By Peter Galuszka
https://www.baconsrebellion.com/crazy-about-guns/
https://www.baconsrebellion.com/the-rank-hypocrisy-of-rural-gun-sanctuaries/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/second-amendment-sanctuary-push-aims-to-defy-new-gun-
(I left off the Virginia Mercury sorry)
(comments below)
(comments below)
Peter, can you reconcile the “lawfulness” of local sanctuaries for illegal immigrants, including criminals, with no local sanctuaries for gun owners? Keep in mind that left-leaning cities are fighting ICE arrests of convicted criminals at courthouses.
If the Deep State continues to play “heads, I win; tails, you lose,” we will most definitely see seeds of a second civil war being sown.
Actually the Sanctuary issue itself is the result of the Feds not enforcing the law themselves.
It’s called E-verify and if the Feds actually enforced it – there were be far fewer “illegals” to offer Sanctuary! No jobs, no illegals!
The law also requires that employers of labor for cash – to generate a tax document called a 1099MISC that reports the cash income to the State and Feds – and it’s illegal to employ someone for cash and not report that income. The Feds and the State do no enforce that law either.
So the Sanctuary cities movement would simply die – it would be moot if the State and Feds actually enforced the law – there would be no “sanctuary” if the employers were fined jailed for violating the law about hiring illegals.
So – this is really about hypocrisy … all those folks bleating about “enforcing the law” or we won’t obey the law either – it’s pretty selective.
Thanks for making my point, Peter. That’s pretty pathetic coverage.
I don’t see this as “pretty pathetic coverage.” If you read my Post piece you find it began just after the November election. What irks me is your hyperbole. Larry, you are right. Local law enforcement are not required to enforce federal laws unless a local crime has been committed. You can’t have a sheriff’s deputy chasing after someone for his IRS returns. A state or local law is required to be enforced.
Larry, you are comparing pineapples and pumpkins. Yes, enforcement of E-Verify would drastically reduce the incentives for illegal immigration (be it border crossing or overstaying visa limits). But the point of the sanctuaries for illegal immigrants is to help them stay in the country irrespective of their status or behavior because the left doesn’t like the federal government to enforce laws related to one of any nation’s basic purpose — to secure its borders and prevent unlawful immigration. The left is saying “We don’t like this law and will, therefore, hinder its enforcement.” They are putting their beliefs above the law.
At worst, the gun sanctuary people are doing the very same thing. They are saying we don’t like these laws because we (not necessarily a court) don’t like these new gun laws. At a bare minimum, they are saying we (local officials) can refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws.
From a purely legal perspective, the gun sanctuary people are in a stronger position than the illegal immigration sanctuary people as the right for a nation to control its borders in undisputable. From a purely political position, they are identical. So why not apply the same standard, one way or another, to both sanctuary groups?
TMT – You’re right about the sanctuary cities but you completely ignore the E-verify problem which is what encourages illegals to come here to start with. As long as you do not go after them, illegals will come and no wall will stop them.
If you want to stop illegal immigration – go after the employers of illegals – like they do in Canada.
Business and Agriculture depend on illegals – and as long as they do and are not held accountable – we’ll have more illegals coming.
If you really are serious – you have to go after the employers – not the folks looking for work.
Larry, I’m in 100% agreement with you on E-Verify. It is should be mandatory and there should be a provision that allows taxpayer suits against businesses that have failed to comply. The plaintiff bar could clean this up.
Jim, byw. Rtd did have a front page story on this. It was not ignored
Come on Peter, What would you do, How would you react if your state government was trying to infringe on your first amendment right? The 2A movement is just trying to protect an American right.
E-Verify is a free internet tool that allows employers to instantly verify whether a new employee is authorized to work in the country. The E-Verify system cross-checks information from the federal I-9 form, which must be completed for all new hires, against records from USCIS and the Social Security Administration.
The program is not mandatory for all employers nationwide, but 20 states have enacted legislation requiring its use by at least some employers (Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia). In addition, the federal government and almost all federal contractors are required to use it. Of the states with mandates, most have required state agencies and their contractors to use it, but do not extend the mandate to private employers. Four states (Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, and Tennessee) require all employers to use E-Verify.
Musing. WTF does this have to do with gun control and local sanctuaries?
A lot. Local sanctuaries is the common theme.
Yep. If we did E-Verify right – and closed off ALL of the loopholes – we could set up a viable guest-worker program where employers can get the labor they need – and workers have to get in line and not just go find a job that does not have E-Verify.
I’m totally in favor of such a system and it’s maddening that we don’t do that and instead do this really hateful thing that attacks people whose only crime is that they want a job. We hammer them and let the employers go free.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.