Sanctuary City for Gun Rights

Nov 2014
30,462
5,606
North Carolina
#1
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr9ImL8cf9b8FkAeyFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByb2lvbXVuBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1543496317/RO=10/RU=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sanctuary-city-for-gun-rights-washington-state-city-mulls-law-to-protect-2nd-amendment/RK=2/RS=bRHJKHdnmkBZ1BCXALuxXq_NiBE-

A small town in Washington State has refused to enforce the state law banning adults between the ages of 18 and 20 from being able to purchase semi automatic guns.

This is interesting for several reasons.

Firstly: how will the Democrats react? Will they further expose their own hypocrisies by opposing this gesture? After all, they have supported sanctuary cities in respect to illegal immigration for decades. So it's going to be interesting to watch if they support sanctuary cities where it involves neglecting to enforce laws they are actually sympathetic too. I think we both know what the answer is going to be. But still, it's going to be quite humorous to watch their tortured and tedious attempts to try and explain why this is different. Because it isn't.

Secondly: and constitutionally, I see a lot of problems with this. Not only in respect to the second amendment (which is the more obvious of the two) but in respect to the 14th amendment which guarantees American Citizens equal protection under the law. So is it fair to strip 18 to 20 year old adult citizens of the right to purchase semi automatic guns while allowing older citizens to keep their second amendment rights intact?

In order to strip individuals of their constitutional rights there has to be a compelling public interest - and I can think of no compelling interest that would require younger adults to be singled out in this regard. There are plenty of older Americans who have abused their second amendment rights to commit heinous atrocities as well. In fact - the deadliest mass shooting this country has ever seen was committed by Stephen Paddock who was 64 years of age. So I can't really think of a fair argument that would justify picking on young adults.

My personal opinion is that on principle I oppose the town's action. Law enforcement has a responsibility to enforce all laws regardless if they agree with them or not. But I also believe this law is unconstitutional and violates the equal protection clause of the 14 amendment. Hopefully our Supreme Court will agree.
 
Last edited:
Likes: BarKnuckles
May 2012
66,947
13,037
By the wall
#2
Actually I believe its perfectly constitutional for a state to place age limits on purchases.

It has been upheld in court many times in cases such as alcohol, tobacco, the privilege to drive and vote and speed limits.

There really is no case there.

The only way they would violate the constitution is if they disallowed the complete sales of those firearms or did it in an unreasonable way such as saying only a person of the age 43 can buy one on every other Tuesday during the month of October.

Since this is a general rule the intent is not to limit guns only to standardized who is qualified to purchase them.

This town is completely in the wrong and they will comply shortly, as soon as the state cuts off all the funding and resources they provide to them.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
74,545
43,267
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#3
Firstly: how will the Democrats react? Will they further expose their own hypocrisies by opposing this gesture? After all, they have supported sanctuary cities in respect to illegal immigration for decades. So it's going to be interesting to watch if they support sanctuary cities where it involves neglecting to enforce laws they are actually sympathetic too. I think we both know what the answer is going to be. But still, it's going to be quite humorous to watch their tortured and tedious attempts to try and explain why this is different. Because it isn't.
It is absolutely different, and your ridiculous partisan attack is unjustified and intellectually dishonest. State governments are sovereign entities within the context of the U.S. Constitution and have no legal or constitutional responsibility to enforce (or execute or otherwise carry out) federal law. However, towns wtihin states are not sovereign entities and are bound to enforce state law. Whether the law itself is constitutional is an entirely different question.
Secondly: and constitutionally, I see a lot of problems with this. Not only in respect to the second amendment (which is the more obvious of the two) but in respect to the 14th amendment which guarantees American Citizens equal protection under the law. So is it fair to strip 18 to 20 year old adult citizens of the right to purchase semi automatic guns while allowing older citizens to keep their second amendment rights intact?
As I indicated above, this is an entirely separate issue. Of course, the 2nd Amendment is only relevant insofar as it is applicable through the 14th Amendment (see {{meta.pageTitle}}).
In order to strip individuals of their constitutional rights there has to be a compelling public interest...
Generally true, though it depends on the specifics. Sometimes strict scrutiny is appropriate; other times, rational basis review is appropriate. In this case, it would probably be strict scrutiny, being a blanket prohibition in re: an entire age group. But it is possible (I do not have an analysis available) that there is a compelling state interest with regard to age (as Spookycolt suggests), in which case the standard would have been met.
 
