This California town wants to be a 2nd Amendment 'sanctuary city'

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Interesting..although if I were forced to live in Needles...I'd have to give my guns away...lest I depart to
Hell..where it's warmer!


This California town wants to be a 2nd Amendment 'sanctuary city' for guns and ammo

"Last month, other city leaders followed the Needles councilman's suggestion and declared this town along the Colorado River a "sanctuary city" for the 2nd Amendment.
The collision of liberal and conservative buzzwords was meant to be a poke in the eye to the Golden State — the heart of the liberal "resistance" against a president voters in Needles overwhelmingly supported in 2016. And likely will again in 2020. This conservative small town is part of California, but also quite apart from it. Those big-city politicians making laws in Sacramento, many people here are convinced, don't give one damn about a place like Needles.
In the coming months, city officials hope to somehow cajole the state to allow Needles and possibly other border towns to be exempt from rules on purchasing ammunition, which would allow people here to buy ammo from out of state, and honor concealed carry permits for people who have obtained them outside California.
"For so long we've had to deal with the laws as they are," said Mayor Jeff Williams. "It was time to stand up and say, 'Enough.'""

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Why not? Once California declares itself above the law it just becomes a matter of which laws one wishes to ignore.
On principle, Needles wins, easily! Why is immigration enforcement immune from the law but not gun rights?

Does Gavin Newsom think laws are a buffet style matter where you only enforce the ones you like? (yes, he does obviously)

I doubt a hellish outpost like Needles has the resources to fight Sacramento in court but perhaps some pro gun and public interest groups could defend Needles and bring this matter to court.

I would chip in to see Needles take on the corrupt bullies in the state house. I spent fifty years in California from their best years to their worst. My son still lives there. I think I have a stake in the matter.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Why not? Once California declares itself above the law it just becomes a matter of which laws one wishes to ignore.
On principle, Needles wins, easily! Why is immigration enforcement immune from the law but not gun rights?

Does Gavin Newsom think laws are a buffet style matter where you only enforce the ones you like? (yes, he does obviously)

I doubt a hellish outpost like Needles has the resources to fight Sacramento in court but perhaps some pro gun and public interest groups could defend Needles and bring this matter to court.

I would chip in to see Needles take on the corrupt bullies in the state house. I spent fifty years in California from their best years to their worst. My son still lives there. I think I have a stake in the matter.

It seems you have a fundamental misapprehension as to how the whole 'sanctuary' thing works. There is no one ignoring any laws. It is not the states responsibility to enforce immigration law..and there is no law that says that anyone need be held for federal authorities. Do i agree with this/ No, I do not. But the law is the law..and your whole argument ..that some laws are being ignored in favor of others is incorrect.

 

[mudwhistle]

Why not? Once California declares itself above the law it just becomes a matter of which laws one wishes to ignore.
On principle, Needles wins, easily! Why is immigration enforcement immune from the law but not gun rights?

Does Gavin Newsom think laws are a buffet style matter where you only enforce the ones you like? (yes, he does obviously)

I doubt a hellish outpost like Needles has the resources to fight Sacramento in court but perhaps some pro gun and public interest groups could defend Needles and bring this matter to court.

I would chip in to see Needles take on the corrupt bullies in the state house. I spent fifty years in California from their best years to their worst. My son still lives there. I think I have a stake in the matter.

I've been to Needles.....it was 110 degrees.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Why not? Once California declares itself above the law it just becomes a matter of which laws one wishes to ignore.
On principle, Needles wins, easily! Why is immigration enforcement immune from the law but not gun rights?

Does Gavin Newsom think laws are a buffet style matter where you only enforce the ones you like? (yes, he does obviously)

I doubt a hellish outpost like Needles has the resources to fight Sacramento in court but perhaps some pro gun and public interest groups could defend Needles and bring this matter to court.

