The Second Amendment gun sanctuary movement has constitutional problems.
Recently in Jurisprudence
- Jack Smith Basically Has One Option to Save the Classified Documents Case
- This 1938 Mob Case Has Some Mind-Boggling Parallels to the Trump Hush Money Trial
- The Prosecution Actually Wants the Jury to Think Michael Cohen Is a Pathetic Scumbag
- Why the Right’s Mythical Version of the Past Dominates When It Comes to Legal “History”
Conservatives have railed for years against so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, criticizing localities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration policies they deem heartless and ineffective. In the past year, however, some conservative lawmakers have taken a page from the progressive playbook, employing sanctuary imagery in opposition to gun safety legislation they deem to be an unconstitutional restriction of their rights under the Second Amendment.
The two approaches are classic cases of false equivalency. Jurisdictions that proclaim themselves sanctuaries for immigrants do not seek to violate the law; they simply refuse to engage local law enforcement in supporting actions that are federal responsibilities. They do not block the law, but simply insist that it should be enforced by those who have the responsibility to do so. For some proponents of so-called gun sanctuaries, however, the goal is to prevent enforcement of state law that the jurisdiction (not a court) deems unconstitutional.
The emergence of these sanctuaries demonstrates a growing rift.The Tazewell County, Virginia, Board of Supervisors recently jumped aboard the fast-moving Second Amendment sanctuaries train. In doing so, it embraced positions fundamentally at odds with state and federal constitutional law. Passing resolutions opposing certain laws or protesting governmental action is perfectly consistent with our traditions as a democracy, and no one should oppose the rights of citizens and their representatives to speak their minds. But Tazewell and a number of other localities across Virginia want to do much more. As Eric Young, an attorney and the county administrator, put it, “Our position is that Article I, Section 13, of the Constitution of Virginia reserves the right to ‘order’ militia to the localities. Therefore, counties, not the state, determine what types of arms may be carried in their territory and by whom. So, we are ‘ordering’ the militia by making sure everyone can own a weapon.” Other counties are announcing different schemes if gun safety laws are enacted: For example, the Culpeper County sheriff pledged to deputize “thousands of our law-abiding citizens” so they can own firearms.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementAfter Democrats won majorities in both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly, fears of stricter gun regulations have inspired a rise in Second Amendment sanctuary activity in the state. Sanctuary efforts are driven mainly by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a group to the right of the NRA. My office’s analysis of recent news accounts indicates that before Nov. 5, just one county had passed a resolution; since the election, at least 71 localities (counties, cities, or towns) have passed some form of sanctuary resolution, and as many as 35 more are considering their adoption.
Second Amendment sanctuaries exploded onto the national scene in early 2019 after newly elected Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker pledged to pass gun safety measures in Illinois. Within months, 64 of the state’s 102 counties passed sanctuary resolutions. After New Mexico expanded background checks in 2019, 30 of 33 counties declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries. Similar actions have either been taken or are under consideration in Colorado, Oregon, Washington state, and now Virginia.
AdvertisementIn some cases, these resolutions simply register an objection to any infringement on gun owners’ rights. But some Virginia localities have gone further, indicating that they will not enforce state law that they deem unconstitutional. Some proponents have even resurrected words like nullificationand interposition, terms first used extensively by Southern secessionists prior to the Civil War and more recently during the “massive resistance” to federal laws requiring desegregation in the 1960s. They argue that constitutional officers in Virginia, such as commonwealth’s attorneys and sheriffs, have discretion not to enforce laws that they consider “unconstitutional.” In Virginia, there has always existed some debate about the independence of these officers, but, while they are creations of the Constitution, their duties are nonetheless “prescribed by general law or special act.” In short, sheriffs may be “constitutional officers,” but they are not “constitutional interpreters.”
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementThe emergence of these sanctuaries demonstrates a growing rift in our nation. For residents in many rural areas, guns are viewed as part of a way of life. Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens, and any effort to limit anyone’s access to firearms is perceived as a direct attack on many things that they hold dear. During the Obama years, the manufacture and purchase of firearms increased in dramatic numbers in part due to unfounded fears that the government would try to take away guns.
At the same time, the general public is increasingly supportive of certain gun safety measures. An April 2018 poll found that 85 percent of registered voters support laws that would “allow the police to take guns away from people who have been found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others” (71 percent “strongly supported”). These measures, called Extreme Risk Protection Orders, or red flag laws, create judicial procedures by which people with serious mental health challenges deemed a threat to themselves or others can have their weapons removed until their situations are resolved; courts can be engaged to protect the rights of the accused. And a March 2019 Quinnipiac poll reported that 93 percent of American voters support a bill that would require “background checks for all gun buyers.”
