The Progressives believe that they can declare their cities and counties “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants where local officials do not have to cooperate with the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The mostly Democrat politicians who run those jurisdictions presume they can nullify federal laws on their turf.
John Calhoun was unavailable for comment, but local officials in other jurisdictions were.
According to Reuters, the sheriffs in many jurisdictions (including some here in Maryland) are saying that they will refuse to enforce unconstitutional firearm laws being passed by state legislatures. Over sixty cities and counties in Illinois have declared themselves sanctuaries for gun owners should pending legislation pass. In Oregon, voters in eight counties approved Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances last November that allow sheriffs to determine which state gun laws to enforce. More such ballot measure are on the way in that state.
If the New Rule is that local officials can nullify federal laws, then other local officials should also be able to nullify state laws. If the Progressives can do it, then surely we Normals (I like Kurt Schlichter’s term for us) can as well. Alinsky’s Rule 4 states: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
They’re not going to enjoy it.
Gabriella Hoffman has a post over at The Resurgent about a bill introduced into the Washington state legislature which would require the legislators who wish to introduce bills concerning the regulation fo firearms actually demonstrate that they understand what they are doing. The bill includes training requirements for legislators.
Contained in the senator’s bill would be the following requirements for those who desire to propose gun control legislation:
Washington State lawmakers who want to draft legislation will be required to pass the state’s criminal justice firearms training for each firearm they wish to regulate.
They’d have to complete classroom instruction and live-fire requirements to pass the test .
They would be required to range safety officer training
They must pass a knowledge test for calibers and gauges of firearms.
Read the whole thing.
A New York Senate bill would, if passed into law, require that the purchaser of any firearm
consent to have his or her social media accounts reviewed and investigated pursuant to subdivision four of this section …
Such a law would clearly violate rights secured by both the First and Second Amendments. Eugene Volokh offers an analysis of the bills constitutional deficiencies here and concludes with these words—
But remember: No-one is trying to take away your guns, or your freedom of speech.
Read the whole thing.
Andrew Ross Sorkin has an article over at NYT reporting that some people who have used firearms in mass shooting bought their guns using credit cards.
Well, duh. Most firearms cost at least several hundred dollars, and most purchases for items that expensive are paid for using either credit or debit cards. Fifty years ago, such purchases would have likely been paid for with checks. Either method is more secure than cash, but whether an electronic or a paper transaction, the funds would have been routed through the buyer’s and seller’s banks.
Sorkin seems to think that banks should be monitoring transactions related to firearms in order to … well, someone has to do something to keep those people in flyover country from buying guns. And if the government won’t because of that pesky Second Amendment, the banks should step forward.
<sarc>Maybe Sorkin is right. It could be that we have a problem with high-capacity credit cards falling into the wrong hands. The Progressive states limit access to normal-capacity firearm magazines to specially-approved individuals. Perhaps most people should be prohibited from possessing high-capacity credit cards and only be allowed debit cards with a ten-dollar daily limit. Anyone with a legitimate need to spend a larger sum can plan ahead and withdraw cash from his bank account in a face-to-face transaction that can be subjected to a proper background check.</sarc>
Seen at Instapundit—
SEEN ON FACEBOOK: “Jesus, NBC is still wallowing in the blood. The Borderline shooting is wall-to-wall, pictures of the shooter, his full name, teary next of kin of the victims. It’s like they want copycats.”
Well, of course! Back in the ’60s when I was working in broadcasting, the film crews (this was before portable video tape recorders) would get back with their evening reels, and decisions would have to be taken (choices are taken not made) about which film to develop first. Big car crashes or other disasters would always get processed ahead of the Metro Council meetings. NBC is sticking with an ancient form which has the advantage of also supporting their anti-Second-Amendment narrative.