Commentary: Local governments can't opt out of state gun laws

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

By Mary B. McCord / Special to The Washington Post

Overblown alarm over reasonable gun-safety laws proposed in statehouses across the country has led to a movement by various local governments declaring themselves Second Amendment “sanctuaries,” vowing to establish local jurisdictions where state gun laws that they view as unconstitutional will not be enforced.

These resolutions, to the extent they conflict with state law, lack legal effect: In Tazewell County, Va., for example, the “Sanctuary Resolution” approved by the board of supervisors purports to prohibit any county employee from enforcing, and any county funds from being used for, the enforcement of new state gun laws the county deems unconstitutional. But Virginia state law prohibits local governments from enacting ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with state laws and, more directly, specifically prohibits local governments from regulating firearms.

The resolution, and others like it, demonstrate how their proponents operate on a fundamental misunderstanding of the rights afforded Americans by the Second Amendment and, importantly, the limitations on those rights. And how they’ve spurred extremists who want to stand up local militias to engage in armed rebellion against the state; action that isn’t just dangerous, but also runs counter to the Constitution.

The right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. As the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Justice Antonin Scalia’s 2008 majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, it is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” In Heller, the Court struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handgun possession in the home as unconstitutional, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. But in doing so, the court confirmed the legality of “long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/commentary-local-governments-cant-opt-out-of-state-gun-laws/

[keithbvadu2]

1. Looks like republicans got over that 'rule of law' thing.

Looks like republicans got over that 'rule of law' thing.

It seemed to be important to them back in Clinton's time.

[CaptYossarian]

2. How does this ruling affect "Sanctuary Cities" that want to protect basic human rights?

I know it's about the 2nd Amendment, but could a reich-wing lawyer use it as precedent to allow the Gestapo-like arrests of non-citizens and the homeless?

I recall Trump b*tching about San Fran and other places that want to do the right thing.

[MH1]

3. This is about locals defying STATE laws, not federal.

I suspect if state government wants to crack down on a sanctuary city within its borders, it certainly could.

I'm not really up on how sanctuary cities work but I assume if the feds put enough money and boots into it, they could go out and arrest people (ICE raids). Its just that the lack of cooperation from the municipal body raises barriers to their effectiveness and raises the costs. Enough that they may as well go for enforcement in areas that cooperate.

[CaptYossarian]

4. Thanks.