Jan 2014
17,173
4,727
California
#4
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr9ImL8cf9b8FkAeyFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByb2lvbXVuBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1543496317/RO=10/RU=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sanctuary-city-for-gun-rights-washington-state-city-mulls-law-to-protect-2nd-amendment/RK=2/RS=bRHJKHdnmkBZ1BCXALuxXq_NiBE-

A small town in Washington State has refused to enforce the state law banning adults between the ages of 18 and 20 from being able to purchase semi automatic guns.

This is interesting for several reasons.

Firstly: how will the Democrats react? Will they further expose their own hypocrisies by opposing this gesture? After all, they have supported sanctuary cities in respect to illegal immigration for decades. So it's going to be interesting to watch if they support sanctuary cities where it involves neglecting to enforce laws they are actually sympathetic too. I think we both know what the answer is going to be. But still, it's going to be quite humorous to watch their tortured and tedious attempts to try and explain why this is different. Because it isn't.

Secondly: and constitutionally, I see a lot of problems with this. Not only in respect to the second amendment (which is the more obvious of the two) but in respect to the 14th amendment which guarantees American Citizens equal protection under the law. So is it fair to strip 18 to 20 year old adult citizens of the right to purchase semi automatic guns while allowing older citizens to keep their second amendment rights intact?

In order to strip individuals of their constitutional rights there has to be a compelling public interest - and I can think of no compelling interest that would require younger adults to be singled out in this regard. There are plenty of older Americans who have abused their second amendment rights to commit heinous atrocities as well. In fact - the deadliest mass shooting this country has ever seen was committed by Stephen Paddock who was 64 years of age. So I can't really think of a fair argument that would justify picking on young adults.

My personal opinion is that on principle I oppose the town's action. Law enforcement has a responsibility to enforce all laws regardless if they agree with them or not. But I also believe this law is unconstitutional and violates the equal protection clause of the 14 amendment. Hopefully our Supreme Court will agree.
Mr. Jeremy,

Big Meh. I don't see how the town can allow a gun dealer to sell to underaged buyers if the state law says they can't. The town doesn't enforce gun regulations, the state does. The gun dealer will have to report the details of the sale to the state, and if the buyer is underage, they will get dinged. I doubt if the gun dealer in the town is willing to lose their license over principle.
 

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
66,303
54,926
CA
#5
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr9ImL8cf9b8FkAeyFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByb2lvbXVuBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1543496317/RO=10/RU=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sanctuary-city-for-gun-rights-washington-state-city-mulls-law-to-protect-2nd-amendment/RK=2/RS=bRHJKHdnmkBZ1BCXALuxXq_NiBE-

A small town in Washington State has refused to enforce the state law banning adults between the ages of 18 and 20 from being able to purchase semi automatic guns.

This is interesting for several reasons.

Firstly: how will the Democrats react? Will they further expose their own hypocrisies by opposing this gesture? After all, they have supported sanctuary cities in respect to illegal immigration for decades. So it's going to be interesting to watch if they support sanctuary cities where it involves neglecting to enforce laws they are actually sympathetic too. I think we both know what the answer is going to be. But still, it's going to be quite humorous to watch their tortured and tedious attempts to try and explain why this is different. Because it isn't.

Secondly: and constitutionally, I see a lot of problems with this. Not only in respect to the second amendment (which is the more obvious of the two) but in respect to the 14th amendment which guarantees American Citizens equal protection under the law. So is it fair to strip 18 to 20 year old adult citizens of the right to purchase semi automatic guns while allowing older citizens to keep their second amendment rights intact?

In order to strip individuals of their constitutional rights there has to be a compelling public interest - and I can think of no compelling interest that would require younger adults to be singled out in this regard. There are plenty of older Americans who have abused their second amendment rights to commit heinous atrocities as well. In fact - the deadliest mass shooting this country has ever seen was committed by Stephen Paddock who was 64 years of age. So I can't really think of a fair argument that would justify picking on young adults.

My personal opinion is that on principle I oppose the town's action. Law enforcement has a responsibility to enforce all laws regardless if they agree with them or not. But I also believe this law is unconstitutional and violates the equal protection clause of the 14 amendment. Hopefully our Supreme Court will agree.
You don't seem to understand what Sanctuary cities really are and the laws that pertain to them.
 
