The Conundrum

[Ishmael]

I'd say he's pretty much out of moves. This is the bed he made to sleep in. One of the primary justifications of the bill is that it presents no obstacle to the federal government enforcing federal law.

Then, damn well don't. Or suffer the appropriate consequences.

He staged this melodrama and now has no recourse but to allow it to play out.

Exactly. And the conundrum within the conundrum is that the local police WANT to cooperate with the Feds. I suspect that there's going to be a lot of 'back channel' communication lines opened up.

I posted this in another thread but here it is again. During the Obama admin. this region was averaging 1 deportation flight a month. Since June the region is averaging 2 flights per week with 2 bus loads of illegals per flight. And it must be remembered that ICE has been concentrating on ONLY those with criminal records. Given our low population density that's a LOT of criminals.

Ishmael

 

[KimGordon67]

Here, imho, is an even better question.

Why do we waste so much goddamned time arguing about the "need" for firearms with respect to specific applications, as if the "winner" of the argument had a dispositive basis for ignoring the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution? Why not just follow the law until public opinion is sufficient to persuade legislators to repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment itself in the specific manner by which the Constitution allows for such amendment?

Because having these debates is part of the process by which the public form their opinion?

 

[Rightguide]

Another nice find there, RG. And just off the top of my head, I'd say the California law stands in opposition to it. But it is also worth noting that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 which was the legislation from which 8 U.S. Code §1373 was codified predated the Supreme Court's decision in Printz by about nine months.

So based on both legal authority and timing, I'm going to guess that the legal principles in Printz reign supreme over the prohibitions of 8 USC §1373.

As in all things legal, however, the SCOTUS holdings in Printz technically only applies to the government's actions in that case. To my knowledge, 8 USC §1373 has never been reviewed by the Court for Constitutionality.

But my gut instinct says they would simply defer to Printz.

The case you reference probably supersedes De Canas v. Bica as well which basically held that state regulations regarding immigration will be preempted by federal law if they are determined to "regulate immigration."

It would seem to me a state law facilitating and shielding the illegal residence of an alien inside the country would be a "regulation of immigration." Especially if that law worked to undermine federal law, the immigration supremacy of Congress itself, and possibly the nation's sovereignty.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The case you reference probably supersedes De Canas v. Bica as well which basically held that state regulations regarding immigration will be preempted by federal law if they are determined to "regulate immigration."

It would seem to me a state law facilitating and shielding the illegal residence of an alien inside the country would be a "regulation of immigration." Especially if that law worked to undermine federal law, the immigration supremacy of Congress itself, and possibly the nation's sovereignty.

I understand where you're coming from, but technically they are not "shielding" or "regulating" anything. They are simply NOT doing the thing one would expect a state to do in supporting the federal laws ensuring security and lawfully exerting its sovereignty -- which is precisely why AG Sessions termed the California law "unconscionable."

It is unquestionably legal. But when you look at what the legislature and the governor have actually done, it sure as shit pales in comparison to an ordinary citizen taking a knee during the national anthem, imho.



OOPS! I meant precisely the opposite. The citizen taking the knee is FAR MORE justified than the disloyalty manifested by California's elected officials.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Because having these debates is part of the process by which the public form their opinion?

I would agree with you to the extent that such debates are prefatory to changing the law. But many of them are made in the context of why we don't have to obey the law as written. Those arguments are disingenuous.

 

[Rightguide]

I understand where you're coming from, but technically they are not "shielding" or "regulating" anything. They are simply NOT doing the thing one would expect a state to do in supporting the federal laws ensuring security and lawfully exerting its sovereignty -- which is precisely why AG Sessions termed the California law "unconscionable."

It is unquestionably legal. But when you look at what the legislature and the governor have actually done, it sure as shit pales in comparison to an ordinary citizen taking a knee during the national anthem, imho.

If a state can thwart the enforcement of federal immigration law, and it would seem to me to do just that. They are definitely refusing to comply with existing federal law. Why can't a state decide not to pay federal taxes, or allow it's citizens to be drafted into the armed forces? I understand what you're saying, that nothing in this law prevents the feds from enforcing immigration law on it's own.

