Now that Democrats have managed to seize control of both chambers of the legislature in Virginia, along with the Governor’s mansion, Second Amendment supporters there are bracing for the onslaught of gun-grabbing that is sure to follow. As such, a number of counties are moving forward with plans to establish themselves as Second Amendment sanctuaries, where new, abusive gun-control laws will not be enforced by county authorities. This is a movement that’s taken hold in Illinois and other blue states but had not previously been needed in Virginia.
As it turns out, the editorial board at the Washington Post has taken notice of these developments. In response, they published a scathing editorial this weekend, declaring such counties to be rogue actors, interested in “vigilantism” and (*gasp*) “defying the law.” Perish the thought!
VIGILANTISM, WITH its alluring tingle of defiance and frontier justice, conjures a cinematic idea of American individualism. A similar impulse is at work among advocates of the so-called Second Amendment sanctuary movement, a trend in mainly rural counties declaring they will refuse to enforce restrictive state gun laws. Both are examples of individuals who, lacking legal authority, put themselves above the law, thereby promoting chaos…
The idea — and the term itself — has gained traction in Western states and elsewhere, inspired by “sanctuary cities” that have adopted policies barring cooperation with federal immigration officials to deport unauthorized migrants.
The editors go on, with no apparent irony (at least intentionally) to declare that such efforts are “nonsense fanned by mischief-makers with an agenda.” Oh, really? I wonder how they would react to the following paragraph?
OPEN BORDERS THEORY, WITH its alluring tingle of defiance and diversity, conjures a dangerous image of a new global order where international borders are meaningless. A similar impulse is at work among advocates of so-called sanctuary cities, where local officials forbid police cooperation with immigration enforcement officials and even frustrate their efforts. These are examples of individuals, lacking any national authority, putting their priorities ahead of important federal laws that have been in effect for generations.
But enough about the obvious double standards and hypocrisy on display here. To start off, Second Amendment sanctuaries have nothing to do with vigilantism. They aren’t even related. You don’t need a firearm to engage in vigilante activities (though it certainly helps), and legally owning a firearm does not signify any tendency toward forming up vigilante squads. This is blatant hyperbole meant to fire up the gun-grabbing crowd.
The WaPo goes on to try to claim that sanctuary cities intended to act as havens for illegal aliens are nothing at all like proposed Second Amendment sanctuaries. (Again… perish the thought!) Here’s how they attempt to explain this claim.
The distinction between the two sanctuaries is basic. Localities that have passed resolutions declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuary jurisdictions are threatening to ignore laws enacted by duly elected state legislatures and signed by governors. Immigration-focused sanctuary localities are breaking no law; rather, they are refusing purely voluntary cooperation in service to federal law enforcement. And, in practice, sanctuary cities often do — and should — fully coordinate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in cases involving violent felons such as murderers and rapists.
So laws “duly enacted by the states” must be observed at all costs. But sanctuary cities “are breaking no law?” It’s bad enough that they forbid police from cooperating and honoring detainers. That is quite arguably a case of obstruction of justice. But when they go further and try to pass laws forbidding the arrest of deportable illegal aliens at courthouses or other locations, it’s absolutely obstruction.
And don’t even get me started on sanctuary cities where the Mayor acts as an accomplice, sending out gang signals to warn illegal aliens that a raid is coming. Or even worse, when a judge sitting on the bench in a sanctuary city conspires to physically block ICE agents from her courtroom while allowing a criminal illegal alien to escape out a side door.
But that’s all fine, right? As long as it’s done in the cause of resisting the Bad Orange Man and trying to eliminate ICE or prevent more secure borders. But God forbid any locale tries to ensure the Second Amendment rights of its citizens. That’s just anarchy and chaos. The willful blindness of these editors is simply staggering at times.