Nov 2014
30,462
5,606
North Carolina
#6
Actually I believe its perfectly constitutional for a state to place age limits on purchases.
This isn't an age limit on mere purchases. You are understating this.

This is an age limit on exercising someone's constitutional right. And I don't see a sound legal argument here for that.

Do you think it would be perfectly constitutional for a State Government to say adults ages 18-20 can't exercise their free speech rights?
 
Last edited:
Nov 2014
30,462
5,606
North Carolina
#7
It is absolutely different, and your ridiculous partisan attack is unjustified and intellectually dishonest. State governments are sovereign entities within the context of the U.S. Constitution and have no legal or constitutional responsibility to enforce (or execute or otherwise carry out) federal law. However, towns wtihin states are not sovereign entities and are bound to enforce state law. Whether the law itself is constitutional is an entirely different question.
.
My attack on partisan hypocrisy (which is what it actually was) was perfectly justified. So if you want to see what intellectually dishonest looks like, some self-reflection may be in order. Because either it's ok for law enforcement to ignore the law or it isn't.

Also: State Governments are not sovereign entities in respect to our constitutional rights. The 14th amendment did away with that. And that goes for towns, cities, states, the Federal Government.... it really doesn't matter. No Government can violate our constitutional rights . And the only rights I'm calling into question here are Constitutional - that being the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

And for a State to pick and choose which adults can exercise their second amendment rights based solely on their age is a violation of equal protection clause under the 14th amendment if you ask me.

I'm not reading the rest of your comment because of your lame and dishonest accusation of me supposedly being "intellectually dishonest". Which was bullshit. You can't read my mind, as you just proved. So in the future I would avoid thinking that you can in the future.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2014
30,462
5,606
North Carolina
#8
You don't seem to understand what Sanctuary cities really are and the laws that pertain to them.
Sadly, I could care less what you think I don't seem to understand.

Let me know when you have a point or an actual argument to make. Because your condescending observations about my understanding do not interests me.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2014
30,462
5,606
North Carolina
#9
Mr. Jeremy,

Big Meh. I don't see how the town can allow a gun dealer to sell to underaged buyers if the state law says they can't. The town doesn't enforce gun regulations, the state does. The gun dealer will have to report the details of the sale to the state, and if the buyer is underage, they will get dinged. I doubt if the gun dealer in the town is willing to lose their license over principle.
The town is already allowing gun dealers to sell to young adults. The sheriff there has already said he's not going to enforce the State Law.

So whether or not you see how they can do it, they are already doing it. So that's a pointless debate to have.

The question I am raising here is even if someone were to accept that this State Law is constitutional under the Second Amendment - I don't see how it can be said to be constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a clear and obvious example of a State Government applying the law unequally and picking and choosing which adults can exercise their second amendment rights and which adults can't based solely on their age. And I can think of no reasonable or compelling interest argument here that would justify it.
 
Last edited:

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
74,545
43,267
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#10
My attack on partisan hypocrisy (which is what it actually was) was perfectly justified. So if you want to see what intellectually dishonest looks like, some self-reflection may be in order. Because either it's ok for law enforcement to ignore the law or it isn't.
You are absolutely wrong about this, and merely seeking to make a vicious attack. YOU need to engage in some self-reflection here, mister, and try discussing an issue without attacking people just because you hate them and disagree with them.

The fact remains that state law enforcement has no obligation to enforce federal law. But all "local" law enforcement officers are officers of the state obligated to enforce state law. The only way they get away with not doing so is if the law itself is unconstitutional, and there are avenues to pursue if that is the case.
Also: State Governments are not sovereign entities in respect to our constitutional rights.
That is not relevant to the question of whether local law enforcement is obligated to enforce state law. If the law is unconstitutional - an entirely separate question - then there are political and judicial remedies available.
I'm not reading the rest of your comment because of your lame and dishonest accusation of me supposedly being "intellectually dishonest".
I have been neither lame nor dishonest. You started this discussion in order to start a flame war and levy attacks against people you do not like. If you cannot handle the same ammunition being returned to you, then I suggest you moderate your approach and discuss issues like a person talking with other people, instead of attacking people just to have an outlet for your rage.
 
Likes: OldGaffer

Similar Discussions