In addition, have you seen this instruction from the Obama DOJ Michael E. Horowitz Inspector General in regard to a letter sent to Loretta Lynch by Congressman John Culberson, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce? At your leisure look it over and let me know what you think, I'd appreciate it:

https://www.scribd.com/document/331844205/DOJ-OIG-Sanctuary-Cities-Memo#from_embed

 

[Ishmael]

If a state can thwart the enforcement of federal immigration law, and it would seem to me to do just that. They are definitely refusing to comply with existing federal law. Why can't a state decide not to pay federal taxes, or allow it's citizens to be drafted into the armed forces? I understand what you're saying, that nothing in this law prevents the feds from enforcing immigration law on it's own.

In addition, have you seen this instruction from the Obama DOJ Michael E. Horowitz Inspector General in regard to a letter sent to Loretta Lynch by Congressman John Culberson, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce? At your leisure look it over and let me know what you think, I'd appreciate it:

https://www.scribd.com/document/331844205/DOJ-OIG-Sanctuary-Cities-Memo#from_embed

What they're doing is basically saying that they are not going to comply with an unfunded mandate. They are not going to hold 'detainee's' for the Feds. There's more than one SCOTUS ruling backing them up.

There are actions that congress can take if they have the balls.

Ishmael

 

[Paendragon]

in order to BOTH defend the nation from enemies AND defend the citizenry from the potential of tyranny imposed by a standing army answerable only to the government;

I find it interesting that people both want to be armed out of fear of the federal standing army, and want an enormous federal standing army.

It's like wanting a fire extinguisher in every home so we can employ a million pyromaniacs.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

If a state can thwart the enforcement of federal immigration law, and it would seem to me to do just that. They are definitely refusing to comply with existing federal law. Why can't a state decide not to pay federal taxes, or allow it's citizens to be drafted into the armed forces? I understand what you're saying, that nothing in this law prevents the feds from enforcing immigration law on it's own.

In addition, have you seen this instruction from the Obama DOJ Michael E. Horowitz Inspector General in regard to a letter sent to Loretta Lynch by Congressman John Culberson, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce? At your leisure look it over and let me know what you think, I'd appreciate it:

https://www.scribd.com/document/331844205/DOJ-OIG-Sanctuary-Cities-Memo#from_embed

What they're doing is basically saying that they are not going to comply with an unfunded mandate. They are not going to hold 'detainee's' for the Feds. There's more than one SCOTUS ruling backing them up.

There are actions that congress can take if they have the balls.

Ishmael

Given my reading of the Printz case, I'm going with Ish. You cannot use 8 USC §1373 to force state officials to enforce federal immigration law, even something as simple as holding detainees for the federal government or supplying information as to the immigrant status of those in local custody. For one thing, 8 USC §1373 is obviously administrative law, not criminal law. I can't even find the statutory penalties for its violation. You seem to be on top of this. Maybe you can.

But put yourself in DOJ's place based on the memo whose link you provided. Are you honestly going to try to prosecute 140 state and local jurisdictions when there is a Supreme Court precedent likely to kick you in the ass? But apart from whether the law is Constitutional, I simply don't think the law itself is enforceable on a prosecutorial basis.

Now, the reliance on 8 USC §1373 as a condition for the issuance of grant money is a whole other matter. If the statute has any teeth whatsoever, here is where the balance of power shifts. In fact, in what may be the ultimate example of "states' rights" chutzpah, California already has a pending suit challenging the federal government's right to withhold grant money to specific sanctuary cities as an ironic (but largely coincidental) prelude to its embrace of sanctuary status statewide. That was the link I offered to 4est_Gump earlier, but it wasn't the basis for his inquiry. But since its relevant to yours, here it is again: http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015d-e367-d6a8-ad7f-efff31190001.

And while I don't think they ultimately have a chance in hell on that score, the key word there is "ultimately." Do you really think they won't win at the District Court level and in the Ninth Circuit? C'mon, you can't be that naive.

