|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
To me, the break point would be when the state of CA charges business owners with aiding ICE in raids. Ignoring ICE requests and being passive is one thing. Actively going after people for assisting the feds in legal actions- that is another level. That I think the FEDS should come down HARD on them then.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Senior Member
How did that end up for them?Originally Posted by Dienekes
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Senior Member
This. And by hard I mean a ton of bricks.
Whiskey
May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one
Senior Member
Funny how they are all after Trump for obstruction of justice when it comes to 'illegal' foreigners... It's like their projection of issues doesn't have a filter or a check to it....
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Senior Member
just cut every single tiny bit of fed funding to the state
see how long that lasts
Senior Member
I'm amazed that these people are actually threatening to prosecute people for following federal laws. I mean, how is that even a thing? Do they actually think such cases would hold up in court?
And unless I'm mistaken, immigration is very clearly a federal issue, so they have no leg to stand on. Like at all.
Senior Member
Viable strategy when you own the courts too....
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Senior Member
They own the courts in California. Any case that goes that far will undoubtedly leave the state, at which point reality kicks in.
Senior Member
And so it begins....
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...ment-documents
My take: Badges? Badges? We don't have to show you any STINKING badges. (Cheap shot, I know, but I'm starting to love this).The Trump administration's battle with so-called sanctuary cities escalated Wednesday when the Department of Justice, under the guidance of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, asked for records from 20 cities and countries, including the country's three largest, as well as California, Illinois and Oregon.
The documents would reveal whether law enforcement agencies in these jurisdictions are illegally withholding information from US immigration authorities in violation of federal law, Reuters reported. Most sanctuary cities have passed local laws meant to stop municipal law enforcement from sharing an arrestee's immigration status with ICE.
“If these jurisdictions fail to respond to our request, fail to respond completely or fail to respond in a timely manner, we will exercise our lawful authorities and issue subpoenas for the information,” said a senior Justice Department official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity.
Site Sponsor
Not until it gets past the Nutty Ninth Circus...
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>YOU IDIOTS! I WROTE 1984 AS A WARNING, NOT A HOW-TO MANUAL!--Orwell's ghost
Psalms 109:8, 43:1
LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks