The Brady Law and Immigration.

[SavannahMann]

In the 1990’s the argument was if the United States Government could require the local police, in this case County Sheriffs, to perform background checks in compliance with the Brady Law.

The Brady Law not only limited weapons types but created a mandatory background check. The weapons limits nearly all expired, part of the comprise to get it passed. The background checks continued permanently.

The argument that won the day for the Sheriffs who objected was not the Second Amendment, but the Tenth.

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

The Supreme Court determined that the Federal Government could not require a County Sheriff perform the background checks. The Federal Government could require the background checks. The County Sheriff could perform the checks, but could not be required to do so.

I believed then, and now, that this was the correct decision. It is the Federal Governments responsibility to enforce the laws it passes. It is not supposed to hand off that responsibility to others.

Today the same argument is ongoing. Yet the sides have changed. Today it is the left that arguing that the Tenth Amendment protects them from enforcing Federal Law at the local level. Like the Sheriff in Printz, Federal Law is Federal Responsibility.

As for me, I remain the same. I still believe that Federal Law can be enforced by Federal Authorities. But it is at the discression of the locals if they want to participate. If they do that is fine. If they do not, that is also fine. It is not flaunting Federal Law and it is not Treason now any more than it was then.

I believe those who have switched sides are lacking in core beliefs. They believe in the issue now, but not the larger issue. It was not the Second Amendment in Printz. It was the Tenth. Oh, and it was part of the foundation that supported Heller.

Think about it. What federal laws do you want the local cops enforcing? All of them, only a select few?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Immigration falls under federal jurisdiction. States and lower levels of government may not have the responsibility to actively enforce immigration laws, but they certainly do not have the right, either, to actively obstruct the enforcement of immigration laws; and they certainly don't have the authority to aid and abet the violation of these laws.

 

[SeaGal]

The Supreme Court determined that the Federal Government could not require a County Sheriff perform the background checks. The Federal Government could require the background checks. The County Sheriff could perform the checks, but could not be required to do so.

^^the difference at this time. Immigration Law - granting legal status to immigrants, across sovereign shared borders has always been under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. The issue is not whether or not a state must enforce federal immigration law, it is whether the state has the right to shelter fugitives from it.

Until and if the SCOTUS makes a ruling, I don't see the correlation between enforcing what are basically 'amendments' to the 2nd Amendment and the 10th, as immigration is one of those powers granted to the federal government, not the states.

For example - federal income tax - the states can institute their own income tax but do they have the authority to determine the federal tax rate?...or to refuse to deduct federal taxes from their employees paychecks?

The SCOTUS will probably have to make a decision at some point.

 

[SavannahMann]

The Supreme Court determined that the Federal Government could not require a County Sheriff perform the background checks. The Federal Government could require the background checks. The County Sheriff could perform the checks, but could not be required to do so.

^^the difference at this time. Immigration Law - granting legal status to immigrants, across sovereign shared borders has always been under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. The issue is not whether or not a state must enforce federal immigration law, it is whether the state has the right to shelter fugitives from it.

Until and if the SCOTUS makes a ruling, I don't see the correlation between enforcing what are basically 'amendments' to the 2nd Amendment and the 10th, as immigration is one of those powers granted to the federal government, not the states.

For example - federal income tax - the states can institute their own income tax but do they have the authority to determine the federal tax rate?...or to refuse to deduct federal taxes from their employees paychecks?

The SCOTUS will probably have to make a decision at some point.

The State oversees the deductions for Federal taxes on State Employees. The State does not manage this for everyone employed in the State. The employer does. If you work for Acme Widgets in California. Your employer Acme Widgets deducts the income taxes and sends them off to the various collection points. Acme doesn’t send a lump sum to California to have them send it on to the Treasury Department. If Acme doesn’t do this for Federal taxes but does pay State taxes it isn’t a problem for the California authorities to worry about. It is a problem that the Federal authorities will get involved with. If Acme is tried it will not be in State Court, but Federal Court. Your example proves my point more than anything.

Staying with your example. The IRS decides to execute a Search Warrant for documents to determine how much money Acme owes the Government. They get the Warrant from a Federal Court and depending on the size of the building decide they don’t need Local assistance. They may coordinate the raid for evidence with the locals. They may ask for assistance from the locals. They may even be denied assistance for some reason. But it is a Federal matter.

Amendments are part of the constitution. The enumerated powers of the Constitution can be changed with an amendment. Take a appropriation of representatives. We eliminated slaves. Why didn’t we just ignore the reference to 3/5th if Slaves were banned by an amendment? We struck the language from the Constitution through an amendment.

We gave women the right to vote by again amending the Constitution. No one can argue with an amendment. They are left arguing what the intent was. You can’t argue that the Founders never intended a limit on the terms a President could serve. It doesn’t matter. The Constitution is amended to limit the terms. The Supreme Court can’t overrule the Amendments.