So, that's the way things look to you these days if you're Alan Hanson. Hanson is the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs effective January 30, 2017 and took over from Karol Mason who was the recipient of the OIG memo you linked to. And it ain't a pretty picture. If you're Hanson and would like to walk softly and carry a big stick, you could do with a hell of a lot bigger stick.

Now, let's look at this from another angle. If you're a local official in a sanctuary city making, say between $100,000 to $135,000 a year, and when the feds come knocking -- even if you would LOVE to help them out -- what are YOU going to do? Risk your job on the hope that Trump's DOJ will back you up?

AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

Any more questions?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I find it interesting that people both want to be armed out of fear of the federal standing army, and want an enormous federal standing army.

It's like wanting a fire extinguisher in every home so we can employ a million pyromaniacs.

Well, back then they really didn't, although I doubt the Federalists of old would approve of the degree to which Federalism has prevailed today.

 

[Paendragon]

Well, back then they really didn't, although I doubt the Federalists of old would approve of the degree to which Federalism has prevailed today.

No doubt. I'm thinking many of the founding fathers would have hoped we'd have followed what's become the Switzerland model. A part of me wishes we did. It's a way to ensure the citizenry has some skin in the game.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

No doubt. I'm thinking many of the founding fathers would have hoped we'd have followed what's become the Switzerland model. A part of me wishes we did. It's a way to ensure the citizenry has some skin in the game.

The Swiss model only works for Switzerland. You realize all those banks simply hold other people's money, right?

There isn't that much incentive to invade and kick your ass when all you've basically got is snow and cheese. Oh, and watches. Nice watches.

But, to be sure, there is a security in being a less than tempting target or threatening aggressor.

 

[snugglestruggle]

But You know not only is California not cooperation with the feds but as a sanctuary state, many of their cities are issuing driver licenses, ID & other documentation to illegals.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

But You know not only is California not cooperation with the feds but as a sanctuary state, many of their cities are issuing driver licenses, ID & other documentation to illegals.

Not in violation of federal law.

The AB 60 license looks different than a regular California driver's license:

https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/ab60_license.jpg?itok=i_WzZVTA

On the front, it says, "federal limits apply." On the back, it says, "not acceptable for official federal purposes." What does this mean?

It means federal officials and out of state local law enforcement agencies are not obligated to accept your driver’s license as a form of identification.

Inside of California, your AB 60 license should be accepted by state and local law enforcement in the same way any other California ID or driver's license would be accepted (including for citations or arrests) whether you are driving or not. Also, it's illegal for state or local agencies or officials, or any program that receives state funds, to discriminate against you because of your AB 60 license.

Your immigration status is your business

State and local law enforcement officers can't use the fact that you have an AB 60 license to consider your citizenship or immigration status as the basis for criminal investigation, arrest or detention.

If you think you have been discriminated against by law enforcement because of your AB 60 license, please call (415) 621-2488 or click here to report it.

https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/california-ab-60-drivers-licenses

California has chosen a stupid and potentially dangerous policy re illegal immigrants. But it is legal and their choice.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well obviously I don't mean that.

This debate is stirred due to those shootings.. and other deaths of innocents for various reasons involving guns.. so i'm generalising that way and saying if in the past those deaths didn't change an opinion on gun laws, then a death of a loved one in the same manner shouldn't either.

the whole post, was quite clear.

Let me say this, the call for gun control comes mainly from people who don't know very much about guns. After every shooting we hear the calls for "common-sense gun control." However, until a week ago, I cannot recall any single advocate for limiting the Second Amendment's guaranteed rights offering a ban on bump stocks. They didn't even know they existed. We also hear for a ban on "assault rifles" which as far as anyone who knows anything about guns and their use can discern from the proposed "list" of "assault rifles" is that they are weapons that look scary to the ban advocates who ignore less scary looking weapons with the same, or even better capabilities.

Meanwhile, they piss and moan over the fact that we want to know who is coming to our country from unstable cultures and countries known to harbor and foster radical terrorists...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I find it interesting that people both want to be armed out of fear of the federal standing army, and want an enormous federal standing army.

