Sanctuary City for Gun Rights

Nov 2014
29,589
5,282
North Carolina
#31
Because they do work in tandem. The Bill of Rights are only applicable to the states due to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
I still can't make any sense of your argument.

Yes, the 14 amendment placed the same restrictions on State and Local Governments in respect to our constitutional rights as was once reserved for Federal Power.

But the second amendment and the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment are still separate legal standards. State Laws against gay marriage for example were deemed unconstitutional under the 14th amendment's equal protection. Yet there was no specific right to marriage anywhere in the bill of rights for it to work "in tandem" with.

So I'm not sure what your point is here or what it is you are trying to suggest.
 
Nov 2014
29,589
5,282
North Carolina
#32
They are really - with respect to state law - both 14th Amendment arguments. The substance of the right to bear arms is, of course, provided for in the 2nd Amendment, but its applicability to the states is provided for by the 14th Amendment.

I see what you are getting at, though, with a question of the substance of the right to bear arms - protected under due process - versus equal protection for a particular age group. But if you are going to make an equal protection argument, then you will have to analyze under the appropriate standard of review for equal protection, selecting from among strict scrutiny and rational basis,* and because the age group of 18-20-year-old adults is not properly a suspect classification, rational basis would be the proper standard, meaning someone in that group would have the burden of proving that the regulation is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.** And since the only issue here, IIRC, is concealed carry (my understanding is that open carry in WA is permissible unless specifically prohibited), it is unlikely there is any basis for applying strict scrutiny rather than rational basis.

* There is also intermediate scrutiny, and some other nuances, but those are the essential choices.

** Contrast strict scrutiny, wherein the government would have the burden of proving that the regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.
That's why in my opening post I stress there is no rational basis/compelling interest to single these individuals out as being legitimate targets for the unequal application of the law.

Equal protection under the law is a constitutional right in and of itself, independent of the second amendment.

So even if the courts were to find it was a reasonable restriction under the second amendment to ban semi automatic guns - there is no way around the blatant and unequal application of the law itself. So I frankly don't see how a fair-minded court could allow this law to stand.
 
Nov 2014
29,589
5,282
North Carolina
#33
No, it is not. Irrespective of the validity or invalidity of your arguments, you do not seem to be able to help yourself in attacking other people.
Again, if you think that was me "attacking people" then you have obviously never seen me attack someone.

What I actually did in my OP was criticize partisan hypocrisy and preempt any foolish attempts to justify it.

I did not "viciously attack" anyone. This isn't to suggest that I'm above "viciously attacking" people. Because I"m not. I'll happily do it on occasion when I feel it is merited (as I have seen you do on occasion as well I should add, so you can't help yourself either it seems). But it's simply a figment of your imagination that I did it here.

And the only reason I refrain from attacking individual posters is simply because it's supposedly against the forum rules. It's not because of any moral qualms I may have with doing it.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2014
29,589
5,282
North Carolina
#34
Then you should do so without attacking people. You do much better when you stick to the subject matter instead of leveling attacks at individuals or groups.
Oh, so now it's wrong to attack groups on here? (because no where in my OP did I mention any individual)

I wonder where you are when it concerns the thousands of attacks I see on this board launched against Donald Trump supporters, Republicans, conservatives, Christians - or any of the other "groups' that are attacked every minute of every day on this board. So it seems to me you are very selective about when you have a problem with groups being attacked.

So it's clear to me the only time you have a problem with others attacking "groups" is when it's a group you are sympathetic too. So you aren't doing yourself any favors when it comes to countering the charge of partisan hypocrisy in my OP. In fact, you're only strengthening it by trying to hold me to a different standard due to my politics.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2014
29,589
5,282
North Carolina
#35
Mr. Jeremy,

Only trouble is, the sheriff doesn't enforce state gun laws, the state does. Good way to lose your license to sell guns.
His department is intentionally ignoring the law and refusing to assist/cooperate with the State Government in its enforcement.

