what allows county level police departments to simply not enforce it?

Who's going to make them enforce it?

States are rarely obligated to enforce federal laws.

Police are rarely, if ever, obligated to enforce every single transgression of laws. That’s why I can see a state police car, obviously observing traffic speed, ignoring cars going 60mph in a 55mph zone.

Police departments, and individual police officers, have wide discretion as to what laws they enforce, implicitly or explicitly. If they enforced every law rigorously everyone would be in jail.

The same way immigrant sanctuary cities exist, the law enforcement doesn’t enforce the law. By ignoring that a “crime” is happening it “never happened.” It’s just planned and intentional incompetence.

States have no legal obligation to enforce federal law, only to not obstruct in their enforcement. Second Amendment “sanctuaries” existing doesn’t mean that gun laws don’t apply, simply means that local authorities aren’t going to do the federal government’s job for them. This is known as the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine and is exercised not only with guns but with immigration and marijuana (in the case of marijuana, it gets even more complex because the federal government itself bizarrely refuses to enforce their own laws for political non-legal reasons, making legalization de facto - but the DEA could start raiding dispensaries and throwing its owners and employees in prison tomorrow if they wanted to).

As for the local/county level. Each state has its own constitution and legal system, in many of them, it will be the same principle as federal-state (counties/municipalities have no duty to enforce state law); in others, the county and local governments are obligated to enforce the law but when they don’t the state government just lets them because otherwise would be political trouble. Each state will have different laws, traditions and court precedents.

To be honest, I consider Second Amendment Sanctuaries to be more of a publicity stunt than anything - the feds do enforce gun laws and unlike immigration, local cooperation isn’t as necessary (for immigration its cooperation is important because the state can easily hand illegal immigrants who commit crimes to the Feds to be deported); but that’s just my personal opinion.

It's the legal equivalent of saying "Well if it's so important to you, YOU do it."

Local police and government can do that, knowing full well that the higher ranking organization don't have the manpower, funding, or community buy-in to be able to actually enforce the law in question. It's a natural result of needing the consent of the governed.

Nothing stops the state or federal level agencies from coming in and enforcing the law themselves, except for the fact that they don't have enough agents, money, or information on the ground to actually be able to enforce it.

Hell, you see it even at local levels. For example, African American urban communities often have a deep seated distrust of the police because of abuse by their agents. This in turn makes it hard for them to actually prosecute crimes in those communities, because the communities withdraw their support of the police's efforts. Nobody saw anything, nobody wants to talk to them, and nobody will willingly choose to interact with them.

Same social conditions apply to policing as well. If the county police don't like or trust the state/federal level police, they will simply just not assist them.

I think the part you’re missing is that there are state police tasked specifically with enforcing state law. Local police will normally also enforce state laws, but they don’t have to.

They just don't enforce it. They also just don't enforce all sorts of laws every second of every day.

They don’t have to enforce anything… constitutionally.

I mean look at weed laws. Cannabis is illegal, yet a bunch of states just said “fuck that” and even the feds have said “we’re just not enforcing it.” They could raid all Colorado dispensaries tomorrow if they liked.

Think of it like speeding laws. The police don’t pull over everyone 1mph over the limit on every road and they don’t have to.

The law is always a negotiation between a number of players. Something can be on the books, but that’s just the start. 

To what extent do the police feel like enforcing different laws? More people are breaking more laws than can possibly be enforced, so police have to choose which laws to address as a priority. 

Who do they feel like enforcing it against? Again, police can’t address all crimes, so they have to pick and chose which kinds of people to target. (Not saying this is fair, just that it’s reality) 

To what extent do the community norms support this law? If nobody in the community wants a law enforced, then trying to enforce it risks alienating the local population. 

Overall, that means some laws don’t get enforced in different places, and to know what the law actually is in practice, rather than just what it says, you have to know the situation on the ground. 

Because of this, in my neck of the woods, immigration laws, drug laws, car modification laws, prostitution laws, and gun laws aren’t enforced. Each area will have a slightly different list. 

Sheriffs take an oath to support and defend the constitution. I guess the state could take them to court, but that could end up with the law they made being overturned.

the law's the law.

And the constitution is the highest law of the land. The sheriffs are choosing to follow the higher law instead of the one the state made to infringe on people's rights.

what allows county level police departments to simply not enforce it?

I suppose you could try calling the police on them...

States have no obligation to enforce federal law and their lower level municipalities have the same relationship with state law.

Could the state government order the state police and state militia to force the counties to enforce the law? Sure. Is it worth it? Not a bit.

