• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

the rise of Sanctuary 2A counties in Virginia

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
40,398
Reaction score
24,072
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is actually pretty funny, as a Virginian. Liberal cities and counties in VA have been promoting and passing "Sanctuary City" laws to protect illegal immigrants for years now or marijuana laws...

Well, I guess two can play that game. There are now, as of today, 117 counties and cities in the State of Virginia that are 2A sanctuaries that will not enforce state gun bans.

List of Second Amendment sanctuaries in Virginia and where it’s being discussed

In the long run maybe I will eventually thank the Sanctuary City movement as the first real blow against federal regulation. :lol:
 
Last edited:

Let localism reign.
 
As a Virginian I am interested in seeing how this will all play out. The Democrats are hell bent on passing a bunch of idiotic gun laws that Gov. Coonman Northam will sign, in turn they are going to be challenged by multiple localities. Will this approach help or hurt them, and will any potential backlash play out on the federal offices come November are the questions I’m waiting to have answered.
 
Felis Leo said:
Let localism reign.
Click to expand...

which is what the founders intended. most crap the federal government does would fail if confined to the states.
 

Challenged in federal court?
 
TurtleDude said:
which is what the founders intended. most crap the federal government does would fail if confined to the states.
Click to expand...

Aren't these state laws that are being proposed? :2razz:
 
BlueTex said:
Aren't these state laws that are being proposed? :2razz:
Click to expand...

Note the comment I was responding to, but you are correct. Gun control was never intended to be a federal matter.
 
BlueTex said:
Challenged in federal court?
Click to expand...

IMO both federal and state court. These localities will challenge on any and all fronts available.
 
jmotivator said:
In the long run maybe I will eventually thank the Sanctuary City movement as the first real blow against federal regulation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, see here's the problem though. The only argument against sanctuary type policies whether they are pro-immigrant, pro-weed, or pro-gun is that the United States Congress has the exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce. So you'd be required to argue that allowing the sale, manufacture or general existence of a thing in someway gave the county a tactical economic advantage or posed some kind of threat to the rest of the country. But that would require you to admit that immigrants are good for the economy.

Now with a product like a gun or weed for example you could make the argument that it would be too easy for someone from the next state over where the product is illegal to enter your sanctuary, purchase the product and bring it back into the county where it's banned. The ease of this would give the federal government justification for blocking the manufacture and sale of the product within your sanctuary as well.

But a person is very different. The person is living in that city or county because it's a sanctuary. There's no reason they'd want to leave and enter a hostile territory when they can get all the same benefits in the sanctuary without the hostility. Even if they decided to leave the problem that you'd be faced with would be no different than if they had snuck across a federal boarder. One they would have already had to have crossed in order to get to the sanctuary. Maybe if an immigrant committed some other type of crime in your county then they escaped to the sanctuary you'd have justification of wanting to go after him, but as long as he stays in the sanctuary city you can't really argue he's causing you any harm.

That is of course unless...

You tried to argue that the immigrant gave the sanctuary county an unfair economic advantage. You could argue that the immigrant worker allowed business from that county to produce goods cheaper. You'd have to argue that the benefits of the immigrant living in that city outweighed the negatives for that city. But if you admitted that that immigrant is generating more wealth for the sanctuary than they are costing it then it would undermine every other reason you have for hating immigrants.
 
Last edited:
Chillfolks said:
IMO both federal and state court. These localities will challenge on any and all fronts available.
Click to expand...

Given the history of the 4th circuit, which of the proposed laws do you think they will be able to overturn?
 
BlueTex said:
Given the history of the 4th circuit, which of the proposed laws do you think they will be able to overturn?
Click to expand...

depends on the makeup of the court while Trump is appointing more and more appellate judges. he has already flipped several circuits.
 
BlueTex said:
Given the history of the 4th circuit, which of the proposed laws do you think they will be able to overturn?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. It depends on a few factors the make up of the court and the specifics of the finalized law are the two major ones IMO.
 
TurtleDude said:
depends on the makeup of the court while Trump is appointing more and more appellate judges. he has already flipped several circuits.
Click to expand...

There are no judicial vacancies currently in the 4th circuit....
 
Chillfolks said:
I'm not sure. It depends on a few factors the make up of the court and the specifics of the finalized law are the two major ones IMO.
Click to expand...

The 4th circuit upheld the Maryland assault weapons ban 10-4 in 2017. The appeal of this ruling was denied at the supreme court in 2017. Good luck...
 
TurtleDude said:
Note the comment I was responding to, but you are correct. Gun control was never intended to be a federal matter.
Click to expand...

When you post gun control, that should also include allowing gun ownership since gun ownership was never supposed to be a federal issue, either.
 
cabse5 said:
When you post gun control, that should also include allowing gun ownership since gun ownership was never supposed to be a federal issue, either.
Click to expand...

well at a federal level, the founders presumed you could do anything you chose, unless the power to limit that was specifically delegated to the federal government
 
BlueTex said:
There are no judicial vacancies currently in the 4th circuit....
Click to expand...

true enough, but several of the other circuits have flipped. if one of them strikes down a similar bit of idiocy that Judge King upheld, that will almost guarantee the supremes have to take it up
 
TurtleDude said:
true enough, but several of the other circuits have flipped. if one of them strikes down a similar bit of idiocy that Judge King upheld, that will almost guarantee the supremes have to take it up
Click to expand...

How will that help these Virginia counties?
 
BlueTex said:
The 4th circuit upheld the Maryland assault weapons ban 10-4 in 2017. The appeal of this ruling was denied at the supreme court in 2017. Good luck...
Click to expand...

Everyone is just speculating at this point. Nothing has been debated in the state capital yet. I'll wait and see what the final product presented to Gov "Coonman" Northam is before I'll comment on the lickleyhood it gets overturned.
 
Chillfolks said:
Everyone is just speculating at this point. Nothing has been debated in the state capital yet. I'll wait and see what the final product presented to Gov "Coonman" Northam is before I'll comment on the lickleyhood it gets overturned.
Click to expand...

LOL... Yeah, the lists of proposals I have seen look suspiciously like the Maryland laws upheld just a few short years ago...
 
TurtleDude said:
if the Supreme court rules against the bans, it will help VA citizens
Click to expand...

After a win in another circuit and then a successful appeal to the supreme court... What is that, 8-10 years? Keep hope alive...
 

It isn't federal regulation they are fighting against. Its states rights. :shock:

They're santifying paranoia.
 
j brown's body said:
It isn't federal regulation they are fighting against. Its states rights.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse them with reality... symbolic "sanctuary cities" makes them feel all powerful... The reality is that any FFL agrees to abide by the license of the state.. They agree under the terms of their FFL.. It will be the ATF that forces compliance, not some local sheriff..
 

I think the Va Democrats have done what Virginia Republicans have been unable to accomplish. Find a way to remove themselves from power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…