I would chip in to see Needles take on the corrupt bullies in the state house. I spent fifty years in California from their best years to their worst. My son still lives there. I think I have a stake in the matter.

It seems you have a fundamental misapprehension as to how the whole 'sanctuary' thing works. There is no one ignoring any laws. It is not the states responsibility to enforce immigration law..and there is no law that says that anyone need be held for federal authorities. Di i agree with this/ No, I do not. But the law is the law..and your whle argument ..that some laws are being ignored in favor of others is incorrect.

Nope! With all due respect you are wrong and I've heard this argument so many times I could refute it in my sleep.

The overall effect of California's sanctuary policy is one that assists and aids illegal aliens in committing their crimes.
Look up what "sanctuary" is. It was originally a place where the church would offer refuge where the King and his forces could not remove you. Literally it is a place where people
who are criminals are free from the consequences of their crimes.
By what right does California aid criminals with impunity?

I could argue that technically California does break the law by forbidding all contact between state officials of any sort and federal immigration agents (a line is crossed from non cooperation to outright opposition) but there is no need because state sanctuary policy itself is illegal in the very real sense that a safe house for gang members is illegal because it facilitates the commission of crimes.

You are just wrong. No shame there. Perhaps you have listened too much to left wing jibber jabber and sophistry.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting..although if I were forced to live in Needles...I'd have to give my guns away...lest I depart to
Hell..where it's warmer!


This California town wants to be a 2nd Amendment 'sanctuary city' for guns and ammo

"Last month, other city leaders followed the Needles councilman's suggestion and declared this town along the Colorado River a "sanctuary city" for the 2nd Amendment.
The collision of liberal and conservative buzzwords was meant to be a poke in the eye to the Golden State — the heart of the liberal "resistance" against a president voters in Needles overwhelmingly supported in 2016. And likely will again in 2020. This conservative small town is part of California, but also quite apart from it. Those big-city politicians making laws in Sacramento, many people here are convinced, don't give one damn about a place like Needles.
In the coming months, city officials hope to somehow cajole the state to allow Needles and possibly other border towns to be exempt from rules on purchasing ammunition, which would allow people here to buy ammo from out of state, and honor concealed carry permits for people who have obtained them outside California.
"For so long we've had to deal with the laws as they are," said Mayor Jeff Williams. "It was time to stand up and say, 'Enough.'""

I suggest you visit needles this month (August). Of course only mad dogs and English men will be there to meet you.

At this time (13:35) it is 117 degrees with an 11 mph wind, you can fry a burger on the hood of your car.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“This California town wants to be a 2nd Amendment 'sanctuary city' for guns and ammo”

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

All of California’s firearm regulatory measures are perfectly Constitutional – none are in ‘violation’ of the Second Amendment.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Why not? Once California declares itself above the law it just becomes a matter of which laws one wishes to ignore.
On principle, Needles wins, easily! Why is immigration enforcement immune from the law but not gun rights?

Does Gavin Newsom think laws are a buffet style matter where you only enforce the ones you like? (yes, he does obviously)

I doubt a hellish outpost like Needles has the resources to fight Sacramento in court but perhaps some pro gun and public interest groups could defend Needles and bring this matter to court.

I would chip in to see Needles take on the corrupt bullies in the state house. I spent fifty years in California from their best years to their worst. My son still lives there. I think I have a stake in the matter.

It seems you have a fundamental misapprehension as to how the whole 'sanctuary' thing works. There is no one ignoring any laws. It is not the states responsibility to enforce immigration law..and there is no law that says that anyone need be held for federal authorities. Di i agree with this/ No, I do not. But the law is the law..and your whle argument ..that some laws are being ignored in favor of others is incorrect.

Nope! With all due respect you are wrong and I've heard this argument so many times I could refute it in my sleep.

The overall effect of California's sanctuary policy is one that assists and aids illegal aliens in committing their crimes.
Look up what "sanctuary" is. It was originally a place where the church would offer refuge where the King and his forces could not remove you. Literally it is a place where people
who are criminals are free from the consequences of their crimes.
By what right does California aid criminals with impunity?

I could argue that technically California does break the law by forbidding all contact between state officials of any sort and federal immigration agents (a line is crossed from non cooperation to outright opposition) but there is no need because state sanctuary policy itself is illegal in the very real sense that a safe house for gang members is illegal because it facilitates the commission of crimes.

You are just wrong. No shame there. Perhaps you have listened too much to left wing jibber jabber and sophistry.

Nope...as you say..I've heard this sophistry over and over..and I reject it. "The overall effect" means nothing in a legal sense. If you confined your argument to ethics..I'd probably agree with you. But no laws are being broken..no matter the stretching various words and terms..when ICE shows up at a California jail with a warrant..they give the person to them. What they do not do is NOTIFY ICE as to when a illegal is released, thus making it harder for the agent to be there with the piece of paper. California asserts State's rights...as you are no doubt aware..not one judge has ruled against the sanctuary laws. Your argument has been made..and rejected. Now you can rail at the courts...but..it is what it is. do you not think that if Trump could order the FBI to arrest those 'impeding' the arrest of illegals, he would?

Right wing jibber jabber is no more cogent than left wing jibber jabber. No problem..you've also spent a little too much time in the echo chamber..and not enough studying the nuances of law..as they apply in this case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why not? Once California declares itself above the law it just becomes a matter of which laws one wishes to ignore.
On principle, Needles wins, easily! Why is immigration enforcement immune from the law but not gun rights?

Does Gavin Newsom think laws are a buffet style matter where you only enforce the ones you like? (yes, he does obviously)

I doubt a hellish outpost like Needles has the resources to fight Sacramento in court but perhaps some pro gun and public interest groups could defend Needles and bring this matter to court.

I would chip in to see Needles take on the corrupt bullies in the state house. I spent fifty years in California from their best years to their worst. My son still lives there. I think I have a stake in the matter.

It seems you have a fundamental misapprehension as to how the whole 'sanctuary' thing works. There is no one ignoring any laws. It is not the states responsibility to enforce immigration law..and there is no law that says that anyone need be held for federal authorities. Di i agree with this/ No, I do not. But the law is the law..and your whle argument ..that some laws are being ignored in favor of others is incorrect.

Nope! With all due respect you are wrong and I've heard this argument so many times I could refute it in my sleep.

The overall effect of California's sanctuary policy is one that assists and aids illegal aliens in committing their crimes.
Look up what "sanctuary" is. It was originally a place where the church would offer refuge where the King and his forces could not remove you. Literally it is a place where people
who are criminals are free from the consequences of their crimes.
By what right does California aid criminals with impunity?

I could argue that technically California does break the law by forbidding all contact between state officials of any sort and federal immigration agents (a line is crossed from non cooperation to outright opposition) but there is no need because state sanctuary policy itself is illegal in the very real sense that a safe house for gang members is illegal because it facilitates the commission of crimes.

You are just wrong. No shame there. Perhaps you have listened too much to left wing jibber jabber and sophistry.

Wrong.

States and local jurisdictions cannot be compelled to enforce Federal laws – including immigration laws.

See New York v. United States (1992), Printz v. United States (1997).

Indeed, there is no such thing as a ‘sanctuary city’; that a state or local jurisdiction elects to not use limited law enforcement resources to arrest or detain undocumented immigrants is both appropriate and legal.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Nope...as you say..I've heard this sophistry over and over..and I reject it. "The overall effect" means nothing in a legal sense. If you confined your argument to ethics..I'd probably agree with you. But no laws are being broken..no matter the stretching various words and terms..when ICE shows up at a California jail with a warrant..they give the person to them. What they do not do is NOTIFY ICE as to when a illegal is released, thus making it harder for the agent to be there with the piece of paper. California asserts State's rights...as you are no doubt aware..not one judge has ruled against the sanctuary laws. Your argument has been made..and rejected. Now you can rail at the courts...but..it is what it is. do you not think that if Trump could order the FBI to arrest those 'impeding' the arrest of illegals, he would?

