn't make the action wrong or mean that a person violating the law to perform the action is not still on solid moral footing. "The Law" is ultimately a product of Man. In the Real World, sometimes the law is so at odds with reality, that a person is forced to violate it and it is absurd to expect them to adhere to it.

2) To be clear, I do not believe that a person has a moral right to just flout any law that they think is wrong. The vast majority of laws passed, even if you disagree with them, need to be adhered to because otherwise you do not have a society based on law and order and instead it just turns into anarchy. What I am talking about are cases of extreme violations of people's rights.

As you say, the existing law is what it is and what I "think" doesn't mean squat as far as the existing law and its enforcement goes. But in terms of being on a moral footing with regards to adhering to it, I believe that if people's fundamental rights are being blatantly violated by the law, that they do have a right and even a duty in certain cases to flout the law outright. Yes, that can come with punishments, and such people have to be willing to deal with that. But it is no different than people who flouted Jim Crow or slavery laws or the forced sterilization (eugenics) laws, or the Alien and Sedition Acts when those were passed (and some people did and were put in prison even though they were blatantly unconstitutional). All were on solid footing morally.

An example could be the outright (or near outright) gun bans in certain major cities, such as New York City and Washington, D.C. If someone decides to violate the law and illegally carry a gun on their person because they feel they need it for security while walking alone at night in the city, that person I would say is 100% morally within their rights. Yes, they are technically in violation of the law and yes they will likely be punished if caught, but morally, they are on sound footing and given the circumstances for some people, it is a larger risk to walk unarmed then to walk armed worried about the police.

Another example could be New York City and their "gravity knife" laws that have gotten some people in legal trouble for utterly ridiculous reasons. If I was on a jury regarding such an incident, I would vote to let the person off no matter what "The Law" says because of the absurdity of the law and how it violates the person's rights.

3) I disagree with your assertion that "nobody cares" what I think. I think a lot of people actually do care about such things, they just don't have a major public voice to argue it. If for example Congress forced through an assault weapons ban over President Trump's veto, and then he said he will not enforce it due to its extreme violation of people's rights, I would say he is on solid moral footing on that one. Again, for 99.99% of laws, the President would not have the moral authority to pick and choose what to enforce, but for a small .01%, he can refuse to enforce certain ones. Or the National Guard troops in Louisiana who confiscated people's guns after Katrina. They would have been on solid moral footing to have refused the order.

Remember the debate during the 2016 campaigns when Trump was saying about torture and the moderator said that people in the government said they would refuse to follow such orders if given? Does "nobody care" what they think? Sometimes a law (or order) can be so egregious that a person is on moral footing to ignore it.

 

[Metal god]

I think logicman makes good points . I don't know if I "care" about it but I do like hearing it .

I found this on another gun forum www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1430211

BREAKING NEWS: Seventy-Two Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation In Maryland.

National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.

Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.

Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.



Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large

Thank goodness our founders were willing to go against the laws at the time . I wonder how many people didn't care what they had to say because what they were saying was going against the law ?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I think you misunderstand my point....

No, I understand it perfectly.

...in terms of being on a moral footing with regards to adhering to it, I believe that if people's fundamental rights are being blatantly violated by the law, that they do have a right and even a duty in certain cases to flout the law outright.....

And this is the same sort of rationale all manner of thugs use to justify their crimes. The jihadist has his moral justification for the wanton murder of infidels; the con man has his moral justification for fleecing his marks; the father, in some societies, has his moral justification for murdering his daughter for bringing dishonor on the family by being raped; and the robber has his moral justification for redistributing the wealth by holding up convenience stores.

...it is no different than people who flouted Jim Crow or slavery laws or the forced sterilization (eugenics) laws, or the Alien and Sedition Acts when those were passed.... All were on solid footing morally....

Their solid moral footing comes from the fact that their views were accepted in the end. The winners write the histories. But Timothy McVeigh and his conconspiritous didn't fare so well, nor have those pounding the sovereign citizen drum.

...If someone decides to violate the law and illegally carry a gun on their person because they feel they need it for security while walking alone at night in the city, that person I would say is 100% morally within their rights. Yes, they are technically in violation of the law and yes they will likely be punished if caught, but morally, they are on sound footing....

You might think so, but others might not.

What is "justice"? What is moral? Your idea of justice? Your idea of moral What if someone else has a different idea? In The Republic Plato describes Socrates and his students trying valiantly but unsuccessfully to define justice.

In Shaw's Major Barbara, Andrew Undershaft (the millionaire maker of cannon) is in conversation with his son, Stephen:

... STEPHEN [rising and looking at him steadily] I know the difference between right and wrong.

UNDERSHAFT [hugely tickled] You don't say so! What! no capacity for business, no knowledge of law, no sympathy with art, no pretension to philosophy; only a simple knowledge of the secret that has puzzled all the philosophers, baffled all the lawyers, muddled all the men of business, and ruined most of the artists: the secret of right and wrong. Why, man, you're a genius, master of masters, a god! At twenty-four, too!...

