Posted by: TEEBONE ® |
Author Profile Mail author Edit
|Second Amendment ‘sanctuaries’ will never hold up in court|
Submitted by: email@example.com">Mark A. Taff
These resolutions, to the extent they conflict with state law, lack legal effect: In Tazewell County, Va., for example, the “Sanctuary Resolution” approved by the board of supervisors purports to prohibit any county employee from enforcing, and any county funds from being used for the enforcement of, new state gun laws the county deems unconstitutional. But Virginia state law prohibits local governments from enacting ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with state laws and, more directly, specifically prohibits local governments from regulating firearms.
|Comment by: hisself (1/9/2020)|
|Since the county sheriff takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the US, and the 2nd Amendment guarantees that the government shall not infringe on the God-given right to keep and bear arms, it is hard to see how the sanctuaries will NOT hold up in court.|
It is the gun-grabbers who should be worried!
|Comment by: jac (1/9/2020)|
|It might not be technically lawful, but so long as the local law enforcement do not enforce unconstitutional laws it will have the desired effect.|
It should also send a message to the democrats that are pushing unconstitutional laws.
|Comment by: PHORTO (1/9/2020)|
|"clear limitations on gun rights"?|
Buy a clue. The limitation in the Bill of Rights is on the GOVERNMENT, not on the people.
The precedents of U.S. v. Miller (1939), D.C. v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) form the outline of those limitations: individual right unconnected with service in a militia, in common use, reasonable relationship to the efficiency of a militia, could contribute to the common defense, or any part of the ordinary military equipment.
It could not be more clear.
LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATEDemocrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.