OlDawg

Own enough. Have used more. The 2nd protects the 1st. As far as the original OP, I question whether the State Law itself is actually legal. I could care less about buy backs one way or the other. But, not sure the State should have the ability to ban them from a local authority. They are voluntary by both directly involved parties. If my right to own shouldn’t be infringed, why should my right to sell? Is an FFL involved at these buy backs?

Just going to drop this down again right here. I think I've read where 1992 and the Rodney King/LA riots were the last time it was used.

You’re being myopic on the ‘what rights you or I would lose'. That’s a very limited view of something being unconstitutional. I think we are in agreement about so-called sanctuary jurisdictions being an issue. I also don’t know all of the laws in every single sanctuary jurisdiction. I did find the below link. Interesting angle I hadn’t considered on the ‘harboring.’ I think most of the cases I’ve read about have involved forced/coerced cooperation with the Feds—which has been found to violate the 10th. As a State’s Rights federalism type person, I agree with these so far. But, I do think the Feds should be able to withhold certain funds. I don’t think I’ve heard of a case involving harboring yet. But, I may have missed it. Anyway…interesting read. Let me know your thoughts on this angle. Seems to be a legitimate argument. NOTE: I'm not specifically speaking about the Houston/Harris County issue with this link. Although, it could apply by knowingly rendering material aid. Apply this logical legal argument in a broad sense to an unspecified sanctuary locale policy/law for the intent of finding a way to end sanctuary policies. [Hidden Content]

Three men arrested for 'attempted murder' of feds in Minneapolis ID’d as illegal immigrants from Venezuela [Hidden Content] A Federal judge declined Minnesota’s request for a temporary restraining order against ICE on Wednesday.

Really seems there's a big rush for control of rare earth minerals by the superpowers.

Agree. The more folks interfere, the better his case gets.

An enterprising attorney could probably find something in a sanctuary locale's policies that could be reviewed under the 14th, and the Equal Protection Clause. The case would have to be specific to that locale. But, the review rationale could be similar to Brown vs. Board of Education if presented astutely by a skilled attorney. A decision in a case along these lines could have far-reaching impact on 'special services' provided to illegal immigrants that aren't provided to others. I don't know all policies everywhere. So, I can't come up with a best 'test case' off the top of my head.

POTUS will be declaring he’s using the Insurrection Act shortly, and mobilizing National Guard troops to Minneapolis to support & protect Immigration agents. In 3…2…1…

Apparently, there’s been another shooting by ICE agents in MN.

This allocation is just for this year. Since 2020, the total appears to be more than $9MM. [Hidden Content] @tvc184

The real difficulty would be in defining a city/State as a ‘sanctuary city/State’ as I don’t think there’s even a legal definition. I would personally look along the lines of a specific, narrow case that would be somewhat out of the general norm of what people thought about. Something dealing with unequal treatment. I know the City of Houston is using millions of taxpayer dollars to provide legal advice/representation to illegal immigrants. This could be an area where a citizen could say, “Where is my free legal defense—even if I can afford to pay?” Of course, SCOTX probably would rule in my favor in some fashion. So, it wouldn’t go any higher. There’s probably something we’re just not thinking of right now. Like I said though, the hard part would be defining as a sanctuary without a legal declaration by the municipality they were one. Not cooperating with Federal Immigration authorities wouldn’t be enough to define as it’s not required by current Federal law.

According to recent polling, 57% of people polled apparently didn't realize a POTUS was actually going to do what they promised. Most people probably weren't even alive--or old enough--to remember an Administration that did what it promised. They're in disbelief.

The way to put an end to much of this immigration foolishness is for someone living in a sanctuary city/State to go to court over a specific policy that infringed on their rights under Federal Law. If they could prove personal harm that was Constitutionally protected, and get it to SCOTUS, we might make some progress. So far, most of the cases have been between Feds and States, and many have been dismissed. An actual individual party with a case would almost force SCOTUS to take up the issue, and make some kind of ruling one way or the other.

This would be very difficult to prove as no halfway intelligent person in this line of employment would leave a trail stipulating illegal training material. However--again--this is where liability could be charged, and the government has almost endless funds to prosecute a case. Typically, a losing proposition for the defendant. Just the threat of a lawsuit from the Feds would probably weed out some of the bad actors. The training materials would probably need to stipulate what was LEGAL, and ILLEGAL--and even have documentation showing the training had been received--to avoid liability. I read a story about another firm that specializes in organizing and paying for protests. They specifically said they'd been approached by people in MN, and had turned them down, as they wouldn't participate in illegal activities during their sponsored protests. So, it can be done the right way. Right now, the majority of these folks appear to be uneducated/useful idiot individuals. Some may even be lying about being paid, just to make themselves seem more important, and get attention.

Only if you don't report income/payroll. You could also be held liable for their activity--if criminal. That's why I said the Labor Dept. needs to find a way to make them be considered 'employees' of some fashion where liability could be in play. They could still be paid protesters--which is entirely legal--but any illegal actions could be legally enforced easier with criminal penalties extending to the employers. People would also know they were paid instead of pretending to be a grass roots protest. That would paint the true picture for the public to judge. This wouldn't infringe on the right to protest. But, may cut down on some of the more violent/illegal issues. Of course, individual protesters are still on their own with their civil protections and liabilities as stated under current law. Nothing wrong with paid protesters as long as they--and their employers--obey the law. Incidentally, States and localities attempting to sue using the 10th should be immediately shot down because of the Supremacy Clause. If a judge grants them an injunction, it should immediately go to SCOTUS, and be overruled.