It's like wanting a fire extinguisher in every home so we can employ a million pyromaniacs.

That standing Federal army is made up of people that do not even understand the antics of the Left...



In other words, we don;t fear our sons, daughters, brother sisters and other members of our family and community turning their guns on us at the behest of a government of tyrants.

 

[RobDownSouth]

That standing Federal army is made up of people that do not even understand the antics of the Left...

The quality of active-duty troops has increased enormously since your brief three week stint in the USMC. "Combat Weatherman"...tee hee.

 

[Bray123]

I frequently see the argument 'if you don't know everything there is to know about guns, you are not able to have a view on gun control'.

What a load of bollocks. Because I've not previously heard of bump stocks doesn't mean anything. It appears that they are devices for changing a device for killing individual humans at long range into a device for spraying bullets in the general direction of a crowd. The trigger and finger remains stationary and the gun jumps back and fore. I'm really impressed by the logic of that.

It's like saying that if you cannot explain the workings of Anti-Blockier Systems you cannot comment on road casualties. Call it Anti-Lock Braking? What a fucking moron, get out. I'm really clever about the technical phraseology therefore I'm qualified to drive around the city in a scrap-mobile at 100mph.

The fact is that the more guns are readily available, the more available they are to anyone who wants them. Like just because someone has no driving licence their ability to drive is not prohibited when there are cars everywhere. All they have to do is burgle your house and steal your keys and car.

Yet cars are essential to modern life, guns are not. The chance of Congress ordering the random arrest of your sad ass is zero. The chance of your demented brain thinking they might, is high.

 

[Rightguide]

Given my reading of the Printz case, I'm going with Ish. You cannot use 8 USC §1373 to force state officials to enforce federal immigration law, even something as simple as holding detainees for the federal government or supplying information as to the immigrant status of those in local custody. For one thing, 8 USC §1373 is obviously administrative law, not criminal law. I can't even find the statutory penalties for its violation. You seem to be on top of this. Maybe you can.

But put yourself in DOJ's place based on the memo whose link you provided. Are you honestly going to try to prosecute 140 state and local jurisdictions when there is a Supreme Court precedent likely to kick you in the ass? But apart from whether the law is Constitutional, I simply don't think the law itself is enforceable on a prosecutorial basis.

Now, the reliance on 8 USC §1373 as a condition for the issuance of grant money is a whole other matter. If the statute has any teeth whatsoever, here is where the balance of power shifts. In fact, in what may be the ultimate example of "states' rights" chutzpah, California already has a pending suit challenging the federal government's right to withhold grant money to specific sanctuary cities as an ironic (but largely coincidental) prelude to its embrace of sanctuary status statewide. That was the link I offered to 4est_Gump earlier, but it wasn't the basis for his inquiry. But since its relevant to yours, here it is again: http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015d-e367-d6a8-ad7f-efff31190001.

And while I don't think they ultimately have a chance in hell on that score, the key word there is "ultimately." Do you really think they won't win at the District Court level and in the Ninth Circuit? C'mon, you can't be that naive.

So, that's the way things look to you these days if you're Alan Hanson. Hanson is the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs effective January 30, 2017 and took over from Karol Mason who was the recipient of the OIG memo you linked to. And it ain't a pretty picture. If you're Hanson and would like to walk softly and carry a big stick, you could do with a hell of a lot bigger stick.

Now, let's look at this from another angle. If you're a local official in a sanctuary city making, say between $100,000 to $135,000 a year, and when the feds come knocking -- even if you would LOVE to help them out -- what are YOU going to do? Risk your job on the hope that Trump's DOJ will back you up?

AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

Any more questions?

I understand the politics of the issue but the legal issues are more confusing. Take for instance City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29, 33-35 (1999) in which the US Second Circuit Court ruled 8 USC 1373 does not run afoul of the Tenth Amendment:

"In the case of Sections 434 and 642, Congress has not compelled state and local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program. Nor has it affirmatively conscripted states, localities, or their employees into the federal government's service. These Sections do not directly compel states or localities to require or prohibit anything. Rather, they prohibit state and local governmental entities or officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. See Printz, 117 S.Ct. at 2376.

