The evolution of sanctuary "laws"

So it appears we will no longer have to worry about following laws going forward. Don’t like a law? Just declare your town a sanctuary City and ignore it! At least in this instance, there is Constitutional backing for this civil disobedience. I guess it was only a matter of time. When the majority of voters no longer have a clue how the government is supposed to function or what the Constitution even says, it was only a matter of time before the whole system broke down. Thoughts?

1 Like

I get what you’re saying, but I think it’s a good idea towns are putting in their own set of laws stating that they will not enforce any laws that are in violation of the Second Amendment.

Absolutely. These guys are completely justified in what they’re doing. I just think it’s sad that we’ve come to a point where this is even necessary because our elected representatives are no longer representing us or following their oath to uphold and support the Constitution. Imho, there are too many laws on the books as well. Laws that are not only unnecessary but laws that are solely being written because other laws are no longer being enforced properly. Why bother with fixing enforcement when we can just add new laws that won’t be enforced either? That will fix everything.

In the case of NM where we have politicians passing laws that are blatantly unconstitutional, why aren’t these politicians themselves being held accountable for violating their oath of office?

An unconstitutional law is not valid to begin with.

That didn’t stop Obamacare being “interpreted” all the way up through the Supreme Court!

1 Like

No and again, the politicians who pushed that legislation were never made to answer for writing that garbage legislation to begin with. (Probably because they didn’t actually write the bulk of it anyway.)

1 Like

This is why we need to focus on electing Constitutional conservatives at the local, state, and federal levels. There should be no need for the amount of laws that get put on the books to begin with. Our founding fathers wanted the maximum amount of freedom for us as possible. That’s why they wrote the Constitution. We need to hold all people in government, whether elected or appointed, accountable.


Exactly. And when another one of these dirty politicians pushes another bill or piece of legislation that is unconstitutional on its face, that dirty politician should not spend another second in office as they are violating the very oath they took when they entered into office.

1 Like

Cities in New Mexico are sanctuary cities in defiance of Federal Law, why not 2nd amendment sanctuary areas? The cesspool cities control the state legislatures which do not represent the entire state only their highly populated areas. They clearly ignore the differences in out state needs as do many states i.e. California, NY. Colorado, Washington, Oregon.

Thee states find no problem in ignoring drug laws, border laws, why shouldn’t smaller segments of the same states ignore state law which may impinge on constitutional rights???

1 Like

Or why bother having laws at all? I mean if we’re simply going to pick and choose which ones we’re following this week anyway, why not just not follow any of them?

I mean should we stop at gun laws or should we just go the whole nine yards? If we’ve gotten to the point where government is no longer bound by the Constitution, shouldn’t we just dissolve that government and call it a day as our Founders pretty much discussed when they drew up that document? Why are we pretending that the form of government we have now still resembles the government this country had when it was formed by the people who wrote that document? When do we say enough is enough and stop pretending?

Isn’t that what we face today??

Obama gave a nod to not prosecute states that legalize POT so here we are today with states that have legalized pot and this that chose not to legalize it.

Te problem is that state and local government now chose to ignore Federal law and few have standing to sue in courts.