Breaking: Court Hands Trump Win in Sanctuary City Grants

I agree but a semi auto rifle with a decent sized magazine is one of if not the best choices.

 

Not nearly as much as allowing a bully like Trump to blackmail states.

 

Except that he isn't...

No more rotren than thr far left bullying society to accept homosexuality as good and normal. Or forcing society to accepr that a man can be a girl because he feels like it..

No blackmail is not to strong of a word..

The fact that people will demonize me about what i said is proof.

 

Fully automatic weapons are what's banned.

The point is that gun rights in this country are not absolute. I don't want to see us further divided by incentivizing the feds to blackmail states the way Trump is doing over sanctuary cities.

 

Of course, he is.

They can't bully society, but they could pressure states not to adopt laws like the law on bathrooms in North Carolina.

 

No, they're not. You just need a special license. That, and fully automatic weapons are very expensive.

 

A semi-auto shotgun is a much better choice especially if there's others living in the house. A rifle shot will penetrate multiple walls and could take out a loved one. Not so much with a shotgun. If you wanna shoot thru walls get a .40 or .357sig pistol.

 

Licenses are not automatic (pun intended).

Not that expensive. The government pays around $700 per weapon.

 

Bingo. You don't want to hesitate for fear you might hurt the people you're trying to protect.

Ah, that will do it.

 

No fully automatics made for the civilian market since 1985. They're very expensive. A basket case Thompson would run at least $3k. There's a de-rated (now semi-auto) Thompson on gunbroker in an auction right now with a starting bid of $2k.

 

Gun rights are an absolute right, a right that is already neing infringed and under persistent further atrack from bad people. The same bab people who are attacking thr first ammendment.

 

Pressuring is blackmail i have it on good authority.. actually really horrible authority. Adam schiff and Nancy Pelosi to be exact.

Actually society's are bullied all the time...

 

Shot guns don't hold enough ammo and are less capable of delivering disabeling or preferably mortal wounds.

 

If you feel that way then a Mac-9 or Tec-9 is a better choice for cqc. IMHO, any AR platform including the M4 is too big for house calls.

 

For obvious reasons. It wouldn't be for lack of demand.

If I was inclined to collect, I'd love to have a Thompson. An automatic M4, too. You couldn't charge enough money for a new M4 to drive me off. I'm sure I'm not alone.

 

If we let the feds blackmail states because our particular cause is in play--illegal immigration, pro-choice, pro-life, pipelines, no pipelines, fracking, no fracking, etc., etc.--we may as well write off our federal system.

I would have thought you would understand my point.

 

Yep.

 

And another win against the House Judiciary Committee

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-testify-in-major-win-for-white-house.568825/

 

Lots of experts disagree..

 

That they do. My choice...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossberg_500

 

ACLU is even worse than the SS

Cut all funds
Do it after election

 

Good & don’t let them have their appeals until they fork over the cash.

 

9 shots max before reload better practice.
And know your laws. I believe here in Colorado to be legal shotguns can have a max ability to carry 5 shots.. willing to be proven wrong but i think thats the law here.

 

Shooting someone with 1 round of 00 Buck is like shooting them 9 time with a 9mm all at the same time.

 

Just because states pick and chooses which federal statute they enforce, does not mean that they have the right to do so. In most of these cases, the Federal Government has chosen not to force states to comply, but that does not mean that they couldn't force compliance if they chose to. I give you Marijuana possession and usage as an example. Under federal law, it is illegal to possess and/or use marijuana even in states where they are not enforcing that particular federal law. As states started decriminalizing possession and usage of marijuana, the US AG under the Obama Administration made the choice not to sue states for non-compliance. But if, lets say a, National Park Ranger were to catch someone smoking a joint within the park, the individual could be arrested and charged under federal statute in a federal court. The smoker could be convicted and sentenced, and the state can not do anything about it.

But if an administration chose to sue states for non-compliance of federal law, they would win. Why? Because there is no "opt out" clause in federals statutes. These are federal laws. Not federal suggestions.

What special skills are necessary to pick up a phone and call ICE. Correction Officer, "Pursuant to ICE Warrant number "(yada yada) we are notifying you that we will be releasing (so and so) after 72 hours." ICE or CBP officer arrives to take the illegal into custody.

See, no special skills necessary.

Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution gives the Federal Government the authority to enforce Immigrations and Naturalization. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Because the power to enforce immigration laws, the 10th Amendment does not apply.

https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html

As I have already demonstrated, the Federal Government has used a threat of withhold federal funding in order to force compliance. The alternative is long dragged out court battles. In the end, the states will be forced to comply with federal statutes.

When discussing courts and laws, it is best to look to precedence and laws. Put personal opinions aside. This is how the courts, included SCOTUS, are required to base their decisions. To issue ruling based on feelings is nothing more then Judicial Activism. What would be the use of having federal statutes if the federal government did not have the power to enforce compliance?

Current Immigration and Naturalization laws requires cities and states to give ICE/CBP 72 hour notice before releasing an illegal criminal with a ICE detention warrant. Again, cities and states do not have a right to opt out of the law.

Now, I challenge you to provide me a case that sets a precedence that states can refuse to enforce federal statute.