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.
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.
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.
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.
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 sheriffs take an oath to uphold the Constitution. This law violates it.
THE OATH
PEACE OFFICER OATH OF OFFICE, State of California
California Constitution Article 20, Sec. 3. Misc. Subjects
[Required Oath of Office ]
” I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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 bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
You believe it does, no court has agreed with you.
TO be clear, It doesnt though.
The part about having to keep the gun locked in a safe and unloaded will probably be struck down. Depends on how liberal/activist a court can be drummed up, though. Basically, as long as the firearms you have aren't restricted themselves, the state doesn't have much of a legal leg to stand on when it comes to what you do with your legally owned property in your own home. The other part of this is enforceability. How does the state propose to enforce this law? No-knock warrants/surprise home inspections? This law is idiotic, at best. Unconstitutional, really.
As for regulations on those "assault weapons", this is going to have to be decided by SCOTUS one of these days. Going by their own rulings, we have two somewhat contradictory statements. The first is that the 2nd Amendment can restrict type of weapons. The second is that the 2nd Amendment applies to weapons in "common use". The AR-15 platform/style of gun is definitely in "common use", regardless of how you try to define that term.
The reason I say somewhat contradictory is specifically due to the argument over whether semi-auto rifles are "assault weapons". Obviously machine guns aren't common, and they are regulated. No conflict there. As for the AR-15 and similar looking rifles, their function is really no different than other semi-auto rifles that don't have features like a top rail or pistol grip. If the courts eventually decide that they can be restricted, then by virtue of that ruling, all semi-auto rifles are going to be subject to the same ruling. Then they'll have contradicted their own "common use" ruling.
I'm sure this is a huge reason SCOTUS has so far refused to hear any related cases. They don't want to be seen as 'putting weapons of war on the streets', but they can't well take away all semi-auto rifles, either.
Last edited by swilliamsny; 02-17-2019 at 09:12 AM..
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.
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.
