Any talk of Indiana 2A Sanctuary counties or cities yet?

[jamil]

I'm kinda torn on sanctuary counties. "Sanctuary cities" don't enforce certain immigration laws. "Sanctuary counties" don't enforce certain gun laws. If we don't like sanctuary cities, but we do like sanctuary counties, can we say we're in favor of rule of law? Isn't it more that we just don't like it when they do it, but it's okay when we do it? I don't think it's that simple. It's kinda the same in that the people who are trying to subvert the immigration laws believe that they're immoral, and the people who are trying to subvert certain gun laws believe that they're unconstitutional. They're both trying to do what they think is right.

There are some significant differences though. The people supporting sanctuary cities against immigration laws are activists trying to change the US from a nation with borders into a nation without borders. The people supporting sanctuary counties are advocates who want to preserve their rights in opposition to activists who want to take them away. Also, it's not a constitutional right for non-citizens to live here. It is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I favor rule of law. The law provides a mechanism to handle unjust or unconstitutional laws. I would prefer we go that route. The problem with that is effectively, might makes right. Might makes right is the rule of men, and it's just what it is. As long as people can coerce the rule of law such that it is what the powerful people say it is, the mechanisms to handle unjust or unconstitutional laws are ineffective. The idea of nullification becomes inflamed when laws are widely different from a community's expectation.

The desire for nullification is a deterministic behavior in society and manifests the culture war we're having now. We are deeply divided. One side wants open borders and disarmed citizens. The other side wants walls along borders, and armed citizens. And all points in between. I don't think rule of law can survive a deeply divided nation. Rule of law works when people mostly respect the laws. As society evolves those laws evolve too. We're in a different place here and it's just not that simple.

I'm not sure sanctuaries from the laws we don't like are the answer but the fact that we're seeing a lot of support for them on both sides is a bellwether of worse things lurking.

 

[KLB]

Jamil, I think you missed one important point. The immigration sanctuaries are not helping others to enforce laws, not failing to enforce laws they should/can. The 2A counties are saying they will willfully not enforce laws.

 

[jamil]

Jamil, I think you missed one important point. The immigration sanctuaries are not helping others to enforce laws, not failing to enforce laws they should/can. The 2A counties are saying they will willfully not enforce laws.

Can you recheck this to make sure it’s saying what you intend? I don’t want to comment on it until I know what you mean.

 

[KLB]

Can you recheck this to make sure it’s saying what you intend? I don’t want to comment on it until I know what you mean.

How about this
The immigration sanctuaries are not actively assisting the Feds to enforce Federal laws, not failing to enforce laws they should/can. The 2A counties are saying they will willfully not enforce laws that they should.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm kinda torn on sanctuary counties. "Sanctuary cities" don't enforce certain immigration laws. "Sanctuary counties" don't enforce certain gun laws. If we don't like sanctuary cities, but we do like sanctuary counties, can we say we're in favor of rule of law? Isn't it more that we just don't like it when they do it, but it's okay when we do it? I don't think it's that simple. It's kinda the same in that the people who are trying to subvert the immigration laws believe that they're immoral, and the people who are trying to subvert certain gun laws believe that they're unconstitutional. They're both trying to do what they think is right.

There is a meaningful difference between declaring refusal to enforce righteous laws based on policy you disagree with and declaring refusal to enforce laws that inherently violate constitutional protections of natural rights. One class of Sanctuary movement is based upon challenging the authority of Rule of Law; the other class of Sanctuary movement is based upon upholding the authority of Rule of Law.

"Rule of Law" in our country is defined by the Constitution (though I would argue that Rule of Law is also founded/based upon moral principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence). Rule of Law also enumerates authority to the State to define, enforce, and protect borders, immigration, and citizenship. Rule of Law also explicitly and absolutely restricts the State from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[EPeter213]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding of the 2A sanctuary county agreement is not a refusal to enforce current state laws, but a pledge not to enforce any new restrictions of the 2A.

