Once upon a time, the term “sanctuary city” only had one meaning. It meant a community wasn’t going to enforce immigration laws within their borders. They weren’t going to comply with federal law regarding illegal immigrants, thus protecting them from the ramifications of their illegal actions.
Then pro-gun communities got in on the act. Second Amendment sanctuaries have sprung up all over the nation, even in pro-gun states that have little to worry about regarding gun control except at the federal level.
Now, though, suddenly sanctuaries are an issue. At least, that’s the case at the Washington Post.
Over at the Washington Free Beacon, the paper gets slapped around a bit for their utter hypocrisy.
The Washington Post editorial board slammed the use of “sanctuary” laws designed to safeguard Second Amendment rights, despite supporting the same policies when they are used to protect illegal immigrants.
In a February 28 editorial, the paper argued local officials should not undermine new gun laws in Virginia.
“Gun-rights activists are free to denounce such laws; they are free to mount legal challenges to their constitutionality,” the board wrote. “But unless and until the laws are struck down by a court, no one is free to violate them.”
Nearly 150 localities in Virginia have passed Second Amendment “sanctuary” resolutions, pledging to not enforce new gun laws that they consider unconstitutional and taking particular aim at a proposed Red Flag law backed by state Democrats. The newspaper’s editorial board called the idea of following through on such measures “alarming” and a threat to the rule of law. But when Washington, D.C., unveiled a “sanctuary” plan that would direct taxpayer dollars to legal representation for illegal immigrants facing deportation, the board said the city was pursuing an “admirable goal.”
The discrepancy between the two Washington Post “sanctuary” editorials has fueled distrust among gun owners and advocates. Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which helped organize the Second Amendment “sanctuary” movement in the state, called the board’s position “a complete double standard.”
Van Cleave is, of course, absolutely correct. It is a double standard.
Of course, that’s also why some conservatives actually oppose Second Amendment sanctuaries. While I don’t necessarily agree with them, I can respect the position.
For me, though, this is preserving a constitutional right, a right that should supersede all state and local regulations. If states and to infringe upon it, they’re violating the United States Constitution to do so.
That’s not the case with immigration. Those are communities that have simply decided to work against the federal government on an issue. Nothing they’re doing is in keeping with the Constitution.
Yet people like the folks at the Washington Post routinely ignore their own arguments whenever it’s inconvenient for them. They’ll push the idea that Second Amendment sanctuaries are somehow wrong without ever realizing that every point they try to make also applies–if not applies more so–to immigration sanctuaries.
The truth is, the left opened this door. They started the idea that communities can decide which laws apply to them and which don’t. Don’t blame us for playing by the same rulebook.