Where is the court case where the issue of sanctuary legality has been finally and definitely adjudicated?
I'm not aware of such a case yet you are trying to make it seem like it has. Disappointing.
States are not required to assist the federal government in rounding up illegals. I understand all that.

That's still a far cry from declaring your city, county, state a place where the feds cannot touch you. We are talking about two standards of law here. Not assisting the feds is one thing. Making yourself a safe harbor for criminals is another.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Wrong.

States and local jurisdictions cannot be compelled to enforce Federal laws – including immigration laws.

See New York v. United States (1992), Printz v. United States (1997).

Save your foul wind. No one has said the state of California, for instance, must help ICE round up illegals. That's a straw man and a very weak stale one at that. Go back to sleep.

Indeed, there is no such thing as a ‘sanctuary city’; that a state or local jurisdiction elects to not use limited law enforcement resources to arrest or detain undocumented immigrants is both appropriate and legal.

That's bullshit! Here's an entire list of self declared sanctuary cities and states. Sanctuary City List | What and where are Sanctuary Cities
Don't insult my intelligence just because you seem to have so little of it.

And don't tell me it's "appropriate" to ignore and thwart the law unless your name is
George Wallace and you are the governor of Alabama during segregation. You make an ass of yourself.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Interesting..although if I were forced to live in Needles...I'd have to give my guns away...lest I depart to
Hell..where it's warmer!


This California town wants to be a 2nd Amendment 'sanctuary city' for guns and ammo

"Last month, other city leaders followed the Needles councilman's suggestion and declared this town along the Colorado River a "sanctuary city" for the 2nd Amendment.
The collision of liberal and conservative buzzwords was meant to be a poke in the eye to the Golden State — the heart of the liberal "resistance" against a president voters in Needles overwhelmingly supported in 2016. And likely will again in 2020. This conservative small town is part of California, but also quite apart from it. Those big-city politicians making laws in Sacramento, many people here are convinced, don't give one damn about a place like Needles.
In the coming months, city officials hope to somehow cajole the state to allow Needles and possibly other border towns to be exempt from rules on purchasing ammunition, which would allow people here to buy ammo from out of state, and honor concealed carry permits for people who have obtained them outside California.
"For so long we've had to deal with the laws as they are," said Mayor Jeff Williams. "It was time to stand up and say, 'Enough.'""

Our county voted to be the exact same thing in the 2018 election. We are now a Sanctuary County against overreaching gun laws.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Nope...as you say..I've heard this sophistry over and over..and I reject it. "The overall effect" means nothing in a legal sense. If you confined your argument to ethics..I'd probably agree with you. But no laws are being broken..no matter the stretching various words and terms..when ICE shows up at a California jail with a warrant..they give the person to them. What they do not do is NOTIFY ICE as to when a illegal is released, thus making it harder for the agent to be there with the piece of paper. California asserts State's rights...as you are no doubt aware..not one judge has ruled against the sanctuary laws. Your argument has been made..and rejected. Now you can rail at the courts...but..it is what it is. do you not think that if Trump could order the FBI to arrest those 'impeding' the arrest of illegals, he would?

Where is the court case where the issue of sanctuary legality has been finally and definitely adjudicated?
I'm not aware of such a case yet you are trying to make it seem like it has. Disappointing.
States are not required to assist the federal government in rounding up illegals. I understand all that.

That's still a far cry from declaring your city, county, state a place where the feds cannot touch you. We are talking about two standards of law here. Not assisting the feds is one thing. Making yourself a safe harbor for criminals is another.

