The sanctuary county movement has swept numerous states. Pro-gun counties have made their voices very clear to anti-gun legislators typically centered around large cities. There’s even one state that’s basically a sanctuary all by itself (Kansas).

In fact, the idea of sanctuary states is an interesting proposition. In theory, states should be able to decide if they’re going to deal with unconstitutional regulations from the federal government or not. States are supposed to maintain some degree of sovereignty.

Apparently, a lawmaker in Michigan thinks it’s a pretty good idea too.

State Rep. Gary Eisen (R-St. Clair Twp.) has introduced several resolutions to protect Second Amendment rights, both at the state and local level.

They include House Resolution 219 which would declare Michigan a sanctuary state and “fully affirm its support of the rights ensured and protected by the constitutions of the United States and Michigan, including the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.”

The sanctuary state resolution was introduced Jan. 21 and wasn’t on the Tuesday House Judiciary Committee agenda, but Eisen referred to it anyway. The measure was instead referred to the House Committee on Government Operations.

The resolution expresses concern about legislation in the Michigan Legislature and Congress that supporters say would infringe on gun rights. It urges federal and state agencies to preserve the right to bear arms.

Copies of the resolution would be sent to the president of the U.S. Senate, Vice President Mike Pence, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and all Michigan U.S. Senate and House members.

I like it.

I don’t think it has a hope in hell of passing, though I’d love to be wrong on that. Still, I like it.

Lawmakers need to be reminded that while they may represent a specific set of people, the legislation they push has ramifications well outside their electoral bubble. Pelosi doesn’t care about the needs of farmers in Oklahoma because she’s elected by people in San Francisco, but measures like this can remind them that those farmers in Oklahoma matter too.

But that only matters if measures like these pass. Even if they don’t have any real force of law in the long run–and I’m not saying they don’t or won’t. That’s a matter best left up to attorneys–they make a point that needs to be made again and again to the urban elites. They need to be reminded that people live in flyover country, and our needs have to be taken seriously, as well.

So yeah, I do want Eisen’s measure to pass. I don’t think it will, mostly because while Republicans have a somewhat slim majority in the legislature, too many of them won’t back a measure like this for whatever reasons. Some of those reasons are truly legitimate, like believing sanctuaries have no place anywhere. Others don’t have the cajones to make a stand.

Either way, I don’t see this one passing, which is a shame.

Once again, though, I hope I’m wrong.