Second Amendment Sanctuaries: Why Not?

By ngnadmin On Mar 6, 2019 0

Many prominent anti-gun politicians also happen to support open borders and local units of government that declare themselves to be “sanctuary cities” for illegal aliens. Those are municipalities and other local units that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws or cooperate with ICE agents that enforce immigration laws. Some have gone so far as to ban states and local units from enacting and enforcing their own immigration laws where illegal immigration is causing massive problems.

Local government leaders who back the sanctuary cities movement for illegal aliens refers to ICE as a “terrorist” organization who delights in ripping apart families. The Dems’ newest firebrand, freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York says she wants ICE abolished as a destroyer of immigrant families. She even opposed an amendment to gun background checks bills that would require local units to notify ICE if an illegal alien tries to buy a firearm.

Ocasio-Cortez hates ICE and federal immigration law enforcement to such an extent she threatened to put 26 fellow Democrats who supported the measure requiring ICE to be notified on a “list”. Her actions illustrate the blatant hypocrisy facing law-abiding gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment in the United States.

The Constitution guarantees citizens the right to bear arms. Yet, the radical left only cares about non-citizens when it comes to controversial policy that limits access to firearms and erodes Second Amendment rights for actual U.S. citizens.

In reaction, a local push in a few counties in states dominated by Democrat-controlled legislatures and governors could prove beneficial for gun owners and a bane for liberal anti-gun activists. Several county sheriffs in Illinois, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico are fighting back against what they view as attacks on the Second Amendment by refusing to enforce what they consider to be laws that violate the U.S. Constitution.

The coalition of local sheriffs is saying they just might refuse to enforce orders from state officials that they consider to be violations of the Second Amendment and other parts of the U.S. Constitution. That includes red flag laws, where a simple allegation against someone could result in the forced confiscation of their lawfully owned and purchased firearms – even when no crimes were committed or even planned.

It also includes state laws banning adults between ages 18 and 20 from owning firearms. If the sheriffs are told to confiscate the firearms, they say they would determine whether or not the order is lawful or if it violates the Constitution and should be ignored as unenforceable.

The Sheriffs in many ways are doing what many juries do when the law does not fit a particular situation. Jury nullification often results in people being freed from custody – sometimes years after being accused of a crime.

Members of the Cliven Bundy family in Nevada and their supporters successfully defended themselves twice against federal charges that included accusations of gun violations. The federal government said they did something wrong. Not one jury agreed, and the federal government eventually lost its case in Nevada due to prosecutorial misconduct.

What the sheriffs propose eliminates the need for jury nullification by nullifying state and federal orders that violate the Constitution – and not just the Second Amendment. The Constitution protects citizens against unlawful searches and seizures, while also affirming the right to bear arms.

It also affirms the right to due process, which anti-gun liberals are trying to get around with gun confiscation laws. Rather than subject local residents to persecution by state and federal authorities for embracing the Second Amendment, sheriffs in several states say they are ready to take a stand and refuse to enforce laws that violate the Constitution.

Several rural Illinois counties in May 2018 passed resolutions that declared the counties to be gun sanctuaries. They are located hundreds of miles from Chicago and in a location that does not share the big city’s violent culture.

Instead, the rural counties are more conservative, self-reliant, and far more likely to have residents with AR15s, handguns, and other firearms that anti-gun liberals do not want non-Military personnel to possess.

They don’t have Chicago’s problems, but Illinois politicians would remove their arms if possible, and that is what red flag laws, bans on military-style rifles, and even laws banning private transfers between friends and relatives aim to do.

Fortunately, these sheriffs recognize the danger to Constitutional freedoms and are taking appropriate steps, with a great deal of support from respective local units of government. Let’s hope more local leaders follow their example.