If political subdivisions can be sanctuaries against immigration law enforcement, why not sanctuaries against gun control and gun confiscation law? From Dagny Taggart at theorganicprepper.com:
Sanctuary cities aren’t just for immigrants anymore.
A growing number of states, counties, cities, and towns are declaring themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries” and are refusing to enforce gun-control laws that infringe on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
While adopting ordinances and resolutions to defy gun laws isn’t a new tactic, momentum is rapidly building – likely in response to increasing calls for more gun control at state and federal levels.
Sheriffs in several states say they will NOT enforce gun control laws.
Sanctuary counties and towns are passing resolutions that state no funding will be used to enforce unconstitutional laws and that the sheriff will uphold his oath to the Constitution instead of enforcing laws that violate the Second Amendment.
County sheriffs are, legally speaking, the last line of defense in the battle for gun rights:
Federal agencies do not have state powers. Due to the Constitution’s structure of dual sovereignty, the feds have no authority to enforce state laws. Furthermore, states cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws. (source)
Here’s a rundown of the states with jurisdictions that have adopted Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions.
Don’t expect the Republicans to show any spine when it comes to protecting Second Amendment rights. From Ron Paul at ronpaulinstitute.org:
The House of Representatives recently passed legislation that would expand the national background check system to require almost everyone selling firearms, including private collectors who supplement their incomes by selling firearms at gun shows, to perform background checks on the potential buyers. The bill has a section purporting to bar creation of a national firearms registry. However, the expanded background check system will require the government to compile lists of those buying and selling guns. In other words, it creates a de facto national gun registry.
Similar to the experience with other types of prohibition, making it more difficult to legally buy a gun will enhance the firearms black market. Criminals, terrorist, and even deranged mass shooters will thus have no problem obtaining firearms.
It is no coincidence that the majority of mass shootings take place in “gun-free zones,” where shooters know their targets will be unarmed. This shows that any law making it more difficult for Americans to own and carry firearms makes us less safe. If Congress really wanted to reduce the incidence of gun violence, it would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act. This law leaves children easy prey for mass shooters by mandating that public schools be “gun-free zones.”
The structure of the United States is archaic. From Justin Murray at mises.org:
Recently, a dozen sheriffs in Washington State announced that they would refuse to enforce the newly passed referendum 1639 which raised the legal age of purchasing a firearm of any sort to 21, expanded background check requirements, increased the waiting period and mandated weapon storage when not in active use. Predictably, political proponents immediately threatened these sheriffs, who were hired to enforce county, not State, laws, with legal action. Of course, when I say passed, what I really mean is that 14 of 39 counties in Washington decided the referendum was a good idea.
Based on actual voting patterns, the victory of this particular bill can be almost entirely explained by the margin of victory in King County (506k), where Seattle is located, which accounted for 87% the margin of victory of the State-wide referendum (580k). This is a common phenomenon in many States that have a large single urban population. Another classic example is New York and the political dominance of the City in State-wide politics.
What the refusal of the 12 county law enforcement officials is doing is voicing displeasure with what amounts to a distant population dictating how they’ll operate in their own homes. Why are people in Seattle, who may never even set foot on the Eastern-side of the Cascades, let alone actually make that region their permanent home, imposing law on residents of Omak?
Duh! From Mac Slavo at shtfplan.com:
It took the United States government’s Department of Justice an entire study dedicated to gun use and criminals to figure out what logical human beings have already understood for decades. The result of their own study found that gun control laws will never work because criminals will never use legal channels to obtain guns.
According to Fox 5, the findings based on the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI), discovered that about 1 in 5 or 21% of all state and federal prisoners reported they had “possessed or carried a firearm when they committed the offense for which they were serving time in prison.” The survey released by the DOJ this month declared that criminals unsurprisingly rely on the black market for their guns.
According to the study, an estimated 287,400 prisoners has possessed a firearm during their offense. The findings concluded 6 percent had stolen the weapon, 7 percent found it at a crime scene and 43 percent obtained it off the street or on the black market. More than 25 percent had received it from a family member or friend, or as a gift.
This is not the first time the government, democrats, and gun control zealots have been made to look the fool by their own study.
Gun-hating democrats who demanded a study into the sale of guns online were smacked with a dose of reality. They wasted two years attempting to buy guns illegally on the “dark web,” and the group of Democrats failed every single time.
Senator Elizabeth Warren joined with Senator Brian Schultz, D-Hawaii, and Representative Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, to commission the GAO report.