17
The City's sovereignty argument asks us to turn the Tenth Amendment's shield against the federal government's using state and local governments to enact and administer federal programs into a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs. If Congress may not forbid states from outlawing even voluntary cooperation with federal programs by state and local officials, states will at times have the power to frustrate effectuation of some programs. Absent any cooperation at all from local officials, some federal programs may fail or fall short of their goals unless federal officials resort to legal processes in every routine or trivial matter, often a practical impossibility. For example, resistance to Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), was often in the nature of a refusal by local government to cooperate until under a court order to do so.

18
A system of dual sovereignties cannot work without informed, extensive, and cooperative interaction of a voluntary nature between sovereign systems for the mutual benefit of each system. The operation of dual sovereigns thus involves mutual dependencies as well as differing political and policy goals. Without the Constitution, each sovereign could, to a degree, hold the other hostage by selectively withholding voluntary cooperation as to a particular program(s). The potential for deadlock thus inheres in dual sovereignties, but the Constitution has resolved that problem in the Supremacy Clause, which bars states from taking actions that frustrate federal laws and regulatory schemes. See Barnett Bank v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25, 31, 116 S.Ct. 1103, 134 L.Ed.2d 237 (1996) (citing Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941)).

19
We therefore hold that states do not retain under the Tenth Amendment an untrammeled right to forbid all voluntary cooperation by state or local officials with particular federal programs. Given that the City's challenge to Sections 434 and 642 is facial and that the Executive Order is on its face a mandatory non-cooperation directive relating solely to a particular federal program, we need not locate with precision the line between invalid federal measures that seek to impress state and local governments into the administration of federal programs and valid federal measures that prohibit states from compelling passive resistance to particular federal programs. It suffices to say that, at least in the context of the City's facial challenge, Sections 434 and 642 are of the latter variety."

https://openjurist.org/179/f3d/29/city-of-new-york-v-united-states

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I understand the politics of the issue but the legal issues are more confusing. Take for instance City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29, 33-35 (1999) in which the US Second Circuit Court ruled 8 USC 1373 does not run afoul of the Tenth Amendment:

"In the case of Sections 434 and 642, Congress has not compelled state and local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program. Nor has it affirmatively conscripted states, localities, or their employees into the federal government's service. These Sections do not directly compel states or localities to require or prohibit anything. Rather, they prohibit state and local governmental entities or officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. See Printz, 117 S.Ct. at 2376.

17
The City's sovereignty argument asks us to turn the Tenth Amendment's shield against the federal government's using state and local governments to enact and administer federal programs into a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs. If Congress may not forbid states from outlawing even voluntary cooperation with federal programs by state and local officials, states will at times have the power to frustrate effectuation of some programs. Absent any cooperation at all from local officials, some federal programs may fail or fall short of their goals unless federal officials resort to legal processes in every routine or trivial matter, often a practical impossibility. For example, resistance to Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), was often in the nature of a refusal by local government to cooperate until under a court order to do so.

18
A system of dual sovereignties cannot work without informed, extensive, and cooperative interaction of a voluntary nature between sovereign systems for the mutual benefit of each system. The operation of dual sovereigns thus involves mutual dependencies as well as differing political and policy goals. Without the Constitution, each sovereign could, to a degree, hold the other hostage by selectively withholding voluntary cooperation as to a particular program(s). The potential for deadlock thus inheres in dual sovereignties, but the Constitution has resolved that problem in the Supremacy Clause, which bars states from taking actions that frustrate federal laws and regulatory schemes. See Barnett Bank v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25, 31, 116 S.Ct. 1103, 134 L.Ed.2d 237 (1996) (citing Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941)).

