What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Arizona is now a Second Amendment sanctuary state

task0778

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
7,507
Reaction score
5,527
Points
2,065
Location
Texas hill country
In signing House Bill 2111, Gov. Doug Ducey made Arizona the fifth state to enact a law saying local police may not help the federal government enforce any federal edict that runs afoul of the state’s constitutional protection to bear arms.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Leo Biasiucci, R-Lake Havasu City.

“Arizona stands with law abiding gun owners," Biasiucci told The Center Square on Wednesday. "The Second Amendment guarantees vital liberties, just like the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and the Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures."

Biasiucci said the bill sends the message to "zealous gun-grabbers in Washington" that his state won't allow them to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Specifically, the law says “this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer, or cooperate with any act, treaty, order, rule, or regulation of the United States Government that is inconsistent with any law of this state regarding the regulation of firearms.”

Alaska, Idaho, Kansas and Wyoming have enacted similar language into law during President Barack Obama's administration. Hundreds of other local jurisdictions, including Maricopa County, have passed similar resolutions.

Supporters of the measures believe they protect federal overreach and activist local government officials from overextending their legal duties while mirroring laws from other states to stop cooperation from federal immigration agents attempting to deport undocumented residents.

Opponents call gun sanctuary laws “pointless,” saying federal law supersedes local laws and ordinances that could become the targets of expensive lawsuits.



Firstly, whatever Biden does via Executive Action/Order will probably get challenged in court. And I don't know how Biden can force the local cops to do whatever he wants with respect to gun control. And if states can determine not to follow federal immigration laws (sanctuary cities), then why not other laws too? Finally, I doubt the US Senate will pass gun control legislation, I don't thin they can do that via reconciliation.

I suspect other states will follow this precedent.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,056
Reaction score
11,508
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
In signing House Bill 2111, Gov. Doug Ducey made Arizona the fifth state to enact a law saying local police may not help the federal government enforce any federal edict that runs afoul of the state’s constitutional protection to bear arms.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Leo Biasiucci, R-Lake Havasu City.

“Arizona stands with law abiding gun owners," Biasiucci told The Center Square on Wednesday. "The Second Amendment guarantees vital liberties, just like the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and the Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures."

Biasiucci said the bill sends the message to "zealous gun-grabbers in Washington" that his state won't allow them to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Specifically, the law says “this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer, or cooperate with any act, treaty, order, rule, or regulation of the United States Government that is inconsistent with any law of this state regarding the regulation of firearms.”

Alaska, Idaho, Kansas and Wyoming have enacted similar language into law during President Barack Obama's administration. Hundreds of other local jurisdictions, including Maricopa County, have passed similar resolutions.

Supporters of the measures believe they protect federal overreach and activist local government officials from overextending their legal duties while mirroring laws from other states to stop cooperation from federal immigration agents attempting to deport undocumented residents.

Opponents call gun sanctuary laws “pointless,” saying federal law supersedes local laws and ordinances that could become the targets of expensive lawsuits.



Firstly, whatever Biden does via Executive Action/Order will probably get challenged in court. And I don't know how Biden can force the local cops to do whatever he wants with respect to gun control. And if states can determine not to follow federal immigration laws (sanctuary cities), then why not other laws too? Finally, I doubt the US Senate will pass gun control legislation, I don't thin they can do that via reconciliation.

I suspect other states will follow this precedent.
Fuck Arizona they helped to cause this shit.
 

Gdjjr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
11,081
Reaction score
6,075
Points
965
Location
Texas
Opponents call gun sanctuary laws “pointless,” saying federal law supersedes local laws and ordinances that could become the targets of expensive lawsuits.
No. It doesn't. See the 10th amendment you twit-
 

Gdjjr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
11,081
Reaction score
6,075
Points
965
Location
Texas
And I don't know how Biden can force the local cops to do whatever he wants with respect to gun control
He can't, legally- it has to go through County Sheriffs-
 

WTF19

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
3,606
Points
928
In signing House Bill 2111, Gov. Doug Ducey made Arizona the fifth state to enact a law saying local police may not help the federal government enforce any federal edict that runs afoul of the state’s constitutional protection to bear arms.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Leo Biasiucci, R-Lake Havasu City.

