Defensive Carry banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,254 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Not sure if this will fly. I haven't seen a printed copy of this proposal yet. It shouldn't be necessary for this to happen but it seems to be a "free-for-all" out there. But as long as individual states or group(s) of states can establish their own laws things like this will continue to occur. It seems like every town, city, county and state wants to have their own set of laws. It makes it difficult for us to know what is legal.

https://www.full30.com/watch/MDI0MzAx/these-8-states-could-form-the-interstate-compact-on-2nd-amendment-sanctuary
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,268 Posts
A ray of hope?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Old Anglo

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,940 Posts
This looks to be the full text of the law. I don't like this part tho.

"WHEREAS, Article 3, Section 12, of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi provides "The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the Legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons."

If they wanted to be a true sanctuary state they need to pass constitutional carry and abolish all gun free zones. Several states not in this allow carry in government buildings and there aren't any problems.


HB 753 (As Introduced) - 2020 Regular Session
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
821 Posts
I think it is great, however I do wish that ti did not specifically limit itself to "Southern States"

Bill Title: Interstate Compact on Second Amendment Sactuary; authorize State of MS to enter into with other southern states.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
We did pass constitutional carry a couple of years ago... One of the few times I'm proud to say I live in Mississippi.

Unfortunately gun free zones and gun buster signs are still an issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,141 Posts
And still getting ignored
 
  • Like
Reactions: KILTED COWBOY

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,776 Posts
More do nothing feel good chest thumping. Unconstitutional on it's face.
And that is unconstitutional under both the federal constitution and the state constitution.
Article 3 section 6 of the Mississippi Constitution states,
The people of this state have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary to their safety and happiness;  Provided, Such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.
And section 7
The right to withdraw from the Federal Union on account of any real or supposed grievance, shall never be assumed by this state, nor shall any law be passed in derogation of the paramount allegiance of the citizens of this state to the government of the United States.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,502 Posts
More do nothing feel good chest thumping. Unconstitutional on it's face.
And that is unconstitutional under both the federal constitution and the state constitution.
Article 3 section 6 of the Mississippi Constitution states,

And section 7
I am not sure you are right about that. States have entered into many interstate compacts over the years and SCOTUS has ruled them legal. In fact there is a National Center for Interstate Compacts under the Council of State Governments and it manages over a dozen such compacts. One interstate compact, the Driver License Compact, that is the reason someone with a driver's license in any state can drive in any other state. There are compacts regarding electrical transmission lines, marriage licences, educational opportunities for military dependents and others.

FWIW, sine you mentioned Mississippi, that state and Alabama are in an interstate compact over railroad authority.

Also, these 2A sanctuary territories are not necessarily negating federal law. They cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law within their jurisdiction. But SCOTUS has held in multiple cases that states and localities have no responsibility to direct resources to enforce federal law if they choose not to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,776 Posts
I am not sure you are right about that. States have entered into many interstate compacts over the years and SCOTUS has ruled them legal. In fact there is a National Center for Interstate Compacts under the Council of State Governments and it manages over a dozen such compacts. One interstate compact, the Driver License Compact, that is the reason someone with a driver's license in any state can drive in any other state. There are compacts regarding electrical transmission lines, marriage licences, educational opportunities for military dependents and others.

FWIW, sine you mentioned Mississippi, that state and Alabama are in an interstate compact over railroad authority.

Also, these 2A sanctuary territories are not necessarily negating federal law. They cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law within their jurisdiction. But SCOTUS has held in multiple cases that states and localities have no responsibility to direct resources to enforce federal law if they choose not to.
Yes interstate compacts are legal. Yes any state can refuse to allow it's resources to be used to enforce federal laws. That is all beyond question.
What states can not do, which this bill specifically states, is to declare federal laws as unenforceable within their jurisdiction.
House Bill 753
AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TO ENTER INTO AN INTERSTATE COMPACT WITH SOUTHERN STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING AS SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY STATES; TO ESTABLISH THE INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY AND PRESCRIBE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES; TO EXEMPT CERTAIN FIREARMS, FIREARM ACCESSORIES AND AMMUNITION IN THIS STATE FROM FEDERAL REGULATION;
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,940 Posts
Yes interstate compacts are legal. Yes any state can refuse to allow it's resources to be used to enforce federal laws. That is all beyond question.
What states can not do, which this bill specifically states, is to declare federal laws as unenforceable within their jurisdiction.
Why can't they? Immigration sanctuary states and cities do it every day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,502 Posts
Yes interstate compacts are legal. Yes any state can refuse to allow it's resources to be used to enforce federal laws. That is all beyond question.
What states can not do, which this bill specifically states, is to declare federal laws as unenforceable within their jurisdiction.
Technically true, but states have essentially done the same with marijuana laws and are openly getting away with it. A 2013 Justice Department memo said state marijuana laws effectively made federal law unenforceable due to lack of resources and low priority and the DOJ would only take action in extenuating circumstances. States and cities have done something similar with immigration laws. They can't prevent the feds from enforcing immigration laws, but they can effectively make immigration laws unenforceable in those areas. They have even actively interfered with ICE operations and not been called to account for it.

The 2A compact law cites 2A, 9A, 10A and the Commerce Clause as backup for their action and indicates the AGs of the compact states will fight for the compact in federal court, as AGs have for marijuana and immigration laws. The so-called federal "Supremacy Clause" sounds ominous, but in actual practice, a state or locality can make federal law unenforceable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,616 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,776 Posts
Immigration sanctuaries are not nullifying federal law. They are simply refusing to assist in the enforcement of those laws. ICE still locks people up and deports them. It is just the local police no longer ask people their status, and if they arrest an illegal they no longer hold them for ICE after they get processed or serve their local sentence.

States that have legalized or decriminalized marijuana have done nothing more than change their own laws. The old justice department guidance is just policy, not law. Tomorrow morning the Attorney General can change that policy with the stroke of a pen. The D.E.A. could shut down every dispensary, seize their inventory, and charge the operators with crimes that would have them behind bars for twenty years.

The vast majority of law enforcement in this country is done locally. When there are areas of overlap the locals will notify the feds. There is no parole in the federal system so if the locals want to pressure a suspect into a deal they will threaten to turn the case over to the feds.

The 2a sanctuary equivalent of immigration or marijuana laws would be to simply stop notifying the feds when they find a violation of federal gun laws. That doesn't mean the feds can't enforce federal laws. It just means they have to find their own cases.
The idea that a state can say federal laws do not apply in their jurisdiction has been rejected for about two hundred years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,776 Posts
Also, Montana tried this by themselves back in 2009. That was shot down by the 9th circuit. They appealed to SCOTUS twice and both times were refused.
Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, 10-36094
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top