The phrase “sanctuary cities” is one of those things that’s infuriating to many of our readers. After all, these are cities that are ignoring federal law–and the Constitution–in an effort to protect people who are, essentially, criminals. They broke immigration laws, and now these cities are trying to circumvent the federal government’s constitutional role in handling the issue.
However, in Illinois, the phrase “sanctuary” is being used by a handful of counties for a very different reason.
Several counties in Illinois have taken gun control matters into their own hands and told the state, in essence, sorry — you’re not stripping us of our Second Amendment rights.
And thus the showdown begins. But honestly, the state has no constitutional leg in this fight.
The state, for those who’ve not yet heard, has been engaged in a leftist-pushed campaign to bypass the Constitution and impose even more gun control on the law-abiding citizenry. The Democrats want a Chicago, statewide.
Some of their pressed-for crackdowns?
Increases in the minimum age for gun purchases. A complete ban on bump stocks. More punishments for violators. You know, the typical yada yada left-leaners manual of anti-gun provisions. The ones that don’t reduced crime but make the politicians feel good about themselves — all the while stripping control from the little people.
Anyhow, some counties in Illinois are saying enough’s enough — we’re declaring ourselves sanctuaries for gun owners.
“It’s a buzzword,” said David Campbell, the vice chairman of the Effingham County Board, in Fox News. “[It’s a] word that really gets attention. With all these sanctuary cities, we just decided to turn it around to protect our Second Amendment rights.”
Effingham is one of a handful of counties fighting against the state’s anti-gun stance.
Last month, Bearing Arms had a story about Effingham County. In particular, its stand as a sanctuary county. Now, it’s no longer alone.
This is actually pretty brilliant.
In order to undermine Effingham County and their fellow sanctuary counties’ efforts, gun control opponents will have to undermine the very idea of sanctuary communities as a whole. They’ll have to lash out at sanctuary cities as a concept–which, I suspect, your average gun grabber isn’t going to want to do. The other option is that they just leave these counties alone, which is an obvious win.
Realistically, I don’t see either happening. I figure they’ll try and attack the gun aspect and sniff around and try to find some weakness they can exploit without jeopardizing the concept of sanctuary cities. This makes them far less likely to be successful. Like I said, pretty brilliant if you think about it.
More importantly, though, it’s the right thing to do. Regardless of what the courts have argued, any incursion into our Second Amendment rights is unconstitutional. It’s a moral imperative to oppose unjust and unconstitutional laws, regardless of what level of government issues such decrees.
While I agree with the rule of law, when those laws become tyrannical–and any law infringing on our ability to resist tyranny is tyranny in and of itself–they must be opposed. I’m glad to see a handful of counties in Illinois agree.