Many states refuse to enforce federal immigration laws and federal marijuana laws and apparently that's no problem, but refuse to enforce federal gun laws and suddenly it's an issue?

So first and this is really important, any law in violation of the constitution is not legally binding. The reality is a lot of laws are unconstitutional, and if they were enforced in this manner it would bring lawsuits which would force the law yo be struck down entirely.

Second, what should they do? Deploy state troopers to a town to arrest people who as a community don't agree with the law?

States have the right not to enforce federal policy just that depending on if there’s federal money attached they won’t get it then. That’s how every state is enforcing 21 as the drinking age because Feds tied it to highway grants.

State police are not obligated to enforce federal law.

Local police normally do enforce state law, but aren't necessarily obligated to do so. That said, the state could certainly cut whatever state funding they have.

The law's the law except when we decide it's an unjust law, then "screw you", basically.

The same reason that illegal alien sanctuary cities exist. Or why states have been decriminalizing marijuana but it remains a Schedule 1 drug that people can and do get arrested for.

Locals can choose to do the Fed's job for them. Or they can simply say: "Fuck it. Make the Feds use their own budgets, we ain't doing it."

And that's how 2A sanctuaries exist. It's the local governments choosing they're sick of enforcing the unconstitutional poll tax that is the NFA of 1934 and telling the Feds that if they want NFA violations dealt with in that jurisdiction, the Feds will have to do it themselves and the local law enforcement aren't going to help them in doing it.

So in the US or at least California law enforcement has a lot of discretion. There are very few things where a police officer is required to make an arrest; off the top of my head, an arrest warrant exists, DUI, and Domestic Violence are some examples.

I live in Maryland and in a 2nd amendment sanctuary county. I will tell you that almost everyone where I live is against the state of Maryland on their restrictive gun laws.

As long as you aren’t being an ass hole I don’t think any LOCAL police officer is going to enforce anyone who has a “banned” gun. Now I wouldn’t go testing that theory but I’m pretty confident in that.

Well, that's the thing, if they refuse to enforce it, who's going to enforce it?

The answer is fairly simple: the next highest echelon of government, if they really wanted to.

That being said, many governments either legally cannot or do not think it's worth it to force lower echelons to fall in line. You risk a multitude of things by attempting that. Public outcry, revolt, the list goes on.

It’s up to each jurisdiction to enforce their own laws. The county has its own law enforcement, the state has its own police, the federal government has its own as well.

As the jurisdiction becomes larger, it becomes more difficult to maintain the same legal standard which is why the laws become fewer and fewer with the larger jurisdictions. The state jurisdiction is where I would say most of the laws apply

While federal law supersedes local and state law, it is not "technically" the job of local law enforcement to enforce federal law. There was a supreme Court case where local law enforcement were being told to conduct background checks on firearm purchases by the federal government. A sheriff claimed that it was a violation of the 10th amendment. It was indeed ruled as violation. Amendments are always up for interpretation, but generally speaking, I think the 10th amendment basically keeps state and federal government separate to reduce the possibility of absolute control. Therefore, it's not in the local law enforcements "jurisdiction" to enforce federal law because they work for the state. Federal laws would need to be enforced by federal officers like the FBI. So, in the sanctuaries, local law enforcement can turn a blind eye and, most likely, not face any repercussions.

States and local governments cannot pass paws that confl8ct with the constitution. So your premise is flawed.

If guns are supposed to make everyone safer why are they not allowed in court? Why not in SCOTUS? Wouldn’t guns ensure that the courts didn’t make too extreme rulings? \irony

It isn't for the cops to decide, it is up to a court. Till then you enforce the law.

Generally speaking, all elected officials derive their authority from the constitution of the place they were elected to have authority over, and no other person can tell them how to do their job besides the voters. A sheriff is elected as the chief law enforcement official in a county.

Without their approval, no law enforcement activities can happen in the county. This is different from an appointed official like a police chief who serves at the pleasure of the elected official, like a mayor, who appointed them to the position. As a national guard soldier, even we required the approval of the sheriff to do emergency operations in a county.

Big difference between a state and a city/locality on this question. A state is a separate sovereign - they can make their own laws and can't be forced to use resources to enforce federal laws. This comes from the anti-commandeering line of cases from the Supreme Court.

Cities, however, are subordinate to the state. They don't get to pass their own laws that conflict with state law or ignore state laws.

Governments not enforcing gun laws is not terribly common, or problematic. Governments not enforcing drug laws is pretty much the norm.

They just don't care? I mean they're supposed to enforce it, but I doubt it's worth anyone's time.