Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you support the idea of 'sanctuary cities' or 'assault weapon sanctuary counties?'
I support both. 5 6.33%
I support sanctuary cites but not gun sanctuary counties. 3 3.80%
I support gun sanctuaries, but not illegal immigrant sanctuaries. 42 53.16%
I support neither. 29 36.71%
Voters: 79. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-17-2019, 08:49 AM
 
3,647 posts, read 3,783,666 times
Reputation: 5561

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1 View Post
Well, then they shouldn't complain if they get shot by some maniac with a gun that should never have had one.
It's still illegal to shoot someone, except in very specific circumstances. Plus, it's not like people who are likely to shoot police officers are buying legally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-17-2019, 08:50 AM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
33,942 posts, read 22,520,724 times
Reputation: 25816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler View Post
What's the difference in getting shot with a maniac that should't have had one and shot by an illegal alien that shouldn't have been here?
Should EITHER of those two fantasy individuals have access to purchase a gun in the US? And which one is statistically more likely?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,301 posts, read 2,354,214 times
Reputation: 1229
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
This is the path we are on.

Democrats are saying to not only have their states and cities not enforce federal law, but to actively not cooperate with federal law enforcement officials.

It is a road to anarchy. It is John C. Calhoun all over again.
I hope so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 08:52 AM
 
18,323 posts, read 10,658,251 times
Reputation: 8602
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
https://splinternews.com/rural-sheri...new-1832601514

According to the above, it is actually up to 16 sheriffs now, but I can't confirm that. The number 13 has been widely reported.

Last November, voters passed some much needed commonsense gun legislation. Among other things, it put certain restrictions on the sale of assault weapons, and required that all guns be unloaded and locked in a safe when not in use. Failure to do so will be a felony, when the law kicks in on July 1.

This is why I warned fellow liberals when the issue of 'sanctuary cities' emerged. Sure enough, now it looks like we're going to have 'sanctuary counties' for assault-style weapons. We do have an excellent state Attorney General who has warned the sheriffs that they need to enforce the new law, but the sheriffs seem undeterred.

https://www.heraldnet.com/northwest/...r-new-gun-law/
So County Sheriffs can pick and chose what laws they will enforce as long as they believe in those laws??? You got way bigger problems then gun control Jr.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 08:54 AM
Status: "everybody getting reported now.." (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
Even in liberal bastion San Fran they do
My post is about whether or not it is constitutional, not if they swear an oath to the Constitution.

Why did you think otherwise ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 09:07 AM
 
59,017 posts, read 27,290,738 times
Reputation: 14270
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
the difference is that Sanctuary cites operate entirely within the law. These sheriffs on the other hand are actually refusing to do their jobs which is enforcement.
"the difference is that Sanctuary cites operate entirely within the law."

Pleas list the sanctuary cites where the mayor does NOT take an oath of office which states, "Will faithfully support and defend the Constitution of the United States or something like that.

State of Ca. and San Fran:

"OATH OF OFFICESTATE OF CALIFORNIA } } City and County of San Francisco }I, _________________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will (Print Name) support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will beartrue faith and allegiance to theConstitution of the United States and the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation orpurpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter and during such time as I hold the office of ______________________________. (Job Title)Signature: _"

https://sfdhr.org/sites/default/files/documents/Forms-Documents/Oath-of-Office.pdf

Washington state.

RCW 43.01.020

Oath of office.

The governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, treasurer, auditor, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, commissioner of public lands, and insurance commissioner, shall, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation in substance as follows: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of (name of office) to the best of my ability."

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.01.020

"the difference is that Sanctuary cites operate entirely within the law."

Can you explain and defend your claim?

"8 U.S. Code § 1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

prev | next
(a) Criminal penalties (1) (A) Any person who— (i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

(v) (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

Last edited by Quick Enough; 02-17-2019 at 09:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 09:11 AM
 
59,017 posts, read 27,290,738 times
Reputation: 14270
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
This is the path we are on.

Democrats are saying to not only have their states and cities not enforce federal law, but to actively not cooperate with federal law enforcement officials.

It is a road to anarchy. It is John C. Calhoun all over again.

"Democrats are saying to not only have their states and cities not enforce federal law"


Yet let a major fire, hurricane, tornado are whatever happen and watch them cme crawling and screaming to Uncle Sam for HELP!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 09:28 AM
 
59,017 posts, read 27,290,738 times
Reputation: 14270
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
https://splinternews.com/rural-sheri...new-1832601514

According to the above, it is actually up to 16 sheriffs now, but I can't confirm that. The number 13 has been widely reported.

Last November, voters passed some much needed commonsense gun legislation. Among other things, it put certain restrictions on the sale of assault weapons, and required that all guns be unloaded and locked in a safe when not in use. Failure to do so will be a felony, when the law kicks in on July 1.

This is why I warned fellow liberals when the issue of 'sanctuary cities' emerged. Sure enough, now it looks like we're going to have 'sanctuary counties' for assault-style weapons. We do have an excellent state Attorney General who has warned the sheriffs that they need to enforce the new law, but the sheriffs seem undeterred.

https://www.heraldnet.com/northwest/...r-new-gun-law/
"commonsense gun legislation."

NOPE a total LACK of common sense. if fact it is just the OPPOSITE!

What good does it do to have a gun for protection if it IS LOCKED and UNLOADED in a safe when the armed bad guys break into your house at 3AM and you are in the dark, and don't DARE turn on a light and let them know you are awake which might alarm them?

How are you going to find the keys in the dark?

How are you going to open the safe in the dark?

How are you going to the RIGHT gun IN THE DARK?

How are yo going find the RIGHT ammo IN SAFE IN THE DARK?

How are you going LOAD the gun IN THE DARK?

ALL the while the bad guys are coming down your hallway only a few steps away and you are a nervous wreck!

Is your kids bedroom BEFORE yours?

This a perfect example why we CANNOT have "reasonable common sense" discussion with ant-gunners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 09:42 AM
 
59,017 posts, read 27,290,738 times
Reputation: 14270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Local LE was never mandated to enforce federal laws, so that is not new. As of today, none of the States which legalized pot enforce federal laws.

However, that was not the question at hand. The thread is about sheriffs enforcing local laws.
"The thread is about sheriffs enforcing local laws'

And what do the sheriffs do when the LOCAL law usurps the FEDERAL law when ALL officer's took an oath to "Faithfully support and defend the Continuation of the UNITED STATES"?

2nd amendment, "The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms shall NOT be infringed"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 09:46 AM
 
10,513 posts, read 5,164,155 times
Reputation: 14056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"The thread is about sheriffs enforcing local laws'

And what do the sheriffs do when the LOCAL law usurps the FEDERAL law when ALL officer's took an oath to "Faithfully support and defend the Continuation of the UNITED STATES"?

2nd amendment, "The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms shall NOT be infringed"
It is NOT -- and never has been -- the Sheriff's job to decide the constitutionality of a law. That's the job of the courts.

Any county sheriff that refuses to enforce a law should be dismissed from office for shirking their duty. Period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top