House Republicans launch Second Amendment Caucus

[jdege]

The hook that they have is/will be withholding Federal funding. That will cost them dearly

I'll believe that when I see it. So far, there have been no consequences for clear violations of the laws that currently exist. I'd be very surprised if there were consequences for breaking any new laws we might pass.

[Hmac]

The hook that they have is/will be withholding Federal funding. That will cost them dearly

I'll believe that when I see it. So far, there have been no consequences for clear violations of the laws that currently exist. I'd be very surprised if there were consequences for breaking any new laws we might pass.

They don't have to make any new laws. They only need to enforce the ones on the books. The defunding mechanisms are already in place, thoughtfully provided by Loretta Lynch.

[jshuberg]

My understanding is the Hearing Protection Act is filibuster proof, as it's an amendment to the NFA, which is a tax statute. Tax bills can go through a process called reconciliation, which cannot be filibustered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Holland&Holland]

No, they'll rebel by just refusing to enforce the law. I suspect we'll soon see how committed they would be to ignoring Federal law/sanctions, as they have said that they will do, when immigration policy gets revamped and sanctuary cities end up in the crosshairs of the Trump administration. That will tell us a lot about how such cities will react to Federal infringement on their local societal views like gun control.[/quote]

How would that work? If federal agents arrest illegals they would refuse to house them in their jails? Does not seem that that would work well when they have a capital murder case and want federal court to hold the proceedings. I suspect politicians might make statements and puff out their chests but there is quite a difference between that an ignoring federal law.[/quote]
Yes, exactly. They won't let them be housed in their jails, or they'll release them, or won't cooperate with prosecution or investigation. They've already been doing that. I"m surprised you don't know that. It's been in all the papers.

The hook that they have is/will be withholding Federal funding. That will cost them dearly[/quote]

Which papers? I get the illegals released under Obama, but blatantly refusing to follow federal directive? Please cite your sources.

[Hmac]

Which papers? I get the illegals released under Obama, but blatantly refusing to follow federal directive? Please cite your sources.

Ok, let me Google that for you....

https://www.google.com/search?q=blatant ... 8&oe=utf-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=sanctua ... 8&oe=utf-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=sanctua ... tuary+city

[Holland&Holland]

Which papers? I get the illegals released under Obama, but blatantly refusing to follow federal directive? Please cite your sources.

Ok, let me Google that for you....

https://www.google.com/search?q=blatant ... 8&oe=utf-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=sanctua ... 8&oe=utf-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=sanctua ... tuary+city

Under an Obama administration which encourages this. I am saying show me where they are doing so without repercussion when it is counter to the administrations wishes.

[Hmac]

Which papers? I get the illegals released under Obama, but blatantly refusing to follow federal directive? Please cite your sources.

Ok, let me Google that for you....

https://www.google.com/search?q=blatant ... 8&oe=utf-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=sanctua ... 8&oe=utf-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=sanctua ... tuary+city

Under an Obama administration which encourages this. I am saying show me where they are doing so without repercussion when it is counter to the administrations wishes.

I never said they would ignore the law under Trump without repercussions as they are under Obama. I said that they will ignore the law despite the threatened repercussions that Trump is likely to apply. At least...that's what the mayors of those cities, including Betsy Hodges, say now. They are now, and say they will in the future, ignore Federal law. Obama isn't enforcing the immigration laws in sanctuary cities. Trump has said he's going to. We'll see soon enough. It will cost Minneapolis about $30 million if those mayors do what they say they're going to do and Trump does what he says he's going to do. Other cities have a lot more money at stake.

https://www.google.com/search?q=betsy+h ... 8&oe=utf-8

[Holland&Holland]

I never said they would ignore the law under Trump without repercussions as they are under Obama. I said that they will ignore the law despite the threatened repercussions that Trump is likely to apply. At least...that's what the mayors of those cities, including Betsy Hodges, say now. They are now, and say they will in the future, ignore Federal law. Obama isn't enforcing the immigration laws in sanctuary cities. Trump has said he's going to. We'll see soon enough. It will cost Minneapolis about $30 million if those mayors do what they say they're going to do and Trump does what he says he's going to do.

It is 2 very different things to state what you will do versus what you do do.

[Hmac]

I never said they would ignore the law under Trump without repercussions as they are under Obama. I said that they will ignore the law despite the threatened repercussions that Trump is likely to apply. At least...that's what the mayors of those cities, including Betsy Hodges, say now. They are now, and say they will in the future, ignore Federal law. Obama isn't enforcing the immigration laws in sanctuary cities. Trump has said he's going to. We'll see soon enough. It will cost Minneapolis about $30 million if those mayors do what they say they're going to do and Trump does what he says he's going to do.

It is 2 very different things to state what you will do versus what you do do.

Yes....can't argue with that . What they do do is not enforce Federal immigration laws. They say that they're going to continue not enforcing Federal immigration laws. Obama let it slide. Trump says he's going to enforce. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[george]

Any of these if they passed by federal law, the states May resist at first but they'll fall like dominoes. how many of you guys remember the 55 mile an hour all the states that refuse, when the money started tightening up and not coming in from the federal government anymore they fel like dominoes and fifty-five mile-an-hour was Nationwide. take away the funding and they cry like little babies. I would predict a lot of whining but you will see compliance just the same as you did with a 55 mile an hour Nationwide restriction.

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk

[Hmac]

Any of these if they passed by federal law, the states May resist at first but they'll fall like dominoes. how many of you guys remember the 55 mile an hour all the states that refuse, when the money started tightening up and not coming in from the federal government anymore they fel like dominoes and fifty-five mile-an-hour was Nationwide. take away the funding and they cry like little babies. I would predict a lot of whining but you will see compliance just the same as you did with a 55 mile an hour Nationwide restriction.

Yes. It will be interesting to see how these "sanctuary cities" ultimately respond if the Trump administration does indeed withhold Federal funding. How far does their self-righteousness actually extend? There are no new laws required. All Trump has to do is decide to enforce the laws that are already on the books, and use the funding sanctions that Loretta Lynch has already created.

[jdege]

Any of these if they passed by federal law, the states May resist at first but they'll fall like dominoes.

You're assuming that we'll have an administration that is willing to spend the political capital to force the states to abide by the law, and I just don't see that happening.