That to me dismisses the frail argument that this is simply a matter of jurisdiction. I've never bought that line and always seen it as a cop-out to excuse what is essentially a timid form of rebellion.
 
Nov 2014
29,589
5,282
North Carolina
#36
My views, with regard to sanctuary cities, enforcing drug laws, enforcing gun laws, and so on, is that it comes down to a question of whether it's legitimately about prioritizing the use of limited resources, or whether it's about negating a law you don't like. I think it's legitimate to say "I've only got so many law enforcement hours to work with, and I'm going to direct them where they'll do the most good." I don't think it's legitimate to say "I disagree with this law, so I'm going to nullify it by not letting it be enforced in my area." There's a gray area there, of course, where the law is all-but-nullified, but at least nominally due to resource allocation. But it's still helpful guidance.
You're argument may would have merit if all these sanctuary cities did was simply neglect to prioritize the enforcement of immigration laws.

But of course that's not what they do. They actively frustrate federal efforts to enforce the law - even going so far as passing laws that forbid their local law enforcement from cooperating with the Federal Government in their enforcement.

So I see that as a feeble defense designed to obfuscate the real issue.
 
Mar 2013
69,621
37,198
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#37
I still can't make any sense of your argument.

Yes, the 14 amendment placed the same restrictions on State and Local Governments in respect to our constitutional rights as was once reserved for Federal Power.

But the second amendment and the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment are still separate legal standards. State Laws against gay marriage for example were deemed unconstitutional under the 14th amendment's equal protection. Yet there was no specific right to marriage anywhere in the bill of rights for it to work "in tandem" with.

So I'm not sure what your point is here or what it is you are trying to suggest.
Ok, it has been long enough that I have lost the train of thought on what we were discussing in this respect ... when time permits, I will have to review the train of discussion.

What I can say without further review is that, yes, equal protection can apply irrespective of the due process clause (which is the source of incorporation), and vice versa.
 
Mar 2013
69,621
37,198
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#38
That's why in my opening post I stress there is no rational basis/compelling interest to single these individuals out as being legitimate targets for the unequal application of the law.
Rational basis and strict scrutiny (which is what refers to a "compelling interest") are separate standards. Since 18-20 year olds do not form a suspect classification, rational basis is the proper test, and it would be the member of that class of persons who bears the burden of demonstrating that the regulation is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. They could conceivably win, too ... it is a hard standard to meet, but it has been done in other contexts (see Romer v. Evans, regarding Colorado's Amendment 2, struck down because the petitioners met this burden). Note, however, that "equal protection" does not mean everyone and everything is treated equally, where they are not equal to begin with.
 
Mar 2013
69,621
37,198
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#39
His department is intentionally ignoring the law and refusing to assist/cooperate with the State Government in its enforcement.

That to me dismisses the frail argument that this is simply a matter of jurisdiction.
But it is a matter of jurisdiction. State law enforcement has no duty to enforce federal law, while local law enforcement does have a duty to enforce state law - which is indeed the latter's purpose.
 
Sep 2017
3,951
4,877
Massachusetts
#40
You're argument may would have merit if all these sanctuary cities did was simply neglect to prioritize the enforcement of immigration laws.

But of course that's not what they do. They actively frustrate federal efforts to enforce the law - even going so far as passing laws that forbid their local law enforcement from cooperating with the Federal Government in their enforcement.

So I see that as a feeble defense designed to obfuscate the real issue.
In the case of sanctuary cities, I think some are operating with an illegitimate mindset (the desire to negate laws they disagree with). Others, however, are honestly just frustrated by these unfunded mandates from the federal government to effectively use their own local law enforcement as agents for ICE, which is inherently in lieu of more productive use of their time. And that's made all the more problematic by the fact that law enforcement efforts on genuinely important issues can be frustrated by a lack of trust and cooperation in the communities they have to police, if people see law enforcement as the enemy. For example, domestic violence can get deadlier, if abused women don't dare go to the police, because they're afraid they'll be deported.
 

Similar Discussions