Again...look--no one has made any city a place 'where the feds cannot touch you". No one! The feds can 'touch' whomever they wish..whenever they wish...there is no safe zone. There is also no one helping the Feds house prisoners..or assisting them in finding illegals via paperwork searches, such as school record or hospital records. A declaration is not a crime..no matter how distasteful.

There is no 'safe harbor'. That's a myth as well. Any Federal officer with a warrant can make an arrest. There is no law that compels the city to house his prisoner though.

Oh..court cases regarding Sanctuary cities, they abound actually...a quick search will get you there..definitive..I'm guessing that only a Supreme court case would fit the bill for you, right?

After spending a bit of time, I found out something odd..the Sanctuary City concept basically is unchallenged..where the fur flies is whether or not Trump can punish said cities by the withholding of Federal funds and Grants. Thus far..it appears he cannot. Still some meat on that bone..we'll have to see.

I spoke to a former judge my sister is friends with..his take; Anyone can declare anything..within very broad parameters--if anyone is actually impeding Federal Officers in the performance of their duties..they are going to jail. BUT--as you have acknowledged...the City does not have to house illegal detainees..nor is there any law which compels active assistance. Thus, the city or state is not required to notify Federal authorities when a illegal is released. Again, i disagree with this practice--but it is legal.

The reason that there is no Supreme Court case directly attacking the legality of the Sanctuary City concept..is that it is long settled law.

 

[MaryL]

These illegitimate sanctuary laws for illegals have opened up a Pandora's box. First and lastly, nobody should be above the law. Not politicians, not certain ethnicities, not anybody. If you don't like a law, fight it, change it but don't skirt it.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

These illegitimate sanctuary laws for illegals have opened up a Pandora's box. First and lastly, nobody should be above the law. Not politicians, not certain ethnicities, not anybody. If you don't like a law, fight it, change it but don't skirt it.

Well..ethically, I agree with you..but in reality..America and Americans are all about skirting the law..and always have been. The whole idea of lawyers is about skirting the law..using rhetoric to change what the law means..to allow someone to get what they want.

We have an imperfect system..in that we have all these sets of jurisdictions...each with their own sets of laws--and specific people detailed to enforce 'their' laws...and not other peoples. Like thus..it is not against the law to be a non citizen without a visa or permission in California...so why should California waste their money on enforcing a law that does not exist..in their jurisdiction. It's the Federal govt.'s law..so it is the Fed Govt.'s problem.

You see..there is not just "One Law" for someone to be 'above'----from California's point of view...their illegals are law abiding.

For some reason..people are very resistant to having just one body of law..and one police force to enforce it. We like our local control over the administration of what we see as justice.

Something about 'State's Rights'--the Right wing used to be all about the concept..but not so much..on this issue.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Again...look--no one has made any city a place 'where the feds cannot touch you". No one! The feds can 'touch' whomever they wish..whenever they wish...there is no safe zone.

Yet another straw man. You keep arguing over what is not in contention.
But even so, sanctuary cities like San Francisco are pledged to keep the feds off the back of illegals whether you want to acknowledge it or not. They will do whatever is in their power to make San Francisco a place where
no one is going to send them back to Mexico, or wherever.
Look up the story of the Bologna family of San Francisco, sometime if you don't believe it.

There is also no one helping the Feds house prisoners..or assisting them in finding illegals via paperwork searches, such as school record or hospital records. A declaration is not a crime..no matter how distasteful.

I think sanctuary intent is criminal and have already stated so. If Jim Crow was wrong and illegal then so are sanctuary cities, counties and states.
They both ignore the law and work to actually counter the law. Period!

There is no 'safe harbor'. That's a myth as well. Any Federal officer with a warrant can make an arrest. There is no law that compels the city to house his prisoner though.

Again! More straw man!
Yes, San Francisco cannot prevent ICE from arresting illegals if that's what they choose to do. How many times should I admit this? Just let me know.

Oh..court cases regarding Sanctuary cities, they abound actually...a quick search will get you there..definitive..I'm guessing that only a Supreme court case would fit the bill for you, right?

