'Second Amendment Sanctuary' movement called a 'childish pity party' by Democratic governor
Source: USA Today
Joel Shannon, USA TODAY Published 9:32 p.m. ET Feb. 28, 2019
The governor of New Mexico took to Twitter on Tuesday and criticized a wave of "Second Amendment Sanctuary" resolutions passed by counties across the state.
More than half of the state's 33 counties have passed resolutions in opposition to a series of what they called gun control bills being considered by the state Legislature. Such sanctuary resolutions often say sheriffs should not have to enforce measures they consider unconstitutional. Officials have said the resolutions are symbolic in nature.
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, criticized the movement in a series of Tweets: "A few law enforcement officers in this state have been making noise about how they wont enforce gun safety measures because they dont like them. Thats not how laws work, of course, and its not how oaths of office work either."
Grisham wrote she would continue to advocate for gun reforms, despite "NRA propaganda, rogue sheriffs throwing a childish pity party or bad-faith critics."
Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/28/new-mexico-governor-criticizes-second-amendment-sanctuary-movement/3022175002/
TygrBright
(20,763 posts)She is doing an AMAZING job.
delightedly,
Bright
duhneece
(4,116 posts)My County Commissioner rode horses to DC to shake hands with trump. See Facebooks Cowboys for Trump. I filed an Ethics Complaint
Turin_C3PO
(14,033 posts)is overwhelmingly blue and liberal. We do have a few too many gun humpers though. Oh and screw our so called Democratic sheriff Frank Gomez for being the leader of this circus.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,881 posts)She's already so much better than the awful Susanna Martinez.
pecosbob
(7,542 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)KPN
(15,649 posts)Oregon they have already challenged federal law enforcement on federal public lands politically -- making the same kinds of statements: "we won't enforce federal laws where we disagree with those laws/regulations; we will not enforce any federal law/regulation that infringes on our citizens' constitutional rights".
They call themselves Constitutional Sheriffs and oppose gun regulation as well as sanctuary cities and any State limitations on cooperation with ICE. In short, they are radical right-wingers.
The federal regulations/laws in themselves won't fix this. That will require either a constitutional amendment to the 2nd Amendment that redefines the "right to bear arms", or public enlightenment, or both.
jcmaine72
(1,773 posts)shows what vile creatures they are.
The tide of history and progress is not on their side. They better enjoy their little shit show now while they can.
J_William_Ryan
(1,756 posts)Only the courts have the authority to determine if a given firearm regulatory measure is Constitutional or not not local county sheriffs.
forklift
(401 posts)and its childish antics supported with the same zeal as a 3 year old who refuses to put the toys away at bedtime.
CDerekGo
(507 posts)State over Local - Federal over State. If you don't like, there's always Canada, where Gun Laws are even more extreme.
forthemiddle
(1,382 posts)What about marijuana, or how about sanctuary cities?
Just asking......
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)Parameters of State Regulation and Enforcement
States, not the federal government, are the principal purveyors of criminal codes. Congress' authority to enact criminal laws is greatly circumscribed by the Constitution.
Only when federal and state laws directly conflict is federal law supreme. When there is no direct conflict, states retain the authority to legislate as they see fit.
And from SCOTUS: Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
The federal government violated the Tenth Amendment when Congress required state and local officials to perform background checks on people buying guns.
The 10A: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
IMHO, states have the general power and duty to enact and enforce laws governing criminal behavior within the state. Areas where the federal government has nexus are limited to those areas proscribed within the Constitution.
In my humblest opinion, Congress and federal law enforcement is not the band aid to fix issues within states. The New Mexico Governor herself demonstrated the independence of states from the federal government by withdrawing NG troops from the Mexico border in spite of the "national security crisis" trump claims exists. That door swings both ways.
Mustellus
(328 posts)The Second Amendment says "arms", not "guns".
And the NRA opposes private ownership of nuclear weapons. I need one for protection. (Just one, admittedly... ) And those namby pamby librls at the NRA sold out the Constitution to get their guns... and sold the rest of us responsible nuclear physicists down the river.*
(and now that we've established that there's a line where private ownership of weaponry ends.. lets discuss where that line should be.... )
* PS: this is sarcasm FBI. I'm kidding.
melm00se
(4,994 posts)immigration statutes and offer sanctuary status" - yeah for them
"we won't enforce gun control legislation and off sanctuary status" - they are nothing but a bunch of shitheads.
hmmmm.....
ProfessorGAC
(65,159 posts)Local officials failing to enforce their own STATE laws is not the same as ignoring fed laws within state jurisdiction.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)"More than half of the state's 33 counties have passed resolutions in opposition to..."
Fed vs local. State vs local.
ProfessorGAC
(65,159 posts)They are not paid to enforce federal laws. There are other agencies for that.
Those 33 counties do not have the power to decide what state laws are. That's for the state legislature.
Hence, choosing to not enforce the state law is a failure to do the job for which they're compensated.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)...I guess it's okay.
I smell a lawsuit.
ProfessorGAC
(65,159 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)When I vote, I vote for all of that person. I am thankful that there are folks who will exercise their own judgement rather than simply follow all their orders.
Superior orders, often known as the Nuremberg defense, lawful orders or by the German phrase Befehl ist Befehl (an order is an order), is a plea in a court of law that a personwhether a member of the military, law enforcement, a firefighting force, or the civilian populationnot be held guilty for actions ordered by a superior officer or an official.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,335 posts)We see state governments using emergency powers to step in and firing local officials in states like Michigan.
Since counties and cities are created under state charters can the state sanction or fire local law enforcement for failing to follow the law?
christx30
(6,241 posts)if the local law enforcement person is elected or if they are appointed. Elected sheriffs have enormous power. And as long as the voters are happy with their performance, they can pretty much do whatever they want, writhing the bounds of the constitution. And you cant just fire someone that was elected.
So I guess it just depends on how the local voters feel about state gun laws.
Coventina
(27,169 posts)BumRushDaShow
(129,376 posts)they do JUST what this Democratic governor is doing, but go one step further by enacting legislation that disallows mostly Democratic counties (usually urban areas) from imposing stricter rules to enhance the lax or non-existent state rules.
BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)Anywhere in these United States. They are a vestige of the past and have no place in modern society. Any fucking cop who says they will decide which laws they will enforce based on their personal beliefs needs to lose their paycheck and their pension.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Fuck their feelings.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)Which proposed or passed law will do that exactly?
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)EX500rider
(10,849 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 3, 2019, 06:52 PM - Edit history (1)
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Devil Child
(2,728 posts)How? Seems in some locations "getting the guns" might be difficult if the law enforcement agencies are choosing to just say no to enforcing the new restrictions.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)EX500rider
(10,849 posts)I figured it was West Wing but I guess it's from some movie.
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Looks like you can see what you missed with a rental at amazon or streaming service of your choice.
Maxheader
(4,373 posts)If you take just one gun off the streets, even though the probability is infinitesimal..it will save a life.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)Well with over 300 million guns and about 10,000 firearm homicides per year taking one gun off the streets does indeed have a infinitesimal chance of preventing a homicide.
The chances of it backfiring and getting more Pro-NRA Republicans elected though is significantly higher.