" The sponsor of the measure, City Councilman Tim Terral was inspired by friends in neighboring Arizona, who said they avoided going to Needles specifically because of California’s strict gun laws. “I’m asking them, ‘Why won’t you come to a barbecue at my house? Or, why won’t you come out here and buy X, Y or Z because we can sell it cheaper,” Terral said. “They said basically it’s because we’re not going to disarm ourselves, and California won’t accept our concealed weapons permits.” In addition, the city wants relief from a new California gun law that went into effect on July 1. The new law requires gun owners in California to undergo a background check in order to purchase ammunition. The law also prohibits people from bringing ammunition into California from other states. Since Needles is more than a hundred miles away from the nearest California store that sells ammunition, many in the city buy it in neighboring Arizona. The new law makes that practice a crime." What do you think? Do you support the local sovereignty of being able to govern with laws that make more sense for your local community (be they gun laws or immigration laws) or do you think a faraway and culturally disconnected governing body has the more legitimate authority (be they gun laws or immigration laws)? https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...ity-looks-to-become-a-2nd-amendment-sanctuary
If states are free to decide that they are simply going to refuse to comply with federal laws relating to immigration, illicit narcotic substances, or whatever else they wish to not abide by, there is no reason for their own individual cities to be prohibited from deciding that they are going to refuse to follow state laws relating to whatever they find objectionable. These states set things into motion with the spirit of disobedience and open defiance of federal law. They have no one but themselves to blame for the fallout of their actions.
I support the concept in principle because I oppose the infringement California is instituting on the rights of citizens. I however cannot support the practice of sanctuary anything. If one allows for it in any case, they must then allow for it in all cases. I think sanctuary cities are disaster and an attempt to shirk law and responsibility. In the case of guns and California, the proper response is through the federal courts...
Yes, I agree. Except so many people are fleeing California and moving to Arizona that it won't be long until they infiltrate politics and pass the same idiotic laws that they originially fled from and ruin Arizona like they ruined California, then Needles is right back where they started. How is anyone going to know if your ammo came from California or Arizona? I know, California can start requiring that any lead sold there be colored pink with the casing being in rainbow colors with a percentage of all sales going to transgender causes.
Or they will start limiting the amount of ammo you can possess. I usually don't buy less than 500 rounds at a time.
Actually I agree with California on this. They are traitors if they don't want to comply with the states gun laws. I think states should make laws that are popular with that electorate.
Yea you can't do that, its called an interstate commerce violation. Ammo is a legal product. I would image that if this were to find its way in to the federal court system, it would get shot down.
I agree with this as well, as long as this is applied universally. Sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants are also traitors then. However, I am fine with "sanctuary" places as long as we either accept all types or accept none, no picking and choosing. I am a huge proponent of states rights and even county and city rights. Things like this should be handled at the lowest level possible so as to give an accurate representation of the people. The nation is diverse, as are the states and the counties within them. If folks within a particular county within a particular state do not agree with the state law then they should have the right to fight against it. I've seen time and time again the densely populated cities within a state able to strong arm policy for the entire state leaving rural folks with little to no actual representation. NY is a prime example of that with NYC running the entire state and forcing everybody in NY state to bow to their will. We don't do majority rules as a nation so we shouldn't do majority rules as states either.
