Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to continue reading.
We have used your information to see if you have a subscription with us, but did not find one. Please use the button below to verify an existing account or to purchase a new subscription.
Your current subscription does not provide access to this content. Please use the button below to manage your account.
Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to continue reading.
Please purchase a subscription to continue reading.
Your current subscription does not provide access to this content.
Nearly two years ago, the governing board of Effingham County, Illinois, passed a resolution declaring itself a “sanctuary county” and barring “employees from enforcing the unconstitutional actions of the state government.” Those actions? Gun control laws, which are unpopular in the rural county some 215 miles south of Chicago.
Since then, more than 400 other local jurisdictions in 20 states have adopted similar resolutions, some with more bite than others, but all in defiance of the law.
The simple fact is: Local governments cannot decide willy-nilly that if they don’t like a state law, they don’t have to enforce it. While states may have powers unique from the federal government’s, no such duality exists at the municipal level. Cities have only the powers granted to them by their states.
The 2nd Amendment sanctuary movement adopted its name as an obvious play on the immigration sanctuary movement. But those movements are related in name only, and it is possible to support the latter without supporting the former. Immigration codes, after all, are part of federal civil law, not criminal law, and local jurisdictions have the right to decide that they don’t want to use local tax dollars to enforce federal civil codes. They may not impede the federal government’s ability to enforce its immigration codes, but they don’t have to cooperate.
The 2nd Amendment sanctuary movement, by contrast, involves local authorities seeking to negate state criminal laws governing who can own a firearm and under what conditions. Those are laws that are by definition supposed to be enforced by local police agencies. And unlike situations where laws are not enforced because of so-called “prosecutorial discretion,” the gun sanctuary jurisdictions are not claiming that a lack of resources keeps them from enforcing the laws, but merely that they don’t agree with the laws.
Many of the jurisdictions seem to recognize that they lack the authority to ignore the state laws, so they frame their resolutions somewhat ambiguously — if a gun law is unconstitutional, it won’t be enforced. But they don’t spell out what, in their opinion, makes a law unconstitutional or who gets to decide. So it’s as much political theater as anything else, a baring of the teeth against disliked laws, but rarely one that amounts to much.
Yet it’s still dangerous because it represents a further fraying of the national fabric. Democracy works only as far as people have faith in it. If local jurisdictions dislike state laws, there are democratic mechanisms for changing them. Laws that have been duly passed and enacted should be followed; that’s what the rule of law means.
We all have the right to protest or mount a demonstration, and pro-gun advocates are no different. Local governments also have a right to dissent from laws they dislike and to lobby for changes. That is how democracy works. But it is irresponsible for local jurisdictions to pick and choose which laws they will enforce, especially when such stances undermine the legitimacy of a democratically elected government and play into the hands of extremists.
Los Angeles Times editorial excerpt
This article originally appeared on Times-News: Editorial: Democracy in the crosshairs
