BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 May 18 - 02:42 PM

If you think the law is wrong, and will harm people, you break it, and take the consequences. That was Gandhi's rule. It makes sense to me.

I note that in the case of immigration "sanctuary" you cite, Bruce, it's a case of the federal government against the state government - in the case of gun laws it's the state versus the local county. I'd have thought in your federal system that makes rather a difference, "county rights" rather than "states rights". How did the county go about ensuring it had public support for defying the state?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 May 18 - 02:14 PM

Bruce sez: Joe says it is a moral issue- so why are my morals being ignored, and Joe's held sacred? Who nailed him up on the cross?

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce....

For the purposes covered in this discussion, the only absolute laws, are the laws of logic - and you violate those laws flagrantly.

Bruce sez:

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 [sic] refusal to enforce or assist in enforcement of Federal immigration laws, does it not?

First of all, this thing about it being a moral issue, that's true. There is an aspect of morality in most decisions. My conscience, my moral sense, my heart of hearts, tells me that it is right and just for me and my state to pass a sanctuary law that directs our law enforcement officers to defy the wishes of the Commander in Chief. And according to my moral code, that's OK for me to disobey the Guy with the Funny Hair.
And if, according to your moral code, you believe sincerely that it is just and right for you to disobey your local gun laws, then your choice is "ok" - according to your moral code.
Your morals are sacred to you, and my morals are sacred to me - and if we follow our moral codes, then we can sleep at night in good conscience. Some people think they will be punished or rewarded by some sort of deity according to their moral code, but I don't really buy into that. I think we will be punished (or rewarded) by the logical consequences of our actions.

But I think your moral code is silly, and I think mine is sacred - so I'm likely to ridicule yours and respect mine.

That's the moral aspect. That's the personal guide that each of us has, that allows us to sleep at night because we believe in our heart of hearts that what we are doing is right and just.

I think personal moral codes are very important, and usually they are more accurate guides for personal conduct, than laws are. Morals are principles that hold us to a higher standard of conduct that the minimum standards that laws can uphold. If people didn't have morals, we'd have a mindlessly legalistic society where people couldn't trust one another.

But people consistently confuse morals with law, which is an entirely different matter. If we live in society, we must balance morals against law - but we must never be misguided into thinking that they are the same thing.

Laws are enacted by societies to guide the conduct of members of that society. Laws are enforced by a system of sanctions. It is not right or wrong to follow the law - it is simply legal or illegal. If we choose to violate the law, then we are subject to the sanctions that support that law. Our moral code may tell us to act in one way or another; but if our action violates the law, we may end up in jail. Our being in jail may be just or unjust, but we're still in jail.

I don't know about your gun owner sanctuary laws, Bruce, so I can't talk about them. From how you describe them, I think they're a silly parody of real sanctuary laws and traditions, which have an ancient history.

You appear to claim that California "ignores the law" by passing its sanctuary act, but that is absolutely illogical. If a state passes a law against a federal law, then that is paying very strong attention to that federal law. It is an extreme act of contradicting the federal law, but it certainly not ignoring it.

But that's not the central point. The California Sanctuary Law was carefully crafted to avoid directing California law enforcement officers to violate Federal law. It directed California law enforcement not to cooperate with the immigration enforcement actions of the Federal Government (i.e., not to follow the wishes of the Trump Administration). Ordinarily, state and federal officers cooperate with each other as a matter of courtesy and cooperation and camaraderie - but there are very few laws that require state officers to do thus and such for the feds, and vice versa. So, as far as I can see, the California Sanctuary Act does not require state officers to break federal law.

Now, the Executive Branch has the duty to carry out federal law as enacted by Congress and interpreted by the Executive Branch. Congress attaches sanctions to some of its laws, and the Executive Branch can attach other sanctions to ensure compliance. The Trump Administration likes to distribute or withhold federal grants to ensure compliance, and it is threatening to withhold grants of billions of dollars from states and municipalities that do not comply with the Administration's wishes.

The State of California has sued the Trump Administration, claiming that the grants in question were enacted by federal law, and the Trump Administration cannot arbitrarily withhold those grants as a sanction to enforce something.

I think the Trump Administration is going to lose those California lawsuits, and it will have very few sanctions left to compel state officers to comply with its wishes.

