3 ms·

Interesting. They're basically using the sanctuary city playbook. I look forward to seeing how this plays out.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Yup. Which itself is the same as the weed playbook. Anyone with more than six brain cells saw this coming a mile away. It was only a matter of time until a red state gave the feds the bird on an issue like this. Frankly I'm surprised nobody did this sooner.
- laverya 5y ago
  That's because other states have already done this! [0] Though there's been a big push for such legislation over the past year. Not mentioned in the article: what happened to Kansas's [1] attempt to bypass federal gun regulations. The people involved in that test case are still in prison. 0: https://reason.com/video/2021/04/14/more-than-a-dozen-states-are-trying-to-nullify-federal-gun-control/ https://reason.com/video/2021/04/14/more-than-a-dozen-states... 1: https://apnews.com/article/91541e86b9894ef28db49c75c52c3461 https://apnews.com/article/91541e86b9894ef28db49c75c52c3461
- beerandt 5y ago
  It's a bit more complicated with guns, because businesses aren't going to usually break federal law to sell individuals firearms, since there's a legal way to do it. Weed businesses have no choice but to break the law, since they have no way to comply with it, federally. And private firearm sales between individuals weren't ever regulated so no real change there.
rdtwo 5y ago
I mean the red states have mostly been doing this with abortion rights
- treeman79 5y ago
  Abortion isn’t mentioned In the constitution. Guns are.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Legally, the constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. In the case of abortion they decided that the right to privacy includes the right to get an abortion, even if it isn’t mentioned explicitly in the constitution.
    - mnouquet 5y ago
      Which is why Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned and IF there is such a consensus and acceptability among The People, then Congress shall vote on a a Constitutional Amendment to be officially ratified by the States. Until then, it is just a bad ruling.
    - brewdad 5y ago
      The Constitution says you have a right to bear arms. All we need is for a state to legally define arms as excluding firearms. I suppose the right set of judges could say you are only allowed the right to engage in fisticuffs.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

Yup. Which itself is the same as the weed playbook. Anyone with more than six brain cells saw this coming a mile away. It was only a matter of time until a red state gave the feds the bird on an issue like this. Frankly I'm surprised nobody did this sooner.

laverya 5y ago
That's because other states have already done this! [0] Though there's been a big push for such legislation over the past year. Not mentioned in the article: what happened to Kansas's [1] attempt to bypass federal gun regulations. The people involved in that test case are still in prison. 0: https://reason.com/video/2021/04/14/more-than-a-dozen-states-are-trying-to-nullify-federal-gun-control/ https://reason.com/video/2021/04/14/more-than-a-dozen-states... 1: https://apnews.com/article/91541e86b9894ef28db49c75c52c3461 https://apnews.com/article/91541e86b9894ef28db49c75c52c3461
beerandt 5y ago
It's a bit more complicated with guns, because businesses aren't going to usually break federal law to sell individuals firearms, since there's a legal way to do it. Weed businesses have no choice but to break the law, since they have no way to comply with it, federally. And private firearm sales between individuals weren't ever regulated so no real change there.

rdtwo 5y ago

I mean the red states have mostly been doing this with abortion rights

treeman79 5y ago
Abortion isn’t mentioned In the constitution. Guns are.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  Legally, the constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. In the case of abortion they decided that the right to privacy includes the right to get an abortion, even if it isn’t mentioned explicitly in the constitution.
  - mnouquet 5y ago
    Which is why Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned and IF there is such a consensus and acceptability among The People, then Congress shall vote on a a Constitutional Amendment to be officially ratified by the States. Until then, it is just a bad ruling.
  - brewdad 5y ago
    The Constitution says you have a right to bear arms. All we need is for a state to legally define arms as excluding firearms. I suppose the right set of judges could say you are only allowed the right to engage in fisticuffs.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]