19
We therefore hold that states do not retain under the Tenth Amendment an untrammeled right to forbid all voluntary cooperation by state or local officials with particular federal programs. Given that the City's challenge to Sections 434 and 642 is facial and that the Executive Order is on its face a mandatory non-cooperation directive relating solely to a particular federal program, we need not locate with precision the line between invalid federal measures that seek to impress state and local governments into the administration of federal programs and valid federal measures that prohibit states from compelling passive resistance to particular federal programs. It suffices to say that, at least in the context of the City's facial challenge, Sections 434 and 642 are of the latter variety."

https://openjurist.org/179/f3d/29/city-of-new-york-v-united-states

"You're killing me, Smalls!"

Seriously, RG, you're getting good at this. I'm impressed.

Essentially, the Second Circuit Court in the above entitled case distinguishes the principle established in Printz that states cannot be compelled under the 10th Amendment to act as federal government proxies in enforcing federal regulatory programs FROM states prohibiting or restricting state or local officials from voluntarily complying with federal government requests for exchange of information relative to such programs, as prohibited by 8 USC 1373 in particular.

My personal opinion is this is a distinction without a difference and will not stand for the following rationale which the Court, in your citation, acknowledged:

22
With regard to its argument concerning its power to direct its workforce, the City argues that inherent in our dual-sovereignty system is the power of state and local governments to determine the duties and responsibilities of their employees. In particular, it relies on Gregory v. Ashcroft, which stated:

23
[t]hrough the structure of its government, and the character of those who exercise government authority, a State defines itself as a sovereign. "It is obviously essential to the independence of the States, and to their peace and tranquility, that their power to prescribe the qualifications of their own officers ... should be exclusive, and free from external interference, except so far as plainly provided by the Constitution of the United States."

24
501 U.S. 452, 460, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991) (quoting Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548, 570-71 (1900)). Moreover, "[w]hatever the outer limits of state sovereignty may be, it surely encompasses the right to set the duties of office for state-created officials and to regulate the internal affairs of governmental bodies." Koog v. United States, 79 F.3d 452, 460 (5th Cir.1996).

25
The City's concerns are not insubstantial. The obtaining of pertinent information, which is essential to the performance of a wide variety of state and local governmental functions, may in some cases be difficult or impossible if some expectation of confidentiality is not preserved. Preserving confidentiality may in turn require that state and local governments regulate the use of such information by their employees. Finally, it is undeniable that Sections 434 and 642 do interfere with the City's control over confidential information obtained in the course of municipal business and over its employees' use of such information.

Yes, the Court then went on and repudiated that rationale in route to the conclusion it reached. The remaining unanswered question is, will the Supreme Court ever uphold the Second Circuit's distinguishing of Printz by City of New York if it gets the chance?

I don't think so. But, hey, I've been wrong before.

And all I've ever tried to do in this forum with regard to the law is focus people's attention and efforts in to doing EXACTLY the kind of research you have engaged in in your last several posts.

Well done. And thank you!

 

[EternalFantasies]

Let me say this, the call for gun control comes mainly from people who don't know very much about guns. After every shooting we hear the calls for "common-sense gun control." However, until a week ago, I cannot recall any single advocate for limiting the Second Amendment's guaranteed rights offering a ban on bump stocks. They didn't even know they existed. We also hear for a ban on "assault rifles" which as far as anyone who knows anything about guns and their use can discern from the proposed "list" of "assault rifles" is that they are weapons that look scary to the ban advocates who ignore less scary looking weapons with the same, or even better capabilities.

Meanwhile, they piss and moan over the fact that we want to know who is coming to our country from unstable cultures and countries known to harbor and foster radical terrorists...

Oh please. Now you're back peddling and changing the rhetoric simultaneously.


The point being, this thread is pointless.


http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view8/20140209/4974819/there-is-no-tomorrow-o.gif
"There is no Conundrum"

 

[Rightguide]

I frequently see the argument 'if you don't know everything there is to know about guns, you are not able to have a view on gun control'.