“Arizona stands with law abiding gun owners," Biasiucci told The Center Square on Wednesday. "The Second Amendment guarantees vital liberties, just like the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and the Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures."

Biasiucci said the bill sends the message to "zealous gun-grabbers in Washington" that his state won't allow them to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Specifically, the law says “this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer, or cooperate with any act, treaty, order, rule, or regulation of the United States Government that is inconsistent with any law of this state regarding the regulation of firearms.”

Alaska, Idaho, Kansas and Wyoming have enacted similar language into law during President Barack Obama's administration. Hundreds of other local jurisdictions, including Maricopa County, have passed similar resolutions.

Supporters of the measures believe they protect federal overreach and activist local government officials from overextending their legal duties while mirroring laws from other states to stop cooperation from federal immigration agents attempting to deport undocumented residents.

Opponents call gun sanctuary laws “pointless,” saying federal law supersedes local laws and ordinances that could become the targets of expensive lawsuits.



Firstly, whatever Biden does via Executive Action/Order will probably get challenged in court. And I don't know how Biden can force the local cops to do whatever he wants with respect to gun control. And if states can determine not to follow federal immigration laws (sanctuary cities), then why not other laws too? Finally, I doubt the US Senate will pass gun control legislation, I don't thin they can do that via reconciliation.

I suspect other states will follow this precedent.
Fuck Arizona they helped to cause this shit.
WRONG....your buddies of antifa and black flies matter caused what the demonRAT commies are whining about. not the average gun owner...moron
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,056
Reaction score
11,508
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
In signing House Bill 2111, Gov. Doug Ducey made Arizona the fifth state to enact a law saying local police may not help the federal government enforce any federal edict that runs afoul of the state’s constitutional protection to bear arms.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Leo Biasiucci, R-Lake Havasu City.

“Arizona stands with law abiding gun owners," Biasiucci told The Center Square on Wednesday. "The Second Amendment guarantees vital liberties, just like the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and the Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures."

Biasiucci said the bill sends the message to "zealous gun-grabbers in Washington" that his state won't allow them to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Specifically, the law says “this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer, or cooperate with any act, treaty, order, rule, or regulation of the United States Government that is inconsistent with any law of this state regarding the regulation of firearms.”

Alaska, Idaho, Kansas and Wyoming have enacted similar language into law during President Barack Obama's administration. Hundreds of other local jurisdictions, including Maricopa County, have passed similar resolutions.

Supporters of the measures believe they protect federal overreach and activist local government officials from overextending their legal duties while mirroring laws from other states to stop cooperation from federal immigration agents attempting to deport undocumented residents.

Opponents call gun sanctuary laws “pointless,” saying federal law supersedes local laws and ordinances that could become the targets of expensive lawsuits.



Firstly, whatever Biden does via Executive Action/Order will probably get challenged in court. And I don't know how Biden can force the local cops to do whatever he wants with respect to gun control. And if states can determine not to follow federal immigration laws (sanctuary cities), then why not other laws too? Finally, I doubt the US Senate will pass gun control legislation, I don't thin they can do that via reconciliation.

I suspect other states will follow this precedent.
Fuck Arizona they helped to cause this shit.
WRONG....your buddies of antifa and black flies matter caused what the demonRAT commies are whining about. not the average gun owner...moron
You have me confused with someone else
But who did Arizona and why didn't the people of Arizona not fight the results?
 

WTF19

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
5,641
Reaction score
3,606
Points
928
In signing House Bill 2111, Gov. Doug Ducey made Arizona the fifth state to enact a law saying local police may not help the federal government enforce any federal edict that runs afoul of the state’s constitutional protection to bear arms.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Leo Biasiucci, R-Lake Havasu City.

“Arizona stands with law abiding gun owners," Biasiucci told The Center Square on Wednesday. "The Second Amendment guarantees vital liberties, just like the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and the Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures."