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementRecent polling in Virginia tells us that citizens of the commonwealth are in step with these national trends: Roanoke College’s Institute for Policy and Opinion Research recently released polling results that show that 84 percent of respondents favor universal background checks, and 74 percent support allowing a family member to seek an ERPO from a court. Yet in the very same pool of respondents, 47 percent believe it is more important to protect the right to own guns than to control gun ownership. The only way to make the math add up is to recognize that some people who strongly support Second Amendment rights may also support at least some reasonable gun safety measures—an approach the “sanctuary” advocates would never adopt. But even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia might have had problems with some of the arguments being advanced by proponents of sanctuaries. “Like most rights,” he wrote in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementIn short, rights under the Second Amendment have never been absolute. And under both the national and state constitutions, our courts are tasked with determining the constitutionality of laws—not local sheriffs.
Proponents of Second Amendment sanctuaries have another problem in Virginia: The commonwealth is what we call a “Dillon’s Rule” state. This means that if a power is not specifically permitted to a locality, state law rules. Progressives have been especially critical of Dillon’s Rule arguments in years past, believing that they have prevented localities from enacting policies—from local minimum wage ordinances to gun prohibitions—that seek to go further than state law. They have rarely been concerned that more conservative localities, if granted greater “home rule,” might enact policies, such as environmental regulations or building codes, that are more lax than state law. The Second Amendment sanctuary rebellion may prompt some to reexamine their views about how much additional power should be granted to localities.
AdvertisementThe Virginia state Legislature will soon consider several major gun safety measures, and opponents will likely strongly resist; as one county supervisor has said, “We need to show them a crowd like they have never seen. They need to be afraid and they should be afraid.” Legislators should always be attuned to any unintended consequences of the laws that they pass; that is one reason we have a deliberative process before bills are passed. But to leave the enforcement of duly passed laws totally in the hands of sheriffs and local officials with discretionary power to determine their constitutionality is a direct attack on republican government and the Constitution itself.
Tweet Share Share Comment-
[Graphic News] Average book price nears 20,000 won行走重建后的国道108线 翻越泥巴山吃樱桃Best Google Pixel deal: Save $160 on the Google Pixel 7 at Woot!Anker Soundcore 2 portable Bluetooth speaker $29.99Pakistan Cricket at crossroads after shock defeat at PindiVideo games catch on in North KoreaBest VPN deals in February 2024: NordVPN's birthday sale is still live当停车区旁还有个高级度假村Arshad Nadeem receives HilalMourinho plants seed of doubt over injured Kane's Euro 2020 hopes
- ·Travel Back in Time and Uncover Old
- ·Labor Ministry to increase support for unemployed, working poor
- ·Spurs reach FA Cup fourth round, Newcastle cruise
- ·汉源县顺利通过“四川省科普示范县”创建验收
- ·U.S. Senators call on FTC to investigate the security of drivers' data
- ·Pompeo: U.S. as committed as ever to U.N. sanctions on N. Korea
- ·Real Madrid face Atletico in Super Cup final
- ·Video games catch on in North Korea
- ·Sports minister says audits into football, badminton federations set to conclude in Sept.
- ·Check out all seven 'Avengers: Infinity War' covers from Empire
- ·Writer runs back into burning home to rescue his laptop
- ·解放军总后一行回访援建学校
- ·Why Kamala Harris triggers Donald Trump so intensely.
- ·Trump says 'most likely' to meet Kim Jong
- ·Anker Soundcore 2 portable Bluetooth speaker $29.99
- ·Kim Kardashian wishes her assistant a happy birthday with some expert trolling
- ·Kamala Harris’ ridiculous problem with the political press.
- ·Pompeo: U.S. as committed as ever to U.N. sanctions on N. Korea
- ·More news organizations are suing OpenAI for copyright infringement
- ·Steven Spielberg on why we're so obsessed with the '80s
- ·特写|在农事定向大赛遇见和美乡村
- ·NBA Top Shot NFT scam promoted by hacked ESPN reporter's X / Twitter account
- ·Kim Kardashian took the optimal 6,000 selfies on her Mexico vacation
- ·A yogi was so moved after watching 'Black Panther' he created Wakanda yoga
- ·厚植精神文明沃土 培树司法文明新风
- ·Melania Trump shares legal letter on immigration status on Twitter
- ·Yoon touts pension reform drive amid stagnant popularity rating
- ·我市食品企业承诺严把食品质量安全关诚信自律生产经营
- ·Ostrich skin and Neo
- ·Remember that data
- ·18 Places for Epic Outdoor Adventure Across Colorado
- ·行走重建后的国道108线 翻越泥巴山吃樱桃
- ·我市创新农业经营机制培训班昨日开班
- ·British woman shamed for hanging lacy underwear on a clothesline
- ·Tesla's big software update includes something called 'Night Curfew'
- ·FM Kang calls for Japan's prudence on wartime labor rulings