More WashingtonPost Bullshit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Washington Post's Double Standard On
> Immigration And Guns
>
>
> Last week, the Washington Post's editorial board
> came out against sanctuary cities. No, not the
> kind of sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce
> federal immigration law. The Post's editors have
> no problem with that. Instead, the Post came out
> against the efforts by some local governments to
> oppose state- and federal-level enforcement of
> restrictions on gun ownership.
>
>
>
> The Post didn't go easy on these efforts either.
> The editorial likened the gun-owner sanctuary
> efforts to "vigilantism" and "frontier justice,"
> with the obvious implication being these people
> are one step away from organizing lynch mobs.
> Moreover, we're told the movement is "nonsense
> fanned by mischief-makers with an agenda," and
> will lead to "chaos."
>
> Recognizing the obvious double standard the Post
> is proposing for immigrant sanctuaries and
> gun-owner sanctuaries, the authors try to explain
> it all away:
>
>
The distinction between the two sanctuaries
> is basic. Localities that have passed resolutions
> declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuary
> jurisdictions are threatening to ignore laws
> enacted by duly elected state legislatures and
> signed by governors. Immigration-focused sanctuary
> localities are breaking no law; rather, they are
> refusing purely voluntary cooperation in service
> to federal law enforcement.
>
> It's pretty hard to split this hair any finer. The
> Post's distinction here seems to be that local
> nullification of federal law is acceptable, but
> local nullification of state law is not.
>
> Of course, whether or not local governments are
> breaking a law depends on each state's
> constitution and the nature of "home rule" in each
> state. Indeed, in California, Judge James
> Crandall, appointed by Democratic Gov. Jerry
> Brown, ruled against California's law mandating
> local enforcement of immigration law. Crandall
> argued the law was "an unconstitutional invasion
> into the rights of the city." He also said "the
> operation of a police department and its jail is a
> city affair. For the state to say one size fits
> all for policing isn’t going to fit everybody."
> This state law was enacted — to use the words of
> the Post editors — "by duly elected state
> legislatures."
>
> Does the Post agree or disagree with the judge's
> logic? If the Post's editors disagree, then on
> what grounds to they justify support for local
> governments that ignore state laws mandating
> compliance with immigration enforcement? If the
> editors agree with the ruling, then on what
> grounds do they deny a local government's freedom
> to enforce gun laws as they wish?
>
> Several states, including Florida, have adopted
> laws that prohibit sanctuary cities. According to
> this source, at least one local government in
> Florida has declared itself a sanctuary for
> illegal immigrants. Shall we expect an editorial
> from the Post denouncing this flouting of state
> laws? That seems unlikely.
>
> Moreover, since the Post is now coming out in
> favor of state and local indifference toward
> federal law, will the Post's editors be throwing
> their support behind state-level efforts to
> nullify federal Obamacare laws or federal gun
> laws?
>
> Obviously, that's not going to happen, and we
> should not expect any consistency on this from the
> Post. To anyone who is paying attention, it is
> clear the Post truly has a double standard here,
> and has been casting about for ways to justify
> support for one type of local nullification, while
> opposing a different kind.
>
> What the Post should have done was just come out
> and state what is likely the editorial board's
> real position: namely that restrictions on gun
> ownership are good, and restrictions on
> immigration are bad.
>
> The conclusion: it is moral to ignore laws
> restricting immigration. But it is immoral to
> ignore laws restricting gun ownership.
>
> Although this position on guns is certainly wrong,
> the Post's editors could at least have been
> respected for saying what they really meant.
> Instead, they fall back on a disingenuous claim
> that they support the law, and that anything else
> is "chaos."
>
>
> This ersatz conservatism was no doubt an attempt
> to appeal to people who fancy themselves as
> "reasonable" or "moderate." Indeed many of these
> sorts of people continue to support the War on
> Drugs with nonsense about how we're all obliged to
> follow clearly unconstitutional federal drug laws
> until those laws are changed. Nonetheless, the
> Post's approach is inherently dishonest and
> double-dealing.
>
> A truly consistent position is to let states and
> locals decide for themselves on all of these
> issues.
>
> In a 2017 column for mises.org, I said exactly
> this:
>
>
If California establishes — yet again —
> that states can ignore and even inhibit federal
> arrests and prosecutions in the states, then it
> becomes all the easier for other states to refuse
> to enforce federal gun laws, federal drug laws,
> Obamacare, or federal mandates that states provide
> welfare programs and "free" taxpayer-funded
> services to non-citizens.
>
> The only tool the federal government should
> have in these cases is to cut off funding. This is
> a very powerful tool, mind you, but it is also
> hardly a given that every state would face
> disaster if facing a cut in federal spending. Nor
> is this a one-way street. for political reasons,
> the federal government wants to spend money in the
> states just as much as the states want to receive
> it.
>
> So, let's make every state a sanctuary from
> federal gun laws, federal immigration law, federal
> drug laws, federal election laws, and more.
>
> We should take this even further, of course, and
> support broad "home rule" powers for individual
> cities and counties, so they can decide for
> themselves what state laws to enforce, and which
> to nullify. Only by decentralizing and localizing
> political power can we hope to have laws that
> actually reflect to a reasonable extent the values
> of the local population. Radical decentralization
> also makes it easier for those who disagree with
> these policies to escape them through physical
> relocation. The alternative is more of what we
> already have: both state and federal governments
> impose the will of the majority in the legislature
> on the minority. Often, this is a near fifty-fifty
> split, yet we're suppose to believe, for example,
> that all 39 million Californians in a place larger
> than Britain are obliged to follow state laws
> because, say, 51 percent of the population
> supports those policies. And if you're in the
> minority? Tough luck, forever. Oh, and you'll have
> to move hundreds of miles away to live under
> different laws.
>
> If the Post really supported democracy, it would
> want more of it. That is, it would want more
> legislative bodies — whether city councils,
> county commissions or state legislatures — to
> decide matters for themselves. And that includes
> laws covering guns.
>
>
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/washington-pos
> ts-double-standard-immigration-and-guns
>
>
Democracy dies in a democrat's ass!
I didn't know the washington post was still around too funny