I'm talking about a case that actually decides the legal viability of sanctuary policy. I'm not aware of one.

Yes. California doesn't have to lift a finger to assist the feds. No....they cannot formulate and formalize a coherent well publicized and known policy designed to help and give cover to people who break federal immigration law (not if the law means anything).
How can it be legal to assist people evade and break the law? Just answer that question.

If sanctuary is legal then so was Jim Crow. If Jim Crow was illegal, ignoring federal law (albeit civil rights laws)
then so is sanctuary policy (which also turns a blind eye to ignoring federal law).
If you can look at this honestly, and forget you've already said that it's okay for California to give cover to the degree they are able (free health care, free college, free auto insurance, etc., we won't help ICE come and get you) to millions of law breakers, then there is no choice to make for you. You've already made the wrong one.

After spending a bit of time, I found out something odd..the Sanctuary City concept basically is unchallenged..where the fur flies is whether or not Trump can punish said cities by the withholding of Federal funds and Grants. Thus far..it appears he cannot. Still some meat on that bone..we'll have to see.

This also is a matter for the Supreme Court and if they ever take that up in a second term for Trump
I think this matter of sanctuary cities as an illegal concept might come up. I certainly hope so.

I spoke to a former judge my sister is friends with..his take; Anyone can declare anything..within very broad parameters--if anyone is actually impeding Federal Officers in the performance of their duties..they are going to jail. BUT--as you have acknowledged...the City does not have to house illegal detainees..nor is there any law which compels active assistance. Thus, the city or state is not required to notify Federal authorities when a illegal is released. Again, i disagree with this practice--but it is legal.

Okay....we'll just check that box one more time.

The reason that there is no Supreme Court case directly attacking the legality of the Sanctuary City concept..is that it is long settled law.

Some of it is. I don't think the law has changed with regard to
actively assisting criminals commit crimes and evade authorities.
If Jim Crow was illegal, states actively ignoring and thumbing their noses at federal law then I don't see how any honest rational person could say oh....but it's fine when sanctuary states do it, though.

 

[hjmick]

That's great, except for one thing...


IT'S NEEDLES!


Have you ever been to Needles?

 

[whitehall]

What if some town in California decided it would be a 1st Amendment "sanctuary city" to protect their constituents from Papists and Baptists? Maybe L.A. could be a 5th Amendment "sanctuary city" so they could retry O.J. Simpson for murder. Does it make any sense?

 

[Gracie]

Seems to me that California is the Wild West nowadays. The idiot governor can state what name is on the ballot for POTUS; declare the state is a sanctuary state without the citizens of this state voting on it; and in general...he does what he wants. Ok. Then every town and city in this state should be able to do whatever they wish, too. Needles is too damn hot..but I like their thinking.

 

[Baron]

Interesting..although if I were forced to live in Needles...I'd have to give my guns away...lest I depart to
Hell..where it's warmer!


This California town wants to be a 2nd Amendment 'sanctuary city' for guns and ammo

"Last month, other city leaders followed the Needles councilman's suggestion and declared this town along the Colorado River a "sanctuary city" for the 2nd Amendment.
The collision of liberal and conservative buzzwords was meant to be a poke in the eye to the Golden State — the heart of the liberal "resistance" against a president voters in Needles overwhelmingly supported in 2016. And likely will again in 2020. This conservative small town is part of California, but also quite apart from it. Those big-city politicians making laws in Sacramento, many people here are convinced, don't give one damn about a place like Needles.
In the coming months, city officials hope to somehow cajole the state to allow Needles and possibly other border towns to be exempt from rules on purchasing ammunition, which would allow people here to buy ammo from out of state, and honor concealed carry permits for people who have obtained them outside California.
"For so long we've had to deal with the laws as they are," said Mayor Jeff Williams. "It was time to stand up and say, 'Enough.'""

CA shall better begin to clean human feces from its streets