When I was a federal investigator in Sacramento, I had to do battle with state officials on a regular basis to get what I needed from them. I used to say that state employees spent an hour in front of their mirrors every morning, practicing different ways to say "no." But I had no legal authority to compel the state to give me much of anything, so I had to rely on their voluntary cooperation. There was one thing we couldn't do without - access to state law enforcement records. There came a time in the 1980s when state agencies restricted access to police records to protect the privacy of people, and state and local agencies started to refuse to release arrest records to us who were doing background investigations on applicants for federal law enforcement jobs and security clearances and such. We had to go to Congress to get a law enacted to ensure our access to state records, and then everything was OK.

It may well be that the Trump Administration will have to go to Congress to get laws enacted to ensure state and local cooperation with immigration enforcement. For the most part, those laws don't exist now - so state and local sanctuary policies are not violating federal law. To counteract those sanctuary policies, the Trump Administration will have to go to court or to Congress - and if they try, I don't think they will be successful.

That's the way it works, Bruce.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 18 - 11:43 AM

"If your neighbor had a fire you would go over and discuss a soccer game while his house burned down."
Tom Munnelly used to tell the story of how, when his family moved to Clare, his chimney caught fire on Christmas morning
Leaving his chimney blazing away, he ran next door and asked his new neighbor did he have a ladder so he could put it out
His neighbour said - "Yes, there's one in the yard, but first you'll sit down and have a drink to celebrate Christmas, won't you?"
Carry on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 May 18 - 11:42 AM

"NO! The correct bullet for self-defense in an urban environment is a frangible one, which cannot ricochet. Throwing china at the criminals would have caused MORE ricochets.

And you know that's the type of round the others in the ensuing gun-battle are using, precisely how?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 May 18 - 10:46 AM

Bruce, how many f***ing times - people don't have guns here, so nobody comes around threatening other people with guns! WE AREN'T AFRAID OF PEOPLE WITH GUNS BECAUSE VERY FEW PEOPLE HAVE GUNS, NOT EVEN CRIMINALS! You are clearly so steeped in, and indoctrinated by, gun-culture, you're completely incapable of understanding the concept of a strongly-regulated, virtually gun-free society.

Criminals don't bring guns when they come to steal your TV because there's no reason to - they know they won't be confronted by an angry home-owner waving a gun at them BECAUSE VERY FEW PEOPLE HAVE GUNS.

If they encounter a Police Officer, they know that he won't be armed - OUR POLICE ARENT ROUTINELY ARMED,

If they take a gun with them to steal your TV, and they're caught (either whilst doing the crime or afterwards) they will get DOUBLE THE STANDARD SENTENCE FOR STEALING YOUR TV, PLUS THE SENTENCE FOR CARRYING AN OFFENSIVE WEAPON IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. IT'S CALLED 'AGGRAVATED' CRIME.

It's true that some criminals possess guns, but they mostly use them to intimidate or shoot OTHER CRIMINALS.

So...I'll ask you once again the exact same question I asked you on the other thread - two nations at roughly the same level of civilisation with, other than gun-culture, very similar social constructs. UK, strong well-enforced gun-regulation, average annual shooting deaths 60, US, weak badly-enforced regulation, average annual shooting deaths 12,000. Given the fact that the population of the US is approximately six times that of the U.K., why Isn't the average number of shooting-deaths for the US 360 and not 12,000? Or, put the other way, why isn't the average number of shooting deaths in the UK 2,000 instead of 60?

Just answer the question in your own words, no obfuscation, no links to meaningless stuff about Central African, or Far Eastern nations, no skewed bullshit from gun-loony websites, just work it out yourself and enlighten the whole of Mudcat please.

Apologies if it makes your brain hurt.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 18 - 10:21 AM

Two days ago near Liverpool there was a crash that completely blocked the road, causing a jam. The weather was hot. Some people got their deckchairs out of the boot, thinking they may as well at least grab some rays as they waited for the road to clear. From their relaxing vantage point they were able to watch casualties being taken away by the air ambulance. Hmmm!

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 May 18 - 10:20 AM

More people have been killed in automobile accidents in the last 20 years than in all the wars- but I see NO calls for limiting the horsepower of cars, or raising the driving age.

Cars. Made to move people about. Can kill people. Can also save lives. Can get vital good to the right place quickly. Can ease suffering in emergency situations.

Guns. Made to kill people. Can kill people. Can, errr, errr....