My opinion about bump stocks goes like this. Fully automatic weapons have been outlawed without federal licensing since 1934. If the purpose of those stocks is to circumvent the existing law and to facilitate the creation of cyclic rates of fire prohibited by the law then they should be banned and the law either updated to reflect that or repealed in it entirety as a violation of the Second Amendment. I suspect the NFA will be updated to reflect the latest thinking. I do not think it will stop somebody with a 3D printer from making his own or using bump firing techniques with finger and grip control that achieve the same effect.

 

[Rightguide]

"You're killing me, Smalls!"

Seriously, RG, you're getting good at this. I'm impressed.

Essentially, the Second Circuit Court in the above entitled case distinguishes the principle established in Printz that states cannot be compelled under the 10th Amendment to act as federal government proxies in enforcing federal regulatory programs FROM states prohibiting or restricting state or local officials from voluntarily complying with federal government requests for exchange of information relative to such programs, as prohibited by 8 USC 1373 in particular.

My personal opinion is this is a distinction without a difference and will not stand for the following rationale which the Court, in your citation, acknowledged:



Yes, the Court then went on and repudiated that rationale in route to the conclusion it reached. The remaining unanswered question is, will the Supreme Court ever uphold the Second Circuit's distinguishing of Printz by City of New York if it gets the chance?

I don't think so. But, hey, I've been wrong before.

And all I've ever tried to do in this forum with regard to the law is focus people's attention and efforts in to doing EXACTLY the kind of research you have engaged in in your last several posts.

Well done. And thank you!

Thanks, I appreciate that Colonel. I'm a little conflicted with a state governor who signs a law that causes an employee, sworn to uphold the Constitution, to possibly violate his oath of office and frustrate, hinder, through noncooperation, the constitutional functions of the federal government to enforce federal law. I have no doubt about how the 9th Circuit will come down on this, but I'm not sure about the SCOTUS.

To me this law encourages illegal aliens to enter the United States and when you have the state providing such inducements as college tuition the possibility of a violation of Title 8, U.S.C. 1324 comes into question:

Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- 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.

Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- 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.

Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

Bringing Aliens to the United States -- Subsection 1324(a)(2) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1324a-offenses

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I frequently see the argument 'if you don't know everything there is to know about guns, you are not able to have a view on gun control'.

What a load of bollocks. Because I've not previously heard of bump stocks doesn't mean anything. It appears that they are devices for changing a device for killing individual humans at long range into a device for spraying bullets in the general direction of a crowd. The trigger and finger remains stationary and the gun jumps back and fore. I'm really impressed by the logic of that.

It's like saying that if you cannot explain the workings of Anti-Blockier Systems you cannot comment on road casualties. Call it Anti-Lock Braking? What a fucking moron, get out. I'm really clever about the technical phraseology therefore I'm qualified to drive around the city in a scrap-mobile at 100mph.

The fact is that the more guns are readily available, the more available they are to anyone who wants them. Like just because someone has no driving licence their ability to drive is not prohibited when there are cars everywhere. All they have to do is burgle your house and steal your keys and car.

Yet cars are essential to modern life, guns are not. The chance of Congress ordering the random arrest of your sad ass is zero. The chance of your demented brain thinking they might, is high.

Yeah, and I'm tired of being told that I have no ground to stand upon on the topic of abortion because I'm a man. Not because I haven't studied the subject in order to make a rational argument as to why I oppose it, but because of the emotional reaction to anyone who might have qualms about taking a life. On the other hand, here you are, like them, with an emotional appeal seemingly proud of you lack of knowledge on the subject.

The fact of the matter is, as I stated before and you probably missed, the emotional appeal to the deaths caused by the followers of Allah, we are told, have to be dismissed, because we taint the entire religion because of a tiny number of bad actors, and yet here you are, tainting all of those whom own guns with a tiny minority of bad actors.

Islam killed 3,000+ in one day...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Another conundrum...


If Christians refuse to partake in gay marriage ceremonies, they are destroyed by Progressive-Liberal America, because they are doing business "publicly."

Yet, I wonder if anything will be heard, said, or done to the Gay coffee shop owner who turned on his patrons and turned them out because they are Christian?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/06/a...christians-drinking-coffee-in-his-shop-video/