El Bido expected to release his exec orders on Gun Control Thursday 4/8

Bozz10mm

TGT Addict
TGT Supporter
Oct 5, 2013
7,820
113
Georgetown
If that's the case this whole thing even lamer than I thought.
It may be lame looking back at current regs, but looking forward it would take the teeth out of proposed federal assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, classifying braced pistols as SBRs, Universal Background Checks, and all the other silly crap they will come up with in the future.
 

benenglish

Just Another Boomer
Staff member
Moderator
Lifetime Member
Admin
Nov 22, 2011
16,342
113
Spring
...looking forward it would take the teeth out of proposed federal assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, classifying braced pistols as SBRs, Universal Background Checks, and all the other silly crap they will come up with in the future.
Would it? Almost every "2A Sanctuary" bill I've ever seen merely said that state resources would not be used to help enforce new federal laws. That's completely meaningless. Any new law need merely be bundled with a charge under an old law and, voila'!, the state authorities will still help the feds do their thing. Even if the feds don't bundle infractions, the 2A Sanctuary bills merely provide that state authorities won't help. There's nothing to prevent the ATF from arresting someone in a 2A Sanctuary state and then plopping them into the nearest Fusion Center holding cell to await hearings in the nearest federal court. If they structure their enforcement right, the ATF doesn't need help from any state.

Most "2A Sanctuary from the feds" actions are nothing more than virtue signalling from the right, the same sort of crap we deride the leftists for doing.

Now, the County Sheriffs who have declared 2A sanctuaries against state law may be a good thing with some utility. But the anti-fed stuff? That's just posturing.

As another poster has said, those declarations by a state will only have some small meaning when the state encourages a suppressor manufacturer to sell in their state without involving the feds. And that meaning will remain small and useless unless the state also commits LE personnel to directly protect that company from the ATF agents who will come calling.

In short, until Texas Rangers are physically barring Special Agents with the BATFE from enforcing laws, something that will probably require gunfire to be effective, 2A Sanctuary bills/laws/status will remain utterly meaningless and useless.
 

Bozz10mm

TGT Addict
TGT Supporter
Oct 5, 2013
7,820
113
Georgetown
Would it? Almost every "2A Sanctuary" bill I've ever seen merely said that state resources would not be used to help enforce new federal laws. That's completely meaningless. Any new law need merely be bundled with a charge under an old law and, voila'!, the state authorities will still help the feds do their thing. Even if the feds don't bundle infractions, the 2A Sanctuary bills merely provide that state authorities won't help. There's nothing to prevent the ATF from arresting someone in a 2A Sanctuary state and then plopping them into the nearest Fusion Center holding cell to await hearings in the nearest federal court. If they structure their enforcement right, the ATF doesn't need help from any state.

Most "2A Sanctuary from the feds" actions are nothing more than virtue signalling from the right, the same sort of crap we deride the leftists for doing.

Now, the County Sheriffs who have declared 2A sanctuaries against state law may be a good thing with some utility. But the anti-fed stuff? That's just posturing.

As another poster has said, those declarations by a state will only have some small meaning when the state encourages a suppressor manufacturer to sell in their state without involving the feds. And that meaning will remain small and useless unless the state also commits LE personnel to directly protect that company from the ATF agents who will come calling.

In short, until Texas Rangers are physically barring Special Agents with the BATFE from enforcing laws, something that will probably require gunfire to be effective, 2A Sanctuary bills/laws/status will remain utterly meaningless and useless.
Obviously it wouldn't prevent federal agents from making arrests, but would they expend the resources to pursue, arrest, and prosecute average law abiding citizens for possessing a 20 round mag, or an AR pistol with a brace? Not having to worry about city, county, and state LE arresting me for large capacity mags and or an unregistered pistol with a brace, I know I would breathe a lot easier when I travel to my private property, or even to a gun range for target practice. The feds aren't swarming in to marijuana sanctuary states to arrest individuals, growers, and sellers.

I have never come in contact with or had a federal agent come in contact with me during my normal daily activities. Can't say the same for local, county, and state authorities. At least I know I won't be arrested during a traffic stop or by a game warden while hunting, if I happen to have the wrong kind of magazines on me or a brace attached to my pistol. Therefore, SB513 would not be utterly meaningless and useless to me.

I don't think of it as virtue signaling, I think of it as a great big middle finger to Joe Biden, or whomever is in charge of him. I would rather have this bill than not have it. This bill only refers to new federal laws and does not apply to NFA items like suppressors. That was tried and failed in Kansas.
 
Last edited:

Axxe55

Just a man, and his dogs.
Dec 15, 2019
16,703
113
In the Deep East Texas Pineywoods!
I have to agree with @benenglish that many of the so-called "2nd Amendment Sanctuary" provisions don't have a lot of power behind them. It's kind of way to make gun owners feel good, just like all the feel good gun control laws make the anti-gun people feel all warm and fuzzy.

Unless the states passing such provisions are telling the federal government, and their enforcement agents to pound sand, and that ANY federal officer coming into their state will be arrested. charged and prosecuted for harassing any citizen in their state, Ben is correct, it's nothing more than posturing.
 

cycleguy2300

Well-Known
Mar 19, 2010
1,670
113
Austin, Texas
It is easy to not comply when you cannot get it in the first place.

I am concerned with loss of rights, and the inability to buy gun stuff., especially future generations. Losses are usually permanent, we rarely ever get rights back. But when nobody fights back, it is easy to take them.
Hear hear

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
 

Glenn B

TGT Addict
TGT Supporter
Sep 5, 2019
3,563
113
Texarkana Area
I keep wanting to add a serious comment of my own to this thread but the thread title makes that nearly impossible for me. The thing that gets me and has me almost puking in disgust, each time I see it, is the use of what amounts to a pet name for that scumbag Joe Biden; really - El Bido! What will be next, La Dromtoe for Harris?
 
Top Bottom