|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 18, 2020 10:05:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by HighCotton on Jan 18, 2020 10:15:47 GMT -5
Awesome! And I find this move very interesting! Thanks for posting Greg! |
|
|
|
Post by jbird on Jan 21, 2020 13:37:29 GMT -5
I have seen that my county (Decatur) is pushing for it as well (been all over FB). With IN being as red of a state as it is I am not sure it's needed....but I sure don't see how it could hurt. I am not sure if it legally has any real teeth to it....
|
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Jan 21, 2020 17:44:06 GMT -5
I have seen that my county (Decatur) is pushing for it as well (been all over FB). With IN being as red of a state as it is I am not sure it's needed....but I sure don't see how it could hurt. I am not sure if it legally has any real teeth to it.... I would say it doesn't even have gums. Just a feel good thing, from what I can tell. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2020 17:56:53 GMT -5
I have seen that my county (Decatur) is pushing for it as well (been all over FB). With IN being as red of a state as it is I am not sure it's needed....but I sure don't see how it could hurt. I am not sure if it legally has any real teeth to it.... I would say it doesn't even have gums. Just a feel good thing, from what I can tell. Well, that depends. Typically, in a 2A Sanctuary, the Sheriff has taken the position that they refuse to enforce any laws or measures he deems to be unconstitutional. I don`t know of any instances yet in which federal agents have attempted to interfere with that, but that`s where it would get interesting, if that were to occur. |
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Jan 21, 2020 18:09:40 GMT -5
If it works for illegal aliens, why not guns? Is the definition of sanctuary different as ti applies to both or the same?
|
|
|
|
Post by mgderf on Jan 21, 2020 18:40:07 GMT -5
If it works for illegal aliens, why not guns? Is the definition of sanctuary different as ti applies to both or the same? Outstanding question! I see this as more of a statement than a policy, and most assuredly not a law. Actually, it seems a moot point if you consider the fact that gun ownership is already guaranteed in our state constitution. Indiana State constitution Article 1 section 32 "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the state" That seems pretty cut and dried, so until some idiot proposes an amendment to the state constitution, this move is unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Post by gumbootbill on Jan 21, 2020 20:08:38 GMT -5
Sheriff Freeman said this is absolutely symbolic. We're doing this to get ahead of the game. Freeman said ."We will enforce laws already in place, but we will not enforce any new law restricting the Second Amendment"
The Indiana measure, Senate Bill 203 would prohibit the trade and transfer of a regulated weapon to a person younger than 21. State Rep. Jim Lucas said that proposal has a zero chance of passing and becoming law.
The resolution would prohibit or impede county employees from enforcing certain gun control measures perceived as being an "Unlawful act" in violation of the Second amendment, such as universal background checks, high capacity magazine bans and red flag laws.
The resolution reads in part;... The inalienable right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right that shall not be infringed, and any future enactment of laws by the Indiana General Assembly or any other governmental body that infringes upon such right are violation of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Indiana.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2020 20:26:18 GMT -5
Sheriff Freeman said this is absolutely symbolic. We're doing this to get ahead of the game. Freeman said ."We will enforce laws already in place, but we will not enforce any new law restricting the Second Amendment" The Indiana measure, Senate Bill 203 would prohibit the trade and transfer of a regulated weapon to a person younger than 21. State Rep. Jim Lucas said that proposal has a zero chance of passing and becoming law. The resolution would prohibit or impede county employees from enforcing certain gun control measures perceived as being an "Unlawful act" in violation of the Second amendment, such as universal background checks, high capacity magazine bans and red flag laws. The resolution reads in part;... The inalienable right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right that shall not be infringed, and any future enactment of laws by the Indiana General Assembly or any other governmental body that infringes upon such right are violation of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Indiana. Yet, even though in the state and federal Constitution's, they still pass laws that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Something's got to give. And the Supreme Court has got to rule these red flag laws unconstitutional, because they circumvent Due Process, and they're too ripe for abuse and misuse. |
|
|
|
Post by jbird on Jan 22, 2020 23:41:55 GMT -5
I would say it doesn't even have gums. Just a feel good thing, from what I can tell. Well, that depends. Typically, in a 2A Sanctuary, the Sheriff has taken the position that they refuse to enforce any laws or measures he deems to be unconstitutional. I don`t know of any instances yet in which federal agents have attempted to interfere with that, but that`s where it would get interesting, if that were to occur. The Sheriff is an elected official...and as such can change in the next election. As such my fear is that these "sanctuary" declarations...mean nothing officially as far as actual legality is concerned. I support being a 2A sanctuary.....I just fear it doesn't have any real teeth as to any real lasting power or authority....local or otherwise. Thus why the application and protection of the true intent of the constitution is so important....not some liberalized "interpretation". This death by 1,000 cuts that the liberal agenda is trying needs to stop and we need to remain vigilant all the same. I don't want guns in the hands of violent criminals. The gun us a tool. The person is the one responsible for it's use. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is NOT The issue.....32,000 demonstrators in VA proved that! And the millions of gun owners across the country prove that everyday. The only reason our government should fear law abiding people having guns is because they know they are corrupt and as such are suspect to being REMOVED....by force if needed....and as the constitution intended! |
|
