Several states consider becoming 'Second Amendment Sanctuaries'

[gnbrotz]

And the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution would still rule supreme should the Federal government enact anything contradictory to state law.

But only in matters where the feds have constitutional authority, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8.

Of course, the commerce clause has been bastardize to the point where it is the default reason for anything new they want to stick their nose into.

[Yoder]

Any state that does this will lose all Federal funding.

[Photon Guy]

We already have this:

§ 21. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

To qualify 21 with sanctuary status, would set the precedent that it in the future, it could be further qualified and not necessarily in a direction this forum would appreciate.

We've got that at the federal level too. The 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That doesn't mean that state and federal governments won't question and infringe on it anyway.

[OrangeCan99]

One of them became a suppressor sanctuary not all that long ago and it didn't work out too well for the citizen. Secession is the only answer.

Secession is illegal by law. Unless the state that wins in seceding wins the war and re-writes the rules.

[57springer]

Secession is illegal by law. Unless the state that wins in seceding wins the war and re-writes the rules.

Sounds good to me .

[OrangeCan99]

This "2A Sanctuary" thing is just fluff. So long as a "Sanctuary State" has any gun law, whether it be regulating carrying in any method, or types of firearms, it really means nothing. And the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution would still rule supreme should the Federal government enact anything contradictory to state law.

Are you saying that sanctuary law or not, guns in any state can't be touched by the govt?

[EFK]

I think the bottom line is that it will all boil down to just how hard the Fed wants to pursue enforcement of the supremacy clause. In the case of marijuana over the past few years, the states are largely doing what they want to do in contradiction to the Fed because the Fed has made it clear that - for now - they are not pursuing enforcement.

Somewhat similar to sanctuary cities, although Trump had tried to move on that and simply faced too much pushback from both the swamp courts and the swamp congress critters.

The same situation might be tried with firearms but under a Harris/Biden admin, you can bet your ass that they - and probably a good number in congress - will push back very hard and find willing partners in the courts.

[eagleclaw]

Sounds good to me .

Secession sounds good when it come to gun rights and other left wing federal restrictions. However can a state survive without federal money? Cities get federal money too. Once that gets shut off the citizens of the new country will be taxed through the roof to make up for the loss.

[SevenMilePete]

Any state that does this will lose all Federal funding.

Did the states with recreational marijuana lose any federal funding?

[Walleye Hunter]

Any state that does this will lose all Federal funding.

I do hope that some state, somewhere will step up to the plate and sue the harris/biden administration for any such transgressions.