Since the dawn of civilization, and probably before, people everywhere have been continually struggling to reach a common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong." They are generally unsuccessful, except with regard to the most extreme circumstances. Sure, murder is off the table; but when does killing someone morph from murder to justifiable homicide. We can generally agree that it is wrong to steal the property of another; but how do we punish a man stealing bread to feed his starving child (which is where prosecutorial discretion and juries as the conscience of the community come in).

That's where law comes in. While people are struggling unsuccessfully to reach a common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong", we still need a way to resolve disputes without tearing the fabric of society asunder. We might not all be able to reach agreement on "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong", except on occasion at certain crossing points, but in the real world we must still be able to get on with life.

Perhaps a true common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong" will come to us in Heaven. But in the meantime we'll need to try to get along as best we can with the tools we have.

 

[LogicMan]

And this is the same sort of rationale all manner of thugs use to justify their crimes. The jihadist has his moral justification for the wanton murder of infidels; the con man has his moral justification for fleecing his marks; the father, in some societies, has his moral justification for murdering his daughter for bringing dishonor on the family by being raped; and the robber has his moral justification for redistributing the wealth by holding up convenience stores.

Would have to say that you are wrong here. The law outlawing all of these actions, if these people see it that their rights are being violated, the thing is that the exercise of their right directly violates the rights of others. The law outlaws their exercise of their "right" as they see it because the action harms others. Someone choosing to flout a law because it violates their rights and harms no one else is very different.

Their solid moral footing comes from the fact that their views were accepted in the end. The winners write the histories. But Timothy McVeigh and his conconspiritous didn't fare so well, nor have those pounding the sovereign citizen drum.

Again, disagree. Their solid moral footing comes because those against them found it increasingly difficult to argue their case as logic and reason ultimately won out. Timothy McVeigh didn't fare well because the guy was a mass murderer. Again, there is a difference between people violating the law because it violates their right to life or free expression, versus a guy taking away a bunch of people's lives.

You might think so, but others might not.

What is "justice"? What is moral? Your idea of justice? Your idea of moral What if someone else has a different idea? In The Republic Plato describes Socrates and his students trying valiantly but unsuccessfully to define justice.

In Shaw's Major Barbara, Andrew Undershaft (the millionaire maker of cannon) is in conversation with his son, Stephen:

Since the dawn of civilization, and probably before, people everywhere have been continually struggling to reach a common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong." They are generally unsuccessful, except with regard to the most extreme circumstances. Sure, murder is off the table; but when does killing someone morph from murder to justifiable homicide. We can generally agree that it is wrong to steal the property of another; but how do we punish a man stealing bread to feed his starving child (which is where prosecutorial discretion and juries as the conscience of the community come in).

That's where law comes in. While people are struggling unsuccessfully to reach a common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong", we still need a way to resolve disputes without tearing the fabric of society asunder. We might not all be able to reach agreement on "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong", except on occasion at certain crossing points, but in the real world we must still be able to get on with life.

Perhaps a true common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong" will come to us in Heaven. But in the meantime we'll need to try to get along as best we can with the tools we have.

Sure, but that is why I said in extreme cases. Our country was founded on a group of men telling a king to go pound sand as he was violating people's rights. Said Founders also said that the people have a right to replace a government if it becomes an absolute despotism, but that such actions should only be taken with prudence, and basically only in the extreme. The Founders were very much believers in law and order but understood that people can ignore it in extreme cases.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Someone choosing to flout a law because it violates their rights and harms no one else is very different.....

It's different from your moral perspective, which others don't necessarily share. So in the morality of the jihadist or the father committing an honor murder, his actions are right and proper as. In their case the law constrains their right to give expression to what to them are moral imperatives.

...Their solid moral footing comes because those against them found it increasingly difficult to argue their case as logic and reason ultimately won out....

Phooey! Again only because their views became accepted. Had those views not become accepted, history would have treated them far differently.

...Our country was founded on a group of men telling a king to go pound sand as he was violating people's rights....

Who, if we had lost, would simply have been hanged as traitors and forgotten. The winners write the histories.

In any case, the OP was about the relationship between state law and federal law. This excursion has been off topic and ends now.

 

[LogicMan]

In any case, the OP was about the relationship between state law and federal law. This excursion has been off topic and ends now.

Okay, but I didn't see it as off-topic. My original post was in direct relation to the OP, about whether states have to enforce federal law and their moral footing for refusing to do so. You yourself said in your post regarding state vs federal law that states can refuse to enforce federal law, but cannot nullify federal law.

 

[Buzzcook]

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/08/10/sanctuary-cities-and-the-rule-of-law/

During the Clinton administration, when Congress passed legislation that directed local law enforcement to enforce a federal gun registration scheme, the Supreme Court invalidated the statute. It ruled that the feds cannot commandeer local and state officials and compel them to enforce federal laws; the feds can enforce their own laws.

The federal compulsion, the court held, violated the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, which guarantees a representative form of government in every state. If the feds could enter a state and nullify the will of elected state officials not to spend state tax dollars, that would unconstitutionally impair representative government in those states.