Biasiucci said the bill sends the message to "zealous gun-grabbers in Washington" that his state won't allow them to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Specifically, the law says “this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer, or cooperate with any act, treaty, order, rule, or regulation of the United States Government that is inconsistent with any law of this state regarding the regulation of firearms.”

Alaska, Idaho, Kansas and Wyoming have enacted similar language into law during President Barack Obama's administration. Hundreds of other local jurisdictions, including Maricopa County, have passed similar resolutions.

Supporters of the measures believe they protect federal overreach and activist local government officials from overextending their legal duties while mirroring laws from other states to stop cooperation from federal immigration agents attempting to deport undocumented residents.

Opponents call gun sanctuary laws “pointless,” saying federal law supersedes local laws and ordinances that could become the targets of expensive lawsuits.



Firstly, whatever Biden does via Executive Action/Order will probably get challenged in court. And I don't know how Biden can force the local cops to do whatever he wants with respect to gun control. And if states can determine not to follow federal immigration laws (sanctuary cities), then why not other laws too? Finally, I doubt the US Senate will pass gun control legislation, I don't thin they can do that via reconciliation.

I suspect other states will follow this precedent.
Fuck Arizona they helped to cause this shit.
WRONG....your buddies of antifa and black flies matter caused what the demonRAT commies are whining about. not the average gun owner...moron
You have me confused with someone else
But who did Arizona and why didn't the people of Arizona not fight the results?
why would they? im sure they enjoy the constitution, unlike the scum demonRATS
and no, there was no confusion
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,056
Reaction score
11,508
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
In signing House Bill 2111, Gov. Doug Ducey made Arizona the fifth state to enact a law saying local police may not help the federal government enforce any federal edict that runs afoul of the state’s constitutional protection to bear arms.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Leo Biasiucci, R-Lake Havasu City.

“Arizona stands with law abiding gun owners," Biasiucci told The Center Square on Wednesday. "The Second Amendment guarantees vital liberties, just like the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and the Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures."

Biasiucci said the bill sends the message to "zealous gun-grabbers in Washington" that his state won't allow them to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Specifically, the law says “this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer, or cooperate with any act, treaty, order, rule, or regulation of the United States Government that is inconsistent with any law of this state regarding the regulation of firearms.”

Alaska, Idaho, Kansas and Wyoming have enacted similar language into law during President Barack Obama's administration. Hundreds of other local jurisdictions, including Maricopa County, have passed similar resolutions.

Supporters of the measures believe they protect federal overreach and activist local government officials from overextending their legal duties while mirroring laws from other states to stop cooperation from federal immigration agents attempting to deport undocumented residents.

Opponents call gun sanctuary laws “pointless,” saying federal law supersedes local laws and ordinances that could become the targets of expensive lawsuits.



Firstly, whatever Biden does via Executive Action/Order will probably get challenged in court. And I don't know how Biden can force the local cops to do whatever he wants with respect to gun control. And if states can determine not to follow federal immigration laws (sanctuary cities), then why not other laws too? Finally, I doubt the US Senate will pass gun control legislation, I don't thin they can do that via reconciliation.

I suspect other states will follow this precedent.
Fuck Arizona they helped to cause this shit.
WRONG....your buddies of antifa and black flies matter caused what the demonRAT commies are whining about. not the average gun owner...moron
You have me confused with someone else
But who did Arizona and why didn't the people of Arizona not fight the results?
why would they? im sure they enjoy the constitution, unlike the scum demonRATS
and no, there was no confusion
yes you are very confused. Show one fucking post where I have buddies in antifa or BLM
 
OP
task0778

task0778

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
7,507
Reaction score
5,527
Points
2,065
Location
Texas hill country
But who did Arizona and why didn't the people of Arizona not fight the results?

They did fight the results Reb, with numerous lawsuits. Some were thrown out and others are still percolating through the court system. One of which is before the SCOTUS now:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday [March 2] delved into the Democratic Party’s lawsuit to ease Arizona’s restrictions on ballot harvesting and other election conduct, putting the high court at the center of a growing battle over how Americans vote.