An embarrassing attempt to try to regulate guns further went horribly wrong when the Democrats took it upon themselves to try to skirt the law to prove it can be done. Over the course of the two-and-a-half year investigation, agents tried to buy firearms illegally on the “Surface Web” and the “Dark Web,” generally by sharing their status as “prohibited individuals” or trying to buy across state lines. –SHTFPlan
These studies prove nothing more than the government’s incompetence and unnecessary intervention in the lives of everyone else. Private gun sellers did more to prevent violent crimes than the government’s own laws did. The ruling class is continuing to prove they are no longer a necessary evil. Only 1.3 percent of all prisoners obtained a gun from a retail source and used it during their offense, the DOJ’s study stated. Moreover, among the prisoners who possessed a firearm during their offense, “0.8 percent obtained it at a gun show.”
Could the Venezuelan government get away with the garbage it’s gotten with if the citizenry was well-armed? Probably not. From José Niño at mises.org:
Is Venezuela paying the price for adopting gun control?
The shocking nature of Venezuela’s economic collapse has been covered ad nauseam. However, one aspect of the Venezuelan crisis that does not receive much coverage is the country’s gun control regime.
Fox News recently published an excellent article highlighting Venezuelan citizens’ regret over the gun control policies the Venezuelan government has implemented since 2012. Naturally, this regret is warranted. The Venezuelan government is among the most tyrannical in the world, with a proven track record of violating basic civil liberties such as free speech, debasing its national currency, confiscating private property, and creating economic controls that destroy the country’s productivity.
Elections have proven to be useless, as they’ve been mired with corruption and charges of government tampering. For many, taking up arms is the only option left for the country to shake off its tyrannical government. However, the Venezuelan government has done well to prevent an uprising by passing draconian gun control which will be detailed below.
Venezuela’s Lack of a Second Amendment Tradition
Historically speaking, Venezuela has never had a robust history of private gun ownership like that of the United States. The absence of a Second Amendment or check on the federal government’s monopoly on firearm usage is a vestige of its colonial legacy. Its Spanish colonial overlords did not possess a political culture of civilian firearms ownership. It was mostly the military and the landed nobility that held firearms throughout the colonial era. This tradition has persisted even after Latin American countries broke away from Spain in the 1820s.
The old bumper sticker still rings true. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.com:
Guns are banned in the UK, but the black market is booming and criminals are loading up on firearms.
I have often wondered what is the real agenda of gun ban advocates. More people die from falls than from being shot. Deaths from accidents far exceed deaths from being shot.
The FBI reports that there were 1,247,321 violent crimes in the US in 2017. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/violent-crime
Aggravated assault and robbery account for 91% of violent crimes. Rapes account for 7.7%. Murders accounted for only 1.4% of violent crime. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2016-crime-statistics-released
According to the FBI, there were 17,284 murders in 2017. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/murder
Assailants using rifles killed 403 people, and 1,591 were killed by people using knives. Handguns were used in 7,032 killings, many of which resulted from criminals killing one another over, for example, drug distribution.
See also: https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
The police were responsible for 987 shooting deaths, about one-fourth of which were mentally disturbed people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/nationwide-police-shot-and-killed-nearly-1000-people-in-2017/2018/01/04/4eed5f34-e4e9-11e7-ab50-621fe0588340_story.html?utm_term=.c7ff0f9c8b3d
Will corporate America do to gun rights what the social media companies have done to free speech? From José Niño at mises.org:
Ever since Dick’s Sporting Goods and banks such as Citigroup made business decisions in line with the mainstream media’s push for gun control, some opponents of gun control have debated whether private companies pose a bigger threat to gun rights than government does. In the case of Dick’s Sporting Goods, the outdoor company decided to stop selling rifles like the AR-15 and banned the sale of firearms to individuals younger than 21. In response to the Parkland shooting in Florida, banks like Citigroup also crafted their own anti-gun policies as reported in The New York Times:
Citigroup is setting restrictions on the sale of firearms by its business customers, making it the first Wall Street bank to take a stance in the divisive nationwide gun control debate.
The new policy, announced Thursday, prohibits the sale of firearms to customers who have not passed a background check or who are younger than 21. It also bars the sale of bump stocks and high-capacity magazines.
It’s not just gun owners who are experiencing limited shopping choices. Gun rights lobbies like the National Rifle Association have faced opposition from corporate America. Rental car companies like Avis and software companies like Symantec have severed their affiliate programs with the NRA in the wake of the Parkland shooting hysteria.
It appears the next fad in virtue signaling in the corporate world may be gun control gun.