Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Interesting Question, and Sanctuary Cities

We've all hard about sanctuary cities.  Places that declare that immigration law doesn't apply to them, and they set about ignoring federal law.  While I approve of federalism, I don't believe that ignoring federal law is in the best interest of the states, and frankly, I thought we settled that issue in the early 1860s.  Still, there are several cities nationwide who have flaunted their sanctuary status.  Which leads to some interesting questions.

Like for example, this Oregon sheriff, who has been given authority to ignore local laws that he believes violates the US Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment.
An Oregon county has approved a controversial measure giving the local sheriff discretion to ignore gun laws he deems unconstitutional -- potentially putting the sheriff in the middle of a Second Amendment battle and raising legal questions that may have to be resolved in court. 
If municipalities across the country can ignore federal laws at whim, then a country sheriff can certainly ignore local laws that he feels are unconstitutional, right?  Seems right to me. Well, the Sheriff isn't sure.  He feels like he's in a bind.
 Zanni told The Oregonian he is a strong supporter of gun rights, but predicted before the vote that the matter would end up in court. "I'm not sure the courts would agree with that concept," he said. "I would just bet there would be some legal challenges to it." 
It is an interesting question, Sheriff, and I hope y'all figure it out.  But, if San Francisco can ignore federal law, there's no reason why you can't ignore state law in favor of the Constitution.


Anonymous said...

There are some quarters that think the highest office in the land is the county sheriff.
Never could figure that one out; but they seem to be able to quote the constitution better then me. Any thoughts?

Rivrdog said...

The court case will be interesting. It will be very difficult to both oppose the Coos County ordinance and also support sanctuary cities. Prediction: the gun grabbers will not attack on the idea of superior jurisdiction. The will try to have the Appeals Court invalidate the ordinance on a technical/legal complaint, i.e.: improper matter to put before the voters or some such bulltwaddle.

Pawpaw said...

Rivedog/ Improper Matter to put before voters? Seriously?

If you believe in We The People, there is no matter that the voters can't decide.

But yeah, I get your meaning.