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 18 - 10:04 AM

You still do not address the question

If your neighbor had a fire you would go over and discuss a soccer game while his house burned down.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 May 18 - 08:34 AM

"I TRIED to keep this away from the gun debate. SEE MY OP!"

You "tried to keep this away from the gun debate" by starting a thread about ignoring a gun-control law?

Yeah, right!!

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:35 AM

There you go, Steve, what did I tell you?

I sincerely hope Bruce's neighbours never have a gasoline-fire on their property. Based on Bruce's theory that the answer to the gun problem is 'More guns', I imagine he will run around there to fight their fire by pouring more gasoline on it.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:29 AM

"The ignorance of mine that you describe, just for once, is ignorance that I'm quite cheerful about possessing. "

So, you admit ignorance, yet insist you can judge the situation better?


" 'Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?' asked another of they jurymen.

'No, they're not,' said the White Rabbit, 'and that's the queerest thing about it.' (The jury all looked puzzled.)

'He must have imitated somebody else's hand,' said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)

'Please your Majesty,' said the Knave, 'I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end.'

'If you didn't sign it,' said the King, 'that only makes the matter worse. You must have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man.'"

.....
"'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'"

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:26 AM

Spot the flaw...!

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:21 AM

More people have been killed in automobile accidents in the last 20 years than in all the wars- but I see NO calls for limiting the horsepower of cars, or raising the driving age.

No need for me to make a case. The figures speak a thousand words.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:20 AM

The ignorance of mine that you describe, just for once, is ignorance that I'm quite cheerful about possessing.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:19 AM

Unfortunately, Backwoodsman, when people like me present you with facts, and explain to you how other countries Who have greater legal gun ownership in general have fewer murders per gun, you completely ignore those facts, preferring to believe your own irrational, paranoid, fear-driven anti-gun theories.

If this is to be the method of reasonable discussion, so be it.


"So the best advice I can offer Steve, McG, and anyone else who is considering debating the lunacy of US Gun-Culture"

I TRIED to keep this away from the gun debate. SEE MY OP!

"You can't draw the line that tightly, Bruce. You distorted and perverted the ancient and sacred term of Sanctuary to apply it to guns, so you made this into a guns discussion.
-Joe- "

I asked a question to find out other's opinion on

"Date: 07 May 18 - 08:10 AM

Discussion point- When is it ok to ignore the law?"

Joe says it is a moral issue- so why are my morals being ignored, and Joe's held sacred? Who nailed him up on the cross?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:18 AM

It's not me making the case anyway, Bruce. I'm simply teasing your case apart to see what's there. In the case of Japan, I find your "would have been" certainties very touching. No room for doubts then! You have to climb down from your certainties here if you really want a serious discussion. Let's start here: gun violence deaths in the US per annum, non-suicides, over 12000 per annum. Gun violence deaths in the UK per annum: 26. Ok, so you have a lot more people. Our number rounds up on a population basis to 130 per annum to make the comparison fair. 12000 vs 130. You get to have guns. We don't. Conclusion...?

Here's another I just dug up by accident: more people have been killed by gun violence in the US in the last fifty years than in all the wars in US history.

No need for me to make a case. The figures speak a thousand words.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:05 AM

Unfortunately, Bruce, when people like me present you with facts, and explain to you how other countries mange very well without the population being armed to the teeth, you completely ignore those facts, preferring to believe your own irrational, paranoid, fear-driven gun-nut theories.

So the best advice I can offer Steve, McG, and anyone else who is considering debating the lunacy of US Gun-Culture with you is, "Don't waste your time and effort - the lights might be on, but no-one's home at Bruce's pad".

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:03 AM

Mr. Shaw,

You show your ignorance.

"bloodbath with ricocheting bullets,"
NO! The correct bullet for self-defense in an urban environment is a frangible one, which cannot ricochet. Throwing china at the criminals would have caused MORE ricochets.

"guns seized and turned on the women "
Which would have been worse than what happened?


"people shot dead on both sides."
You object to the criminals being killed? The victims were likely to be killed in any case (In most such cases they are.)


And I see YOU are playing God here.
"Anyone can "make a case" predicated on what might or might not have happened had such-and-such been or not been the case."

So why should YOUR view have greater moral relevance than mine?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 18 - 06:53 AM

I made the case with statistics, but you did not like the results so you ignored them.

If the US had NOT nuked Japan, 1-2 million US troops would have been killed or wounded, and about 5 million Japanese would have been killed.

I would probably not be here to argue this, had the invasion been required.


"So you really haven't made a case, have you? "

And neither have you.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 18 - 06:24 AM

A wise man builds his house upon a rock, Bruce. Now try telling us what precisely would have happened if the US had not had the means to nuke Japan. Go on, try to play God. Many have before you. Anyone can "make a case" predicated on what might or might not have happened had such-and-such been or not been the case. Your scenario there, oddly, doesn't even mention guns at all, except for your rather forced last question. But I'll try to answer it. No I don't think they would have been safer. There would likely have a been a bloodbath with ricocheting bullets, guns seized and turned on the women and people shot dead on both sides. Of course, there are other possible outcomes. It doesn't always go like clean Hollywood, you know. There's no Take Two. So you really haven't made a case, have you?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 18 - 05:53 AM

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?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Iains
Date: 09 May 18 - 04:53 AM

Ignoring laws leads to chaos. Chaos leads to anarchy. Whereto next?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 08 May 18 - 12:12 PM

I would be interested in knowing exactly what the counties' resolutions say. What gun rights are they guaranteeing their citizens that the folks in Springfield are seeking to take away?

I suspect the answer to that question is "None at all." The resolutions were likely not issued in response to real threats to anyone's 2nd Amendment rights, but as something sitting county commissioners can use to curry favor with their largely pro-gun constituencies when election time comes around.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Charmion
Date: 08 May 18 - 09:09 AM

Back to the original proposition: It's never "okay" to ignore the law. That way lies arrest, followed quickly by conviction and sentencing, because ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Obviously, Bruce's question is about disobedience, not ignorance.

Civil disobedience is the risky tactic of publicly acting in defiance of the law in order to compel the authorities either to enforce it in the glare of public scrutiny, or admit that the law is unenforceable for reasons ranging from morality (e.g., Jim Crow segregation) to pragmatism (e.g., cannabis prohibition). California's sanctuary declaration looks remarkably like state-level civil disobedience to me.

The internal-to-Illinois gun thing looks more like a campaign in the culture war (kulturkampf) that I see as the most salient feature of 21st-century American life.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 May 18 - 04:45 AM

Cantons in Switzerland aren't exactly states, but they have a very considerable level of autonomy.

The nearest thing we have in England to this kind of thing is that the police will adjust the priority they give to some offences, and how they deal with them in a sort of informal way. So in some places they are much more relaxed about cannabis than others, and will either resort to cautions instead of prosecution, or even ignore it.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Mr Red
Date: 08 May 18 - 04:06 AM

"Laws (or rules) are made for the guidance of the wise, and the blind obedience of fools"

But who doesn't think they are wise & not foolish?

see Dunning-Kruger effect. Nobody is fully immune!

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 May 18 - 03:47 AM

Hi, Bruce - here in California, local law enforcement officers are sworn to enforce ALL state law, and the local courts are agencies of the state. I think that's the case in most states. So, yes, local government are required by state constitutions to enforce state laws - and that would include gun laws.

I don't know of any states that are a federation of local governments that have a level of sovereignty. The United States are such a federation of states, but I don't know of federations within states.

The federal law enforcement system is a separate entity. Separate laws, separate courts, separate prosecutors, separate law enforcement officers.
So, I don't get your point.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 May 18 - 03:20 AM

I've always agreed with the opinion that "Laws (or rules) are made for the guidance of the wise, and the blind obedience of fools".

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 18 - 02:26 AM

And you have failed to cite any laws that require participation by local police in state gun laws.

My point of discussion remains- do you recognize that others may feel they have valid reasons NOT to support something YOU support, and the reverse? Does this give the right to ignore laws ? IMO no but I was looking for reasons pro and con.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 May 18 - 01:12 AM

Bruce, the civil rights laws of the 1960s had to be carefully drawn to protect states' rights, and many of those laws were overturned in court because they did violate states' rights.

You have failed to cite any federal laws that require state and local law enforcement officers to participate in enforcement of immigration laws.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 18 - 09:54 PM

"state and local agencies and private citizens and corporations who refused to help me in my work - and I had no power to compel them to cooperate"


So the 60's Civil Rights Federal treatment of the South had no power to force states to cooperate?

Not from what I recall

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 18 - 09:51 PM

Now, back to the question in the OP

When is it OK for a state, city or county to declare it is not going to enforce a higher level law that it disagrees with?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 18 - 09:42 PM

Fine.

IMO, the gun laws being proposed will INCREASE the number of illegal killings. Those who support those laws seem to have decided reducing the legal ownership of guns is more important than reducing the illegal killings.

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the LEGAL ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.


IMCO, the ones who have blood on their hands are the ones who want laws that I think will increase the killings. They do NOT consider the real-life effects , just what they want to think will happen.



Morally, how can I stand silently by when those laws are being pushed?

So if I declare my house a sanctuary for guns, I will expect the same respect YOU want for your support of illegal immigration sanctuaries.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 18 - 09:30 PM

You can't draw the line that tightly, Bruce. You distorted and perverted the ancient and sacred term of Sanctuary to apply it to guns, so you made this into a guns discussion.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 18 - 08:56 PM

Feel free to discuss gun laws- IN THE OPEN Gun thread. This thread is to
discuss, with those that support the Sanctuary cities and states, the reason they feel the sanctuary insurrections are exempt from what IMO they would think about the Illinois counties actions about gun laws imposed by the state.



If YOUR moral decision is that the Federal laws are unjust, therefore you do not obey them, then why , when MY moral decision ( for reasons stated in the gun control thread) is that the additional laws imposed by some states actually ADD to the killings, and are unjust, you expect me to obey them?

Are you saying that ONLY the moral decisions that YOU agree with are valid?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 May 18 - 08:22 PM

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

Do you places where they’ve decided to stop having speed limits for cars, and letting people drive on whichever side of the road they prefer?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 18 - 03:37 PM

The sanctuary law IS a test of the morality of other laws....

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 18 - 03:36 PM

The "right of the people", both logically and grammatically, is linked in that sentence to the need for "a .... militia".
In 1789, there was no standing army and the militia consisted of every capable man and his own rifle... which fired one ball every minute or two.

Now 'some' wish to insist that an outmoded phrase should guide this entire country in perpetuity so that they can have their toys.... no matter what the rest of the civilized world thinks.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 18 - 03:35 PM

Bruce says: "If California wishes to emulate the Confederate States when the Federal Government passes a law the state does not like, let them."

That's a bit of an overstatement, Bruce. At the insistence of Governor Jerry Brown, the California legislature carefully crafted the Sanctuary Law so that it would not put state and local officers in a position where they were forced to violate federal law. People say that California's "sanctuary" is a violation of federal law, but I've never seen anybody come up with specifics.

When I was a federal investigator, I often came across state and local agencies and private citizens and corporations who refused to help me in my work - and I had no power to compel them to cooperate. It made it harder for me to do my work and may have cost the taxpayers a little more money for me to get the job done, but I can't say they were breaking the law by refusing to cooperate.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Iains
Date: 07 May 18 - 03:26 PM

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What law is paramount in this instance? To what extent can any legislature modify the above without infringing it. Establish the rights and wrongs of the above, and then take opinion on what if any law has been broken, or will be broken.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 18 - 03:26 PM

Ignoring a law can be a way to get a test of both the will of the people and the court system to examine the fairness & relevance of a law.
Some laws are highly debatable as to whether they are designed to protect & enhance the general good... or just a way for some 'interest group(s)' to promote special interests.

Many paragraphs of examples... both current & historical... could be added here.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 18 - 03:12 PM

". But if they defy the law, then they'd better be ready to accept the legal consequences."

I agree. IN BOTH CASES. But it should be decided IN THE COURTS.

If California wishes to emulate the Confederate States when the Federal Government passes a law the state does not like, let them.

If one wishes to take a moral stand that a law is unjust, fine- but I hope you do not argue that others have that same right, about laws that YOU think are fine.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 18 - 02:54 PM

When is it OK to ignore the law? When you're willing to accept the consequences of ignoring the law.

I suppose these counties can pass their gun-owning sanctuary resolutions if they wish, but they should be aware that there may be consequences. At the very least, their actions may be challenged in court.

We have an immigration sanctuary law enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor here in the State of California. This law requires state and local law enforcement agencies to refuse to cooperate with or assist in federal immigration enforcement activities. The legislature's action has consequences - the feds are trying to withhold money from California, and California has filed suit to compel the feds to pay up. I don't know what the outcome will be - that's up to the courts to determine.

There are forces in my county that want to withdraw my county from the state's sanctuary law, and we're likely to have a major confrontation on that tomorrow at the county Board of Supervisors meeting. I think the Board did a wonderful thing by refusing to put the matter on its agenda because they contend it's not a county matter, but I don't know how long that refusal will stand. There are strong forces both for and against sanctuary that want the Board of Supervisors to take a stand.

