Sanctuary state

[ScoutShooter]

The ATF does actively work field cases, and you have the FBI and DEA who would likely be making such charges in conjunction with their normal cases. For example, suppose the DEA takes down a drug trafficker who is in possession of an illegal suppressor or other NFA item, the DEA would make such charges. I would think Customs would also be an agency that would routinely run across such items. HSI could conceivably come across such items in human trafficking cases, and I suppose U.S. Fish & Wildlife probably even comes across them from time to time. - Trafficking = "Larger cases"

Such a law would prohibit your local sheriff's office from being able to take gang related felon in possession of a firearm cases to federal court. -They can't do that now. (unless dual sworn and attached to a federal task force.) But such a law would not prevent them from giving the case to the feds for prosecution. It is only a symbolic law and really does nothing. We encounter cases of sawed off shotguns and short barreled rifles routinely, but the feds defer to a state prosecution because it is not a big enough case for them. For example, a felon with a gram of meth and a sawed off shotgun -they typically will not even bother with it.

As for immigration, the Trump administration began a new program called Immigration Warrant Service Officers. These are local personnel who are issued federal credentials to execute federal immigration warrants. They can't initiate immigration cases, but the program satisfies the requirement to have a federal official execute the warrant. -Like I said . . 287g program.

 

[jlw]

Taking a case federal does not require being dual sworn at the federal level. It merely requires the U.S. Attorney's Office accepting the case. We've done it numerous times with drug/gang cases.

The Immigration Warrant Service Office program and 287 G are not the same thing.

 

[ScoutShooter]

Your words: "Such a law would prohibit your local sheriff's office from being able to take gang related felon in possession of a firearm cases to federal court."

We were not talking about prosecutions. You were talking about local sheriff's offices not being able to make federal cases and your statement above simply is not accurate. Like I said previously, it is up to the feds on whether to make the case or not and they typically do not mess with the small stuff. Ironically, you switched your position and had it partially correct when you said "The state legislature may pass a law that prohibits state and local officials from enforcing a federal law, but it is powerless to stop federal officials from enforcing federal law." Except that the portion about state and local officials cannot enforce federal law anyway. (Unless dual sworn or when acting under color of the 287g program.)

Your words: "The Immigration Warrant Service Office program and 287 G are not the same thing."
Yes, the Warrant Service Officer is part of the 287g program and that is where the warrant service officer's authority is delegated from. You might start by looking halfway down this page. https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g

 

[jlw]

Your words: "Such a law would prohibit your local sheriff's office from being able to take gang related felon in possession of a firearm cases to federal court."

We were not talking about prosecutions. You were talking about local sheriff's offices not being able to make federal cases and your statement above simply is not accurate. Like I said previously, it is up to the feds on whether to make the case or not and they typically do not mess with the small stuff. Ironically, you switched your position and had it partially correct when you said "The state legislature may pass a law that prohibits state and local officials from enforcing a federal law, but it is powerless to stop federal officials from enforcing federal law." Except that the portion about state and local officials cannot enforce federal law anyway. (Unless dual sworn or when acting under color of the 287g program.)

Your words: "The Immigration Warrant Service Office program and 287 G are not the same thing."
Yes, the Warrant Service Officer is part of the 287g program and that is where the warrant service officer's authority is delegated from. You might start by looking halfway down this page. https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g

As it stands currently, local and state officers may take a case federal if the USA will accept it. IF GA were to pass a sanctuary law barring state/local officers from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of federal law, then such officers would not be able to take such cases federal.

The Sheriff's Office for which I work was the first SO in the state to be part of the IWO program, but we are not part of 287G. I am not aware if any other SO has since come online with the IWO program.

 

[ScoutShooter]

From the link I previously provided to you. These are all of the Georgia Sheriff's Offices operating under the 287g program. Without being in this program, a sheriff's office cannot enforce any immigration laws or warrants. Here is a screen shot:

The link below is the agreement made with ICE in which the authority comes from the 287g program. See section III where it specifically references the authority of the 287g program. If your agency is not listed above (I am certain it is) then please cite the specific Georgia or federal law that allows your agency to enforce immigration warrants and I will eat my words.

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/287gMOA/287gWSO_OconeeCoGa2019-12-31.pdf

 

[jlw]

My apologies for the delayed response.

When we initially discussed the IWO program with the feds, I specifically asked about 287 (g) and was told that program involved a different training program.

I pulled our MOU, and it does reference 287 (g). Per the agency coordinator for the program, we are not part of the program commonly associated with 287 (g), but the IWO program derives its authority from the same law.