The Democratic National Committee challenged Arizona’s election laws, which also limit ballots cast in the wrong precincts, as discriminating against minority voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

In oral arguments, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich pleaded with the justices to set down rules because liberal groups have launched a nationwide legal campaign to upend state laws.

“The Legislature has to be able to enact common-sense voter integrity measures without worrying about an unelected group of judges striking it down because they didn’t like the policies,” he said. “The problem with that is it creates uncertainty. It creates chaos.”

Arizona’s legal battle gives the justices a chance to bolster a state’s right to determine how it runs its elections against a push from Democrats to relax voting requirements. The Democrats’ effort was largely successful ahead of the 2020 elections with lawsuits in several states to extend early voting and loosen rules for mail-in ballots.
.
.
If the standard on what violates part of the Voting Rights Act isn’t clearly set by the justices, the court could invite a host of lawsuits ahead of the 2022 and 2024 elections, said Ilya Shapiro, publisher of the Cato Institute’s Supreme Court Review.

The Arizona case tests state laws that allow some counties to require voters to cast ballots only at designated precincts and forbid ballot harvesting, a practice in which someone other than a family member collects ballots from voters and submits them in bulk to election officials.

In Arizona, only a voter, family member, postal service worker or election official can return an individual’s ballot for tabulation.

The DNC sued in 2016 to change the law. A district court ruled for Arizona, finding that the state’s laws were not aimed at suppressing minority voters.

The committee argued that the laws disenfranchised Hispanic, Black and American Indian voters who had to wait in long lines at assigned precincts and may not have transportation to get to their polling locations.

The ruling against the DNC noted that about 99% of the minority voters cast ballots in the correct precinct.

The full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court. It ruled that the state enacted laws with discriminatory intent and that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is violated when “more than a de minimis number of minority voters … are disparately affected.”

“De minimis” refers to a number too trivial to merit consideration.

Mr. Brnovich took the case to the high court, which is expected to issue an opinion by the end of June. The ruling is expected to set precedent on limits of states’ election laws.

 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,056
Reaction score
11,508
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
But who did Arizona and why didn't the people of Arizona not fight the results?

They did fight the results Reb, with numerous lawsuits. Some were thrown out and others are still percolating through the court system. One of which is before the SCOTUS now:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday [March 2] delved into the Democratic Party’s lawsuit to ease Arizona’s restrictions on ballot harvesting and other election conduct, putting the high court at the center of a growing battle over how Americans vote.

The Democratic National Committee challenged Arizona’s election laws, which also limit ballots cast in the wrong precincts, as discriminating against minority voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

In oral arguments, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich pleaded with the justices to set down rules because liberal groups have launched a nationwide legal campaign to upend state laws.

“The Legislature has to be able to enact common-sense voter integrity measures without worrying about an unelected group of judges striking it down because they didn’t like the policies,” he said. “The problem with that is it creates uncertainty. It creates chaos.”

Arizona’s legal battle gives the justices a chance to bolster a state’s right to determine how it runs its elections against a push from Democrats to relax voting requirements. The Democrats’ effort was largely successful ahead of the 2020 elections with lawsuits in several states to extend early voting and loosen rules for mail-in ballots.
.
.
If the standard on what violates part of the Voting Rights Act isn’t clearly set by the justices, the court could invite a host of lawsuits ahead of the 2022 and 2024 elections, said Ilya Shapiro, publisher of the Cato Institute’s Supreme Court Review.

The Arizona case tests state laws that allow some counties to require voters to cast ballots only at designated precincts and forbid ballot harvesting, a practice in which someone other than a family member collects ballots from voters and submits them in bulk to election officials.

In Arizona, only a voter, family member, postal service worker or election official can return an individual’s ballot for tabulation.

The DNC sued in 2016 to change the law. A district court ruled for Arizona, finding that the state’s laws were not aimed at suppressing minority voters.

The committee argued that the laws disenfranchised Hispanic, Black and American Indian voters who had to wait in long lines at assigned precincts and may not have transportation to get to their polling locations.

The ruling against the DNC noted that about 99% of the minority voters cast ballots in the correct precinct.

