spacecoast
New member
https://www.dailycommercial.com/news/20191105/lake-county-becomes-second-amendment-sanctuary
Text of the resolution:
Text of the resolution:
Central Florida county passes 2A Sanctuary resolution
- Thread starter spacecoast
- Start date
It's symbolic at best and dangerous at worst. How are Florida law-enforcement officials going to defend their citizens from the ATF? Is the state allotting funds to cover the legal defense of people who are charged with violating federal gun laws?
The question has already come up in Arkansas, and the state's resolution did nothing to protect the defendants. These resolutions create a false sense of safety that's going to get people in trouble.
The question has already come up in Arkansas, and the state's resolution did nothing to protect the defendants. These resolutions create a false sense of safety that's going to get people in trouble.
spacecoast
New member
What do you see in this resolution that is encouraging people to violate federal gun laws, or promising to defend them if they do? I understand that it is a 'symbolic' gesture, but I think it is a positive gesture in that it reminds the people that the principles of the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground (spelled out in state law) are honored in Lake County, as well as providing a means for the county sheriff to show his support for concealed carry. Florida is a battleground right now for 2A rights.
My take
is that it is symbolic.
Doubt anyone would really resist the ATF.
Counting on this past it being symbolic would be ridiculous.
I don't think it is a bad thing for those who only hear anti- gun rhetoric hear that others hold a different view.
I can't say it's all good or bad, kind of depends on whether someone actually tries to use it.
is that it is symbolic.
Doubt anyone would really resist the ATF.
Counting on this past it being symbolic would be ridiculous.
I don't think it is a bad thing for those who only hear anti- gun rhetoric hear that others hold a different view.
I can't say it's all good or bad, kind of depends on whether someone actually tries to use it.
Other than the use of the phrase "Sanctuary county" (without a definition) I see nothing in the resolution that states they will do, or not do anything.
As I read it, all it really seems to say is that "because we have rights, we have rights". Mention is made of many court cases, and how the Fed cannot compel the state to enforce Fed laws and the state cannot compel the Fed to enforce state laws. But nowhere does it say they will not, only that they cannot be compelled to do so.
Did I miss an important part??
As I read it, all it really seems to say is that "because we have rights, we have rights". Mention is made of many court cases, and how the Fed cannot compel the state to enforce Fed laws and the state cannot compel the Fed to enforce state laws. But nowhere does it say they will not, only that they cannot be compelled to do so.
Did I miss an important part??
I think it sends the wrong message. As the term “sanctuary” has been used by entities to indicate that they do not intend to cooperate with federal authorities on a disagreeable Federal law, it will send the message to the other side that this county will not cooperate with the ATF in matters of gun crimes. Seems from this post most agree that this is meaningless, but the antigun side will not take it that way.
To some people on the gun—rights side of the coin, it can be interpreted that our constitutional right is in a state of irreversible peril.
Seems to me that the time to take a stand was in the early 20th century or maybe even before that.
To some people on the gun—rights side of the coin, it can be interpreted that our constitutional right is in a state of irreversible peril.
Seems to me that the time to take a stand was in the early 20th century or maybe even before that.
spacecoast
New member
Well at least you read it...
There is another drawback to creating a "2A Sanctuary" besides it being a meaningless gesture beyond a statement of opinion.
And that is that using their terms and their tactics, creating a "sanctuary" for our pet cause validates others creating (and having already created) "sanctuaries" for their pet causes.
it implies that since we have a sanctuary for our thing, then its ok for them to have a sanctuary for their thing (what ever it is) and I don't think that a good idea.
And that is that using their terms and their tactics, creating a "sanctuary" for our pet cause validates others creating (and having already created) "sanctuaries" for their pet causes.
it implies that since we have a sanctuary for our thing, then its ok for them to have a sanctuary for their thing (what ever it is) and I don't think that a good idea.
