Thank you , Charmion.

But does this allow for pragmatic reasons such as "It will not do what is intended?" There is disagreement as to the real effect of the laws, pushed by politicians in a city with horrendous gun problems AND very strict gun controls already in place.

SO WHAT ARE MORE USELESS LAWS GOING TO DO, other than impact the LAW-ABIDING gun owner?


NOTE TO ANTI-GUN folks:

CRIMINALS do not obey the law.


The Illinois counties sanctuary declaration looks remarkably like local-level civil disobedience to me.

"It goes like this: You have your way of doing things, we have ours, and our way is better for us so you can pound sand. Besides, you're not boss of us -- oh, wait, you are. Well, we don't care -- oh, wait, we do care, because you hold the purse-strings on all kinds of stuff we need, such as infrastructure funding and the education budget. So we intend to shriek indignation and kick and scream and make such a hell of a racket and fuss that you will leave us alone because dealing with us is just too much of a pain in the judicial neck. You have been warned. "

The above CERTAINLY applies to the State of California and it's refusal to enforce or assist in enforcement of Federal immigration laws, does it not?



Bee-dubya-ell,

Perhaps, but can't one also say
" The resolutions were likely not issued in response to real threats to anyone's legal immigration rights,but as something sitting city and state legislators can use to curry favor with their largely pro-immigrant constituencies when election time comes around. "?



Iains,

As I stated, IMO it is wrong in BOTH (All?) cases. I do see the point of protesting immoral laws- but who gets to decide which ones are immoral? IMCO, the laws being proposed by the anti-gun forces are more likely to increase the number of illegal killings. That being my considered opinion, do I not have the moral requirement to fight those laws in any legal way I can?

I got only ONE honest answer to my question in the Gun thread:
"Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the LEGAL ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point."

I did suffer significant abuse for my minority opinion- Are those who support sanctuary cities and states, because of their beliefs ready to do the same?



McGrath,

What has any sensible gun owner got to object to in gun laws that reduce their chance of being shot by someone else?

NONE- BUT the laws being proposed would not, IMCO, do anything of the kind- they would only increase the illegal killings, and provide no safety for the citizens.



Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." There are many similar cases with results to the same effect.



At the time, DC had strict laws making it effectively impossible for private ownership of guns. Were these women any safer for NOT having access to a means of self-defense?