The full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court. It ruled that the state enacted laws with discriminatory intent and that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is violated when “more than a de minimis number of minority voters … are disparately affected.”

“De minimis” refers to a number too trivial to merit consideration.

Mr. Brnovich took the case to the high court, which is expected to issue an opinion by the end of June. The ruling is expected to set precedent on limits of states’ election laws.

Every gun owner in that state should have voted for president trump but they didn't they either didn't vote or voted for Jo Jorgensen or jo Biden or one of the other candidates
I personally so they can go fuck themselves
 

Whodatsaywhodat.

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
2,957
Reaction score
2,904
Points
1,928
In signing House Bill 2111, Gov. Doug Ducey made Arizona the fifth state to enact a law saying local police may not help the federal government enforce any federal edict that runs afoul of the state’s constitutional protection to bear arms.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Leo Biasiucci, R-Lake Havasu City.

“Arizona stands with law abiding gun owners," Biasiucci told The Center Square on Wednesday. "The Second Amendment guarantees vital liberties, just like the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and the Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures."

Biasiucci said the bill sends the message to "zealous gun-grabbers in Washington" that his state won't allow them to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Specifically, the law says “this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer, or cooperate with any act, treaty, order, rule, or regulation of the United States Government that is inconsistent with any law of this state regarding the regulation of firearms.”

Alaska, Idaho, Kansas and Wyoming have enacted similar language into law during President Barack Obama's administration. Hundreds of other local jurisdictions, including Maricopa County, have passed similar resolutions.

Supporters of the measures believe they protect federal overreach and activist local government officials from overextending their legal duties while mirroring laws from other states to stop cooperation from federal immigration agents attempting to deport undocumented residents.

Opponents call gun sanctuary laws “pointless,” saying federal law supersedes local laws and ordinances that could become the targets of expensive lawsuits.



Firstly, whatever Biden does via Executive Action/Order will probably get challenged in court. And I don't know how Biden can force the local cops to do whatever he wants with respect to gun control. And if states can determine not to follow federal immigration laws (sanctuary cities), then why not other laws too? Finally, I doubt the US Senate will pass gun control legislation, I don't thin they can do that via reconciliation.

I suspect other states will follow this precedent.
Works with pot.
 

badbob85037

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2018
Messages
1,491
Reaction score
1,106
Points
1,938
In signing House Bill 2111, Gov. Doug Ducey made Arizona the fifth state to enact a law saying local police may not help the federal government enforce any federal edict that runs afoul of the state’s constitutional protection to bear arms.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Leo Biasiucci, R-Lake Havasu City.

“Arizona stands with law abiding gun owners," Biasiucci told The Center Square on Wednesday. "The Second Amendment guarantees vital liberties, just like the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and the Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures."

Biasiucci said the bill sends the message to "zealous gun-grabbers in Washington" that his state won't allow them to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Specifically, the law says “this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer, or cooperate with any act, treaty, order, rule, or regulation of the United States Government that is inconsistent with any law of this state regarding the regulation of firearms.”

Alaska, Idaho, Kansas and Wyoming have enacted similar language into law during President Barack Obama's administration. Hundreds of other local jurisdictions, including Maricopa County, have passed similar resolutions.

Supporters of the measures believe they protect federal overreach and activist local government officials from overextending their legal duties while mirroring laws from other states to stop cooperation from federal immigration agents attempting to deport undocumented residents.

Opponents call gun sanctuary laws “pointless,” saying federal law supersedes local laws and ordinances that could become the targets of expensive lawsuits.



Firstly, whatever Biden does via Executive Action/Order will probably get challenged in court. And I don't know how Biden can force the local cops to do whatever he wants with respect to gun control. And if states can determine not to follow federal immigration laws (sanctuary cities), then why not other laws too? Finally, I doubt the US Senate will pass gun control legislation, I don't thin they can do that via reconciliation.

I suspect other states will follow this precedent.
We already have a law saying Arizona will secede from the Union if the Second is violated. Our law enforcement didn't enforce the crime bill so they sure won't enforce Joe's crap.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top