Not many people seem to agree with my support of the Board.

But Bruce, you ask if it's "ok." To me, "OK" is a moral judgment, a choice between right and wrong. It's not a legal term. I think too many people intermix morality and legality far too often. Morality is a matter of the choices we make to guide our own lives and our own actions. Legality has to do with the rules we enact to govern our societies, and those rules may be right or wrong.

People say horrible things about "illegal aliens" simply because those immigrants are "illegal" - they've broken the law, so they're bad and therefore not worthy to live here. But the law was enacted by people, and our immigration laws have features built into them that bear an embarrassing resemblance to racism. And to my mind, if our immigration laws are racist, then they are most certainly immoral (i.e., wrong, unjust, etc.). I will fight to my dying day for the enactment of just immigration laws.

As for gun laws, I do not think it's "ok" for anyone to disobey gun controls, but that's my opinion, my moral judgment. But if they defy the law, then they'd better be ready to accept the legal consequences.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 18 - 12:19 PM

There are TWO laws being mentioned in the OP- The sanctuary city statements by the city of Chicago against cooperation with Federal authorities, and the multiple Illinois counties statements against cooperation with state authorities.

If ONE is wrong, than the other is as well. If ONE is right, that implies the right of the other case.


My OPINION is that parts of a larger whole do NOT have the right to dispute ( except in court) laws of the larger. BOTH are invalid, and should lead to charges of insurrection. Witness the Civil Rights rulings.

My point was to discuss, with those that support the Sanctuary cities and states, the reason they feel the sanctuary insurrections are exempt from what IMO they would think about the Illinois counties actions about gun laws imposed by the state.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 May 18 - 11:16 AM

Having grown up in Illinois (NOT CHICAGO!!!), having family living there, going back for a visit a week from tomorrow, I wan to point out that "Southern Illinios" -- i.e., all that is not Chicago -- resents, no, loathes, Chicago's perceived choke hold on the legislature. Chicago, it is felt, gets all that it wants and the rest of the State can, in the local idiom, "suck hind teat."

There is some truth in this, as there is in all generalizations. It's not driven by jealousy, either, as most "downstaters" wouldn't live in Chicago for neither love nor money.

I see it primarily as a statement of "Let's assert ourselves and tell Chitown to attend to the horse it rode in on."

There actually is a movement to cut Chicago off from the rest of Illinois and force it to become its own State. The movement has been there for years, but following the State's financial crises of recent years it's gaining a lot of supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 18 - 10:19 AM

It may be morally justified to ignore, circumvent or campaign against bad laws. You haven't given us an example of one.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 May 18 - 10:06 AM

This is a fine line, BB. Some laws are so abhorrent that they should be ignored (The law that allowed people to keep slaves and permit honour killings etc.) While most are for the greater good of the people. This one smacks of having the NRA and big money against it rather than the will of the people. I am not there so I don't know. If the people want this law to be put in place it is wrong for local legislature to ignore it. If the people do not like it, they can vote for someone who will rescind it.

Just my 2p.

DtG

Subject: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 18 - 08:10 AM

Discussion point- When is it ok to ignore the law?

"Multiple rural Illinois counties have passed resolutions establishing a so-called “sanctuary” for gun owners in a bid to thwart the state legislature’s efforts to enact stricter gun control.

At least five counties declared themselves sanctuary counties for gun rights, co-opting a word that most conservatives associate with the liberal policy of ignoring federal immigration laws.
....

I don’t think you can say, ‘I don’t agree with the law so I won’t enforce it,’” said Kathleen Willis, a Democratic state representative from suburban Chicago who sponsored some of the gun legislation. “I think it sends the wrong message.”

Bryan Kibler, the Effingham County’s top prosecutor, claims the resolutions passed by counties aren’t much different from cities such as Chicago which refused to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

By using the language of sanctuary states, the counties also draw attention to the rural-urban political divide in the state. The “downstate” areas of Illinois voted for Donald Trump while Chicago backed Hillary Clinton.

“We’re just stealing the language that sanctuary cities use,” said Kibler. “We wanted to … get across that our Second Amendment rights are slowly being stripped away.”



When is it OK for a city or county to declare it is not going to enforce a law that it disagrees with?