This is good. It allows us to change things without a new Constitution being needed. It means we don’t have a banana republic where the Constitution is written in pencil. We have a way to change it. It is not easy because it makes us think about those changes and all they will entail.

The Sanctuary Cities are taking the old policy of Don’t Ask to the limit. That is actually a good example.

Homosexuality was technically still a violation of Regulations in the Military. But no one was permitted to ask if the person was a Homosexual. You could not argue that you were enforcing regulations since by doing so you were violating them.

The way around this variation of Don’t Ask is the courts. In that you are almost right. If the LAPD has a suspected illegal in custody then the INS can go and get a warrant. The LAPD is refusing requests. A request is hey do me a favor. They can not ignore a warrant. Doing so is a crime. Contempt of court.

You and I are just as free to refuse to do a cop a favor. If the police showed up and said. “Hey I want to peek out your window at your neighbors.” You could say no. They may not like it. But they are left with the stinky end of the stick.

 

[SeaGal]

Let me clarify a couple of things I wrote -

1. payroll tax deductions by the state for their employees...meaning employees of the state. I understand the difference, which is why I specifically used the word 'their'.

2. amendments - all for them and the process, Bill of Rights - all for that too.

What I did say about gun control laws is that they basically amend the 2nd amendment without going through the process...they modify an existing amendment. The 10th amendment does not apply to Immigration Law because immigration already is delegated to the federal government.

There is a difference between policy like DADT, and duly enacted law, IRCA of '86. Elected officials and law enforcement at any level have a higher duty to uphold/enforce the law, not arbitrarily decide to ignore it by sheltering lawbreakers. There are laws against harboring, and/or aiding and abetting for you and me. My point is this - I don't think the states can use the 10th amendment as standing in this case. Eventually the SC will probably hear it, imo.

I gotta say you've lost me on this one tho' - I can't discuss something with you if what I say is mischaracterized. We can agree or disagree on policy, but shadow boxing is not my forte.

 

[SavannahMann]

Let me clarify a couple of things I wrote -

1. payroll tax deductions by the state for their employees...meaning employees of the state. I understand the difference, which is why I specifically used the word 'their'.

2. amendments - all for them and the process, Bill of Rights - all for that too.

What I did say about gun control laws is that they basically amend the 2nd amendment without going through the process...they modify an existing amendment. The 10th amendment does not apply to Immigration Law because immigration already is delegated to the federal government.

There is a difference between policy like DADT, and duly enacted law, IRCA of '86. Elected officials and law enforcement at any level have a higher duty to uphold/enforce the law, not arbitrarily decide to ignore it by sheltering lawbreakers. There are laws against harboring, and/or aiding and abetting for you and me. My point is this - I don't think the states can use the 10th amendment as standing in this case. Eventually the SC will probably hear it, imo.

I gotta say you've lost me on this one tho' - I can't discuss something with you if what I say is mischaracterized. We can agree or disagree on policy, but shadow boxing is not my forte.

Misunderstood. Not mischaracterized. I apologize for the error. However it still proves my point.

The ICE officers want local police to inquire about the citizenship status of people they come in contact with. That is enforcing federal law. Local police have no duty to do so.

Second, the ICE officers want the people in jail with questionable immigration status held not for whatever crime they have been arrested for. But for the convenience of immigration officials. This hold is the request I mentioned above. The do me a favor thing.

What ICE wants is the local cop to do everything short of deporting the illegal. Let’s say you have a suspected illegal. He says he’s really a citizen and presents a drivers license. The cop still doubts it and takes him in for a fingerprint check. That is how you confirm it after all. While the cops are screwing around with this the lawsuit is getting bigger. It comes back that Jose is a citizen. Well we have false arrest and illegal detaining a citizen.

But we can go back to the holding of a suspected illegal. California jails are notoriously overcrowded. Remember Lindsey Lohan getting out with time served on a thirty day sentence in about five days? Remember the outrage? Time served because they needed the space for others.

In one instance Lohan checked in at about eight at night and was released eight hours later time served.

Add in a couple hundred illegals and what do you think will happen? They will start out processing the prisoners halfway through the in process. The prisoner will turn his his belongings and then have to sign to say he’s getting them back.

There is no constitutional basis for requiring a favor. There is no legal requirement to do someone a favor.

The example I used above about the police wanting to peek out your window. That happened and the police arrested the people who said no. It was not obstruction of justice. It was an illegal entry and illegal search and seizure. You can not refuse a warrant. You can not refuse a subpoena. You can always say no to a request.

Those people had the charges dropped. The police have not yet settled the case but expect a lot of money to change hands. Any evidence they collected would be inadmissible. They blew the case by being hard headed fools. We are always free to mind our own business.