When we first hear the term “sanctuary city,” it was about local communities that decided immigration laws didn’t apply within their borders. The left absolutely loved them. Then gun rights activists started using the same thinking against them and created sanctuary cities for gun rights. Suddenly, it wasn’t such a good idea anymore, even if they’re little more than pro-gun resolutions.

Well, it seems one Oregon community disagrees with that line of thinking.

The Baker City Council approved a resolution Tuesday, May 25 that declares the city a Second Amendment sanctuary and states that the council opposes “any legislation that would infringe upon the rights of the People to keep and bear arms.”

Resolution 3885 passed by a 5-2 vote, with Councilors Jason Spriet and Heather Sells voting no after expressing concern about some of the language.

Councilor Johnny Waggoner Sr. proposed the resolution. He said a resident had asked him if there was anything the council could do to protect residents’ Second Amendment rights.

“The Second Amendment to me is the basis of one of our rights,” Waggoner said. “Is (the resolution) enforceable by the city? No, not really, but when you have a governor that does not listen to the people, these types of things are the only thing that we can do to show our people and the governor that this is something that we, as a people, on this side of the state, it’s important to us,” said Waggoner.

While a true sanctuary community law would be better, I understand there being some resistance to going that far right now. After all, another city’s sanctuary ordinance is being challenged. No one wants to pass a law that gets overturned.  A resolution will get the point across, at least.

Of course, if the challenge fails, maybe Baker City would rethink things and pass a true sanctuary city resolution.

Regardless of whether they do or don’t, though, the resolutions help signal just how unpopular gun control really is outside of the larger urban areas. These liberal enclaves tend to drive much of a state’s anti-gun policy and do so without any regard to the needs or wants of the more rural areas.

Never mind that a county may only have a few sheriff’s deputies on duty at any given time spread out over hundreds of miles, if that many, and thus the need for a firearm become even greater. That doesn’t matter to those inside the enclave where their police department has more people than a surprising number of nations’ militaries. They can place a call and have an officer in a matter of minutes. Not so in many rural communities.

So, smaller communities need to remind the state that not only do they exist but that they also disagree with the anti-gun rhetoric being spouted left and right.

Gun rights matter and they need to be fought for with every fiber of our being. That includes passing pro-gun resolutions in a local city council, if that’s all that can happen. Take whatever you can and get ready to fight for the rest.