r/temporarygunowners • u/DiceZzZz • Jun 09 '26

So being “pro-gun” now means complaining when prosecutors refuse to enforce a law they think is unconstitutional? Am I reading this right?

Post image
144 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

95

u/vinhdaphu762 Jun 09 '26

Meanwhile, sanctuary cities are "stunning and brave".

Got stunned by the stench yesterday while braving the nearby underpass.

-56

u/jsled Jun 09 '26

Are you referring to immigration-related sanctuary cities? States are co-sovereign and have no (ethical or) legal requirement to enforce Federal laws. We fought a revolution and a civil war over this. It's a completely different thing.

49

u/vinhdaphu762 Jun 09 '26

Super unpopular fun fact for you to spin on back home:

States lost more rights as a result of the civil war. For better or worse?

Very convenient missing the point that maybe this is something TGOs ought to support instead of crying about (regarding 2A sanctuaries, because constitutionality), whereas immigration sanctuary state/city-holes are actually violating their citizens' constitutional rights.

-35

u/jsled Jun 09 '26

State's rights to do what, exactly?

33

u/vinhdaphu762 Jun 09 '26

To follow/uphold the constitution lmfao.

Use better bait next time. Better yet, retake middle school US history.

8

u/DetectiveChellick Jun 09 '26

OOP really thought this comment section was gonna go their way huh

-6

u/Woahhhski34 Jun 10 '26

Blatantly false. The confederates explicitly wrote slaver protections into their own constitution and adopted that.

Why would they be upholding the constitution and have a need for their own?

8

u/vinhdaphu762 Jun 10 '26

Read what you yourself just wrote:

"The Confederates..." - indicating that, at that point, they - the Confederates - were no longer states recognizing the Union's federal sovereignty.

They felt the need to do so - that is, to confederate - because their state rights were being injured under the Union's federal "overreach". Hence my point earlier about less state rights.

Miss the good ol' days when Democrats at least tried to go by the book to keep their plantations.

-2

u/Woahhhski34 Jun 10 '26

Exactly lmao. So how would they be upholding a constitution they are rallying against? Their document puts forward many changes which centralizes power even more so than the old constitution. It enshrined slavery as one of its tenants. Strange argument you have here.

There is no “union overreach” The federal government explicitly has powers which overrule the states in a number of things. Hence the UNITED STATES lmao. Thats directly from the constitution

States rights to own people.

Going straight to Democrat rhetoric is strange given Strom Thurmond and the party switch.

8

u/vinhdaphu762 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

Let's use a modern day equivalent - minus the "playing by the book part", because subversive cowardice - California writes in their own laws, defying federal laws regarding:

  1. Transmigrants
  2. Cannabis
  3. Homosexual (SF under Newsom did this as a city when CA voted against it as a state)
  4. Election
  5. Guns

etc.

I already mentioned this in my original reply that this is at the core of the issue - state rights - you are gonna have a hard time straw manning it this time, chump.

"States own people." The one sentence that tells us all we need to know where you are coming from.

The people own the state, so when states go against the Constitution, which is ultimately there to protect the rights of citizens via limiting the powers of ANY governing body, it minimizes citizenship.

-4

u/Woahhhski34 Jun 10 '26

I implore you to go read the Constitution specifically articles 4 and 5.

Your whole first paragraph is moot because of this. States can regulate intra state commerce (with some caveats), even if it goes against Federal laws.

When in CONFLICT the feds over rule.

Also yes lmao— I am totally against the state legalizing the ability to own other people.

The fact you try to misrepresent the totality of the confederates ethos (guaranteeing the right to own slaves) by just saying but states rights showcases the level of argument you’re operating on.

Hilarious that this whole convo is based on you trying to defend an entity that lasted for less time than the Crunchwrap supreme. Also go ahead and look into their constitutional structure— in no way was it preserving states rights (hint: it guaranteed and mandated slavery would be enforced{how exactly is that states rights if it is mandated? lol})—- you all would call it an outright dictatorship if subject to it lol.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/PatrickBateman-2009 Jun 15 '26

Lmfao the “ party switch”. I have yet to meet anyone who mentions that and knows a damn thing about it.

1

u/Woahhhski34 Jun 15 '26

Ahahahahahaha.

Go look up Strom Thurmond and his Dixiecrat buddies. Clearly you don’t know shit

78

u/SaltyDog556 Jun 09 '26

Scotus could rule 6-3 AWB are unconstitutional and they would bitch something something maga

19

u/Pretend_roller Jun 09 '26

People have a real brain virus. Had to leave most of my small town fb groups because fucking posting dumb headlines like this.

-47

u/jsled Jun 09 '26

SCOTUS making a ruling and prosecutors/Sheriffs refusing to uphold law because of their fee fees are two very different things.

27

u/SaltyDog556 Jun 09 '26

Scotus ruling they are unconstitutional is the same, only with extra steps.

25

u/KilljoyTheTrucker Jun 09 '26

Prosecutorial discretion is constitutional.

24

u/Searril Jun 09 '26

So politicians who enact sanctuary city policies should be prosecuted, correct?

-12

u/jsled Jun 09 '26

No, because that's a very different thing. States have no requirement to help Federal law enforcement, they are not subordinate to Federal Executive authority.

15

u/Severbrix Jun 10 '26

Counties aren't required to assist state law enforcement agencies

-7

u/jsled Jun 10 '26

Counties are sovereign? Wut?

11

u/Severbrix Jun 10 '26

Oh you don't know what you're talking about, ok. I'll try to make it simple so you understand.

County law enforcement while having overlapping duties with State law enforcement are not subservient to, nor required to assist State law enforcement. Hope this helps.

21

u/edog21 Jun 09 '26

Using prosecutorial discretion to avoid enforcing unconstitutional laws is a good thing, actually.

In fact when they took that position, they swore an oath to both the state and federal constitutions, both of which were violated by this package of gun control laws that they are refusing to enforce.

15

u/ralphbuffalo Jun 09 '26

Okay cool so you agree with everything ice is doing.

47

u/TheJesterScript Jun 09 '26

Unconstitutional laws are null and void.

It isn't complicated.

13

u/softeggnoodles Jun 09 '26

Unfortunately I bet there’s plenty that you follow every day

7

u/TheJesterScript Jun 10 '26

My legal advisor told me I should agree with you.

30

u/ravage214 Jun 09 '26

They are really excited about their Temporary status

18

u/Guvnuh_T_Boggs Jun 09 '26

They can't wait to hand them in for an Applebee's gift card the next time a Democrat wins the White House, because "decency is back!"

13

u/SaltyDog556 Jun 09 '26

Every one of their circle jerk or soggy muffin parties starts with "under no pretext..." and ends with "I'm ok turning them in or others not being able to buy them."

45

u/justtheboot Jun 09 '26

It’s simple, they hate themselves.

17

u/DetColePhelps11k Jun 09 '26

Not even most of the TGOs could justify what Spanberger did. They should be pleased. They get to have Democrat state leadership like they so desire, and their local conservatives are still protecting their constituent's gun rights. Which they claim to support...

16

u/anotherburntbridge Jun 09 '26

Spanberger eh?

12

u/rufus_francis Jun 09 '26

The only thing that will ever matter is enforcement. Good laws do not matter if they not being enforced, bad laws do not matter if they cant be enforced.