Posted on Dec 26, 2019
VA AG: "No legal effect" of 2nd Amendment Sanctuary resolutions
1.02K
31
13
8
8
0
State, county, and municipal governments all over the US have decided by fiat that US Codes (USC) as they relate to illegal immigrants, cannot and will not be enforced in their respective jurisdictions. Every liberal and progressive socialist jurist categorically states that their refusal to enforce those laws are absolutely justified on "moral" grounds (note: their moral grounds, not mine). That being the case, how much more justified are the lawful bearers of firearms to also declare through their locally elected officials, that their governmental entity is also be considered as a sanctuary? After all, the progressives are refusing to obey a set of laws set forth in United States Code. We have declared that we will not obey commonwealth statutes that violate the protections enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In our case the opinion of the Virginia AG is of little worth. Very few will comply with their unconstitutional acts. I suspect they will have difficulty finding officers (law enforcement or National Guard) willing to use deadly force on their fellow Virginians. To those individuals who would be willing to murder their fellow citizens to enforce an unconstitutional law I only have one thing to say ... "come at me bra!"
VA AG: "No legal effect" of 2nd Amendment Sanctuary resolutions
Posted from wdbj7.com
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
We need not expect any consistency in the opinions of the gun-grabbers. They have an inconsistent, self-righteous view of "morality". Whatever evil they may do is justifiable, for it is done for a good and noble purpose. But they have a monopoly on that righteousness, and an exclusive claim to that "moral high-ground".
No one may emulate their actions, and justify their refusal to obey unconstitutional laws by an "a fortiori" demonstration of how refusal of a county to obey a state law in violation of the Constitution is far more "moral" than a state refusing to recognize the supremacy of Federal law over state law, particularly in the matter of immigration, an area of exclusive Federal authority.
No one may emulate their actions, and justify their refusal to obey unconstitutional laws by an "a fortiori" demonstration of how refusal of a county to obey a state law in violation of the Constitution is far more "moral" than a state refusing to recognize the supremacy of Federal law over state law, particularly in the matter of immigration, an area of exclusive Federal authority.
(7)
Comment
(0)
(1)
Reply
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
>1 y
CPT (Join to see) - ;-) ... ;-) ... ;-)
It won't be the first time someone took the most radical, insane ideas expressed as sarcasm as sincere beliefs. The ravings of the lunatic fringe are indistinguishable from the
most outrageous sarcasm.
It won't be the first time someone took the most radical, insane ideas expressed as sarcasm as sincere beliefs. The ravings of the lunatic fringe are indistinguishable from the
most outrageous sarcasm.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Read This Next