I hesitate to call it ‘feel good’ action, because it does serve a purpose. It’s intended to put state legislators on notice that we will not tolerate further infringement of our 2A rights.

“Not one more inch.”

 

[Brad69]

So let me get this straight !

Situation #1
So Indiana elects Bloomberg jr. and all Democratic legislative body which enact laws that are deemed unconstitutional. Lets say a AWB, a one a month law, background check for ammo.

The counties would not enforce the state laws ?
So business would continue to sell weapons and ammo like the laws were never passed?
Law enforcing agencies would ignore the laws?


Situation #2
The federal government passes new restrictions?

What happens?

I don’t see where it hurts anything to declare a 2AD sanctuary I just don’t get what functionality will come out of it.

I am declaring my property a tax free zone in addition to a 2AD sanctuary lets see how that works out!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Lawrence County has a rally scheduled for Feb 22 at noon at the court house square.

They’re having a planning meeting today at 11am.

 

[jamil]

Sorry about bringing this back up after days. I think I accidentally unsubscribed to this thread due to phat phingers. But anyway, I thought I should reply.

How about this
The immigration sanctuaries are not actively assisting the Feds to enforce Federal laws, not failing to enforce laws they should/can. The 2A counties are saying they will willfully not enforce laws that they should.

That's what I thought you were saying but I'll restate it.

• Immigration sanctuaries are not actively assisting the feds to enforce federal immigration laws. Agreed.
• Immigration sanctuaries are not failing to enforce laws they're compelled within their jurisdiction to enforce. Well. I agree and disagree. Immigration laws are federal, yes. Local law enforcement is not compelled to enforce federal laws, though they may through agreements with federal agencies. But that point seems to me a distinction without much practical difference when sanctuary cities have policies which actively thwart federal agencies from enforcing federal laws.
• 2A counties are saying that they will not enforce laws which they are responsible to enforce. Agreed.

My point was that being against sanctuary cities (non-enforcement of immigration laws) but in favor of sanctuary counties (non-enforcement of gun control laws) seems like a proposition where it's not okay for them, but it is okay for us, for technical reasons. I'm looking for principled reasons. I really don't see the above as a logical argument against that point. It still smells like "okay for me, but not for thee".

One principled reason is that the 2A is in the constitution. Okay. Sure. But citizenship/immigration is too. The fed obviously has constitutional jurisdictional authority over immigration policy. And while it's true enough that local authorities don't have to enforce the federal immigration laws, they're actively, effectively trying to recreate immigration enforcement policy within their own sanctuaries, contrary to the Federal government's constitutional authority.

And like I said. I want to like the idea of supporting sanctuary counties. But I don't want to like the idea of supporting sanctuary cities. The people "citizens" have a right to keep and bear arms, where "citizens" is defined by the federal government. I want both laws sanely enforced. Protect my rights. Enforce immigration laws.

 

[jamil]

There is a meaningful difference between declaring refusal to enforce righteous laws based on policy you disagree with and declaring refusal to enforce laws that inherently violate constitutional protections of natural rights. One class of Sanctuary movement is based upon challenging the authority of Rule of Law; the other class of Sanctuary movement is based upon upholding the authority of Rule of Law.

"Rule of Law" in our country is defined by the Constitution (though I would argue that Rule of Law is also founded/based upon moral principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence). Rule of Law also enumerates authority to the State to define, enforce, and protect borders, immigration, and citizenship. Rule of Law also explicitly and absolutely restricts the State from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.

I get that point. But see above. About the point of restricting the State from infringing upon the RKBA, right now, in a practical sense, that's a subjective matter. It should not be. But it is. I kinda think that the courts should sort out both issues. Is it okay for sanctuary cities to enact their own de facto immigration policy contrary to the sole authority of the federal government to do so? Is it okay for sanctuary counties to enact their own de facto gun laws contrary to the State's authority to write and enforce laws? I think it's logically difficult to say yes or no to one and not the other. Sanctuary cities are already a thing and sanctuary counties are becoming a thing. Both should be challenged in court. We'll see what happens then.

I kinda think "it's fine for me but not for thee" will be the rule of practical law. I want to have a nation of laws; rule of law. That's the principle behind free and just societies. It's the only way they can function long term. But that's not what we have today. This may go to SCOTUS. In today's makeup, it'll be a partisan vote, where the swing vote (Kavanaugh) decides.

 

[KLB]

I get that point. But see above. About the point of restricting the State from infringing upon the RKBA, right now, in a practical sense, that's a subjective matter. It should not be. But it is. I kinda think that the courts should sort out both issues. Is it okay for sanctuary cities to enact their own de facto immigration policy contrary to the sole authority of the federal government to do so? Is it okay for sanctuary counties to enact their own de facto gun laws contrary to the State's authority to write and enforce laws? I think it's logically difficult to say yes or no to one and not the other. Sanctuary cities are already a thing and sanctuary counties are becoming a thing. Both should be challenged in court. We'll see what happens then.

I kinda think "it's fine for me but not for thee" will be the rule of practical law. I want to have a nation of laws; rule of law. That's the principle behind free and just societies. It's the only way they can function long term. But that's not what we have today. This may go to SCOTUS. In today's makeup, it'll be a partisan vote, where the swing vote (Kavanaugh) decides.

The problem I see with the Rule of Law is that the number of laws just keeps growing and growing. We have so many levels of government and they all think they need to pass more and more laws. I would love to see one take a serious crack at removing laws for once.

 

[jamil]

The problem I see with the Rule of Law is that the number of laws just keeps growing and growing. We have so many levels of government and they all think they need to pass more and more laws. I would love to see one take a serious crack at removing laws for once.

That’s a function of it not really being a nation of laws. Everyone with a cause has a law in mind which enforces their cause’s solution. It’s always a law. I’d like to see the next speaker commit to rolling back 2 laws for every law they pass. (For all the smartasses, I don’t mean recursively)

 

[Wolfhound]

 

[Dead Duck]

According to that map, my county was denied. When did I even have a say in it?

Where and when is that from?

 

[Wolfhound]

According to that map, my county was denied. When did I even have a say in it?

Where and when is that from?

The map is from the Indiana 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Movement. They are active on Facebook. Their mission is to get as many Indiana Counties to confirm 2nd Amendment sanctuary status as possible. That particular update was as of 2/7/2020 at 9:30pm.

Counties that are in denied status can still be lobbied and changed or you can vote the bums out that are denying the sanctuary movement.

I recommend joining the group and finding out why the status was denied and by whom. It is free to join and it is all volunteers.

 

[Dead Duck]

Ya that would require SnapFace time which I don't do.
I did find out who they say my county rep is and contacted him asap to sign up or whatever but I never got any response. So here I sit in liberal land.

We also have a republican headquarters in town which I can never find open with no phone number anywhere and the only email info I get the same response. Nothing. The last election for mayor here I searched everywhere to find our republican candidate. We didn't have one. The dick wins unopposed. I feel hopeless.

 

[Wolfhound]

Ya that would require SnapFace time which I don't do.
I did find out who they say my county rep is and contacted him asap to sign up or whatever but I never got any response. So here I sit in liberal land.

We also have a republican headquarters in town which I can never find open with no phone number anywhere and the only email info I get the same response. Nothing. The last election for mayor here I searched everywhere to find our republican candidate. We didn't have one. The dick wins unopposed. I feel hopeless.

I would give them 24 hours to respond. It's Sunday night and some folks (not me) have a social life.

The political winds can shift. Don't give up.

 

[Dead Duck]

It was 3 weeks ago.

 

[Wolfhound]

It was 3 weeks ago.

Oh, sorry I misunderstood. Sadly we will probably never get all the counties in Indiana onboard. Marion and Monroe are certainly long shots as are a few others up North.

There is a contact link on their page here: https://in2aunited.com/

 

[jamil]

It was 3 weeks ago.

C’mon man. Keep up. He said 24 hours not 3 weeks.