Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 9 months ago
We’ve discussed nullification many times before, and this article shows the popularity of this concept, except without the teeth.
Last month, Effingham County, Illinois became a Second Amendment Sanctuary County. The proposal passed the County Board after eight members voted in favor of it. Only one was against, according to a USA Today report.
Last year, a similar proposal in Spokane Valley, WA was floated in the City Council. This comes as a response to the gun control proposals that many members of the U.S. Congress have made in recent years. Moreover, several states also passed firearm restrictions. Illinois and Washington are two of the most prominent ones.
Under said proposals, local law enforcement would ignore the new gun control policies. They would not arrest residents who don’t comply with the new state/federal firearm policies.
“It was a way of standing up for 2nd Amendment rights,” former Spokane Valley City Councilman Ed Pace told UnCut Report (UCR) in a recent interview. When Pace was in the City Council, he proposed making Spokane Valley, WA a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary City.
“If state and federal governments restrict constitutional rights, cities need to stand up for their residents and protect their rights,” Pace elaborated.
Oh bullshit. What are you going to do with this symbolic action, and how are you going to “stand up for residents and protect their rights?”
What are you going to do, throw ATF agents in the state penitentiary when they come to arrest firearms owners? Do the CLEOs side with you on this? Does the governor side with you, and will the state police back you up? Will you hang judges who hear cases on firearms owners who have broken federal laws?
Unless you answer those questions for me, this is a lot of hot air.
On July 11, 2018 at 11:48 pm, BRVTVS said:
“Under said proposals, local law enforcement would ignore the new gun control policies. They would not arrest residents who don’t comply with the new state/federal firearm policies.”
These proposals are lacking, but not worthless. By barring local law enforcement from enforcing these intolerable acts, it takes away manpower from the gun grabbers.
I think of this as the law enforcement equivalent of Solzhenitsyn’s approach that has been promoted on WRSA of late (https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2018/07/05/solzhenitsyn-live-not-by-lies/). “And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me.” Likewise, though state and federal enforcers may infringe on the rights of the people, under the gun sanctuary acts they will do so without the aid and support of local enforcers.
On July 12, 2018 at 5:59 am, Crusty Curmudgeon said:
“Oh bullshit.”
What does that mean? I see nothing in the story that suggests they are actually trying to prevent other than local law enforcement from enforcing “gun control” laws. But it’s a start and I think it’s awesome.
Is your retort intended to mean that if it isn’t perfect, they shouldn’t do anything?
On July 12, 2018 at 7:10 am, Fred said:
I’m confused. I thought Law Enforcement was pro 2A. I thought they were on our side and liked to hunt and fish and join the NRA. Why would you need a law that inhibits them from violating our rights? I thought it was the Tooth Fairy that was going to do all the gun confiscations.
On July 12, 2018 at 10:22 am, Herschel Smith said:
@Crusty,
Yes. My retort is meant to say that they shouldn’t do anything. We’ve been down this road before.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2017/02/01/the-death-of-federal-gun-law-nullification-in-kansas/
Remember?
SBRs, suppressors. Simple things, a barrel < 16", a muffler with baffles. A nullification law done for purposes of symbol, two guys who actually believed in their politicians, and two guys who nearly got sent to prison for a very long time and had to pay a lot of money for defense in court. The whole thing was an utter disaster. And no, this isn't a good place to start. Politicians who make symbolic gestures for the purpose of shoring up their gun rights creds are worse than worthless. They set good men up for a fall, but never themselves. Now. There is a right way to do this. It involves either [a] a more formal program with teeth, or [b] 4GW. Let's investigate the former. Suppose that Governor Abbot in Texas gets fed up, and packs his state police with only guys who are willing to arrest and imprison FedGov agents who enforce FedGov laws in Texas. He fires the rest. He calls up the militia (no, not the NG) to help the state police make FedGov agent arrests, and tells his people to make SBRs and suppressors 'til their heart is content. When FedGov tries to effect an arrest, he makes a spectacle of the process on TV, with arrests, appearances in court, and imprisonment. FedGov stops trying to enforce FedGov laws in Texas. Other states see this and make compacts with groups of states to do the same thing. THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE. Not symbolic, toothless affirmations of rights by self-serving politicians, meant only for getting stupid people into trouble when they actually believe the pit vipers among them.
On July 12, 2018 at 1:35 pm, Gryphon said:
All just Mental Masturbation. Just like all of the Sheriffs and ‘oathkeepers’ who Solemnly Swear to NOT participate in Gun Confiscations, when push come to shove, these government bootlickers and thugs will “Serve and Protect” their Paymasters. The Idea that a Governor, Mayor, or other ‘public official’ would order the Arrest of fedgov thugs is so Preposterous it isn’t Funny.
IMO, it will take something like the “Bundy Ranch” incident going Hot, where increasing numbers of Patriots just Show Up behind the Perimeter of the fedpigs, until the Rumble gets so Big they can’t control it.
On July 12, 2018 at 10:23 pm, Crusty Curmudgeon said:
Mr. Smith,
You have a point, but I have a different interpretation of this act than you do.
I completely agree with you that it isn’t worth risking our liberty to go ahead and start ignoring (and thus violating) either state or federal “gun control” laws. I certainly wouldn’t.
However, I think this is a healthy act of civil disobedience. Does it have any teeth? No, it doesn’t. But it sends a message. It makes people think. You point out that in order to do this right, it takes strong action by the governor. But that doesn’t happen spontaneously. This is indeed a first step. The more cities/counties/municipalities do this, the more likely a governor might be willing to take some action that is worth a damn.
Or am I missing something? How in the world are you going to convince the governor of Texas to take the approach you suggest? Ask him nicely?