NorincoKid wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 11:56 am
Miami_JBT wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:36 am
If tomorrow, a law was passed saying he has to go door to door and take your guns away and the court ordered it. Is that a just and constitutional order?
If a court ordered it?, as a result of legislature passing that requires it? Yeah...I guess so.
But thats why we have lawyers.
By your logic all the "sanctuary cities" that refuse to enforce immigration laws are OK too. Selective enforcement of laws goes both ways, and I don't think thats OK....regardless as to where you land on specific issues.
I don't agree with red flag laws, but thats no reason for someone to purposefully
not do their job.
Being butthurt over a guy doing his job seems kinda silly.
The guy working for the electric company doesn't choose who gets their power shut off and who doesn't. If he did, he wouldn't have a job.
The cook doesn't choose which items on the menu he will, or won't cook. If he did, he wouldn't have a job.
The Sherriff shouldn't choose which laws apply to people and which ones don't. It sounds like the issue here is the failures of Florida legislators.
The "sanctuary cities" actually are using their constitutional powers. Ever heard of separation of powers? Those cities under the Constitution don't have to provide any material, financial, or logistical support to enforce Federal immigration law. When the Federal Government places an immigration detainer on a suspect. They're informing the local government that they'd like them to hold in their jail a person wanted for violating Federal immigration law. Nothing more and nothing less. The city is spending their tax dollars and using their resources to comply with that.
They don't have to.
Under Printz v United States, Sheriffs Jay Printz of Ravalli County, Montana sued the Federal Government and won. What was the issue? Gun Control.
On November 30, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. 103–159, amending the 1968 Gun Control Act. This "Brady Bill" required the United States Attorney General to establish an electronic or phone-based background check to prevent firearms sales to persons already prohibited from owning firearms. This check, entitled the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), went into effect as required on November 30, 1998.
The Act also immediately put in place certain interim provisions until that system became operative. Under the interim provisions, a firearms dealer who proposes to transfer a handgun must receive from the transferee a statement (the Brady Form), containing the name, address and date[clarification needed] of the proposed transfer along with a sworn statement that the transferee is not among any of the classes of prohibited purchasers, verify the identity of the transferee by examining an identification document, and provide the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of the transferee's residence with notice of the contents (and a copy) of the Brady Form.
When a CLEO receives the required notice of a proposed transfer, they must "make a reasonable effort to ascertain within 5 business days whether receipt or possession would be in violation of the law, including research in whatever State and local recordkeeping systems are available and in a national system designated by the Attorney General."
SCOTUS ruled that the Federal Government cannot force states to enforce Federal law.
Founding era Acts of Congress imposing obligations on state judges are not evidence of federal power over state officials because, according to the Court, the Madisonian Compromise had agreed to leave the creation of lower federal courts optional. The Court rejected the Government's argument that Federalist No. 36, Federalist No. 45, and Federalist No. 27 anticipated that Congress would "make use" of state officials. Rather, the Court viewed “almost two centuries of apparent congressional avoidance of the practice” as strong evidence that Congressmen did not think they had the power to command state officials.
Immigration sanctuary cities are operating under the same legal authority that Second Amendment Sanctuary States and Counties are operating under.