Resolution passed to make lake county Florida second amendment sanctuary zone .

Lake county Florida has been the first county in Florida to declare it’s self a sanctuary Second Amendment zone to prevent gun confiscation and buyback programs touted by the Democrats.

In a 4-0 vote the resolution was ushered in.

Commissioner Josh Blake was quoted by the paper and other local media as saying that the resolution draws a line in the sand.
“It doesn’t mince words, and I hope it sends a message to what can best be described as the authoritarian control freaks who see it as their job to forcibly disarm their fellow citizens.”

2nd amendment

a reply to: Fallingdown

I would think our constitution would make the entire country a sanctuary.
The only time someone needs sanctuary cities is when they are breaking a law and a city chooses to not follow the laws.
Exercising your rights is not a crime.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Yeah, good luck with that.

Currently Florida has a red flag law that let's law enforcement take away your weapons.

And this was enacted by Rick Scott.

a reply to: grey580

a reply to: grey580

The red flag laws in Florida allow a friend or relative to hold the firearms after the temporary order is enforced. A final order can be imposed on the person to prevent access to the firearms. Again this doesn’t mean confiscation by police. A relative or friend can retain possession .

The final order is a bit deceptive also. It can only prevent access to their firearms for up to one year and to continue preventing access it would have to be ruled on every year .


So no that doesn’t sound like a insurmountable obstacle .

a reply to: Bluntone22

Well, that would seem to make sense; however few understand the gun ownership laws and protections within State levels as provided. Mired is the deep grey areas already addressed by the supreme court.

Eg. Over 600,000 registered and legal machine guns in the USA; additionally legal transfer is possible with ATF approval.. 50 caliber are legal under long gun classification. Trigger cranks, bump stocks and or bumpfire categories are considered today falling under the 1986 law of producing such for citizen purchases as illegal in "new" production. Prior productions legally obtained are legal from the classification to transfer and own observing the law. Supporting article:

Federal law prohibits the possession of newly manufactured machine guns, but permits the transfer of machine guns lawfully owned prior to May 19, 1986, if the transfer is approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives. As a result, a substantial number of machine guns are still in circulation. As of November 2018, the national registry of machine guns contained registrations for 638,260 machine guns.

Source one of many

Here, in Texas, we have edtablished sheriffs supercede unconstitutinal arbitrary enforcement attempts upon citizens' constitutional rights.

Like resolutions in several other counties, Hood County’s measure affirms support for any decision the sheriff makes “to not enforce unconstitutional firearms restrictions against any citizen,” and it shields county funds, employees, and buildings from being used in service of any law “that unconstitutionally infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Texas Monthly

Complexity is such and no one can not simply "snatch guns" without changing the Constitution, and the concept is fully misunderstood. Start with Printz v. United States as the Bradey Law was defined by SCOTUS. If one chooses to give their guns, that is their choice and a legal fight is abandoned. The legal fight would win.

Bottom line is the 2nd amendment must be amended to start taking legal firearms from citizens, period.

Makes a good talking point to the anti-gun crowd, but way, way too much to think legal gun ownership rights will or can dissolve in a pen stroke.

mg

I wouldn't want to live down there, they will probably attract a bunch of gun fanatic people paranoid of the government that are troublesome in nature. A place where you might have to choose a side to be on. You are either with us or against us.

I would rather see the conservatives in our nations capital and our state capitals fight for our second amendment rights.

I was a member of the NRA for many years but they got a little overzealous for a while. It is nice to see they want to negotiate a little now. I do not trust some people who want to take away our right to bear arms just because they want to control us and do not want us to have any options except what they allow us to have.

I have always owned guns, I never shot anyone, I get along with the local police and am a law abiding citizen. Our right to bear arms if we have not gotten into serious trouble or are a threat to society is a very good right. One that I do not want to lose. Can you imagine how many criminals would benefit by people not having guns to protect themselves. We do not live in a utopia where everyone is nice and honest, we do not live in a world where groups do not want to dominate us and take away all our rights........well, maybe people in California want that, I see lots of people who live in a state of ignorance and delusion living in that state....a state where their reality keeps in step with Hollywood productions. No country is going to attack the US and accomplish taking over this country if the majority of our citizens are armed and able and willing to stop the avengers. I do not want to be overthrown by some other country. The anti-gun people are not very wise, everyone benefits if criminals do not know if the home they are breaking into has armed people.

Most people capable of logical thought in the state know that no one is going out into rural Texas and take people's guns.

The victor of a gun fight might get the guns but it will not be a hand them over event.

Just the fact.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: grey580

a reply to: grey580

The red flag laws in Florida allow a friend or relative to hold the firearms after the temporary order is enforced. A final order can be imposed on the person to prevent access to the firearms. Again this doesn’t mean confiscation by police. A relative or friend can retain possession .

The final order is a bit deceptive also. It can only prevent access to their firearms for up to one year and to continue preventing access it would have to be ruled on every year .


So no that doesn’t sound like a insurmountable obstacle .

I propose blue flag laws.

Take away phones and internet access from people who can't mind their own damn buisness.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: grey580

a reply to: grey580

The red flag laws in Florida allow a friend or relative to hold the firearms after the temporary order is enforced. A final order can be imposed on the person to prevent access to the firearms. Again this doesn’t mean confiscation by police. A relative or friend can retain possession .

The final order is a bit deceptive also. It can only prevent access to their firearms for up to one year and to continue preventing access it would have to be ruled on every year .


So no that doesn’t sound like a insurmountable obstacle .

I wouldnt cheer that either...loss of due process, doesnt make me cheer.

Theres already a sanctuary clause on arms...its God given

a reply to: Fallingdown

Yes. Also There needs to be a court order for the removal of the weapons. So there's some oversight.

It's not an unreasonable law.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Fallingdown

Yes. Also There needs to be a court order for the removal of the weapons. So there's some oversight.

It's not an unreasonable law.

C'mon. "court order"? ...No.

No need for such an order, one which will be fought up the food chain. Seriously?

A court order is B.S., my rights founded upon known history and packed deep by notable persons whom sacrificed their lives, risked their families futures, risked beliefs beyond self....protecting a straight forward ideal already established...in oath after oath clearly to defend the Constitution?

No court can sway against the Ammendments, called the Bill of Rights for a reason, the SCOTUS can unleash the only definition(s) and may allow a flood of rights so far without concise definition. Which would scratch the scab the anti-gun crowd never recognizes as forseeability.

mg