The double standard of 2A sanctuary counties

The double standard of 2A sanctuary counties
AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

As numerous states have passed gun control, numerous counties in those states have decided enough was enough. Officials there–either the sheriff or the county commission–decide they’ll be sanctuary counties.


The idea isn’t new, either.

After all, sanctuary cities were a thing regarding illegal immigration. It seemed like every major city was going to give the middle finger to the federal government and say that they wouldn’t cooperate with federal authorities on the topic.

So it’s not really surprising that someone would follow in those footsteps.

Yet, as this editorial tries to argue, now it’s wrong to disobey the higher levels of government.

In filing a lawsuit against a Kelso gun store, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson has done more than defend Washington law. He also has placed a spotlight on growing defiance to the legal norms that separate civilization from chaos.

Clark County voters likely can understand that difference. Last year, a candidate for county sheriff insisted that he would not enforce gun control measures passed by voters statewide. That candidate was defeated in the general election, but in comparing his stance to that of civil rights pioneers Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., he demonstrated the self-inflated righteousness that is tearing at the fabric of our communities.

As a columnist for The Columbian wrote at the time: “King was a civilian community leader and Parks was a citizen. Fighting injustice as a private citizen is a courageous act; doing so as an elected law-enforcement official is a dictatorial one. When those in power establish themselves as the sole referee in determining what is constitutional, we devolve into a totalitarian state.”


Of course, this is part of a broader piece that’s meant to address a particular issue, but I find it absolutely hilarious that this is the line of argument here.

After all, I don’t recall any such criticism of immigration sanctuary counties and cities. Those were apparently quite acceptable and not dictatorial in the least.

Why is it only now that it’s a problem to stand up to a higher government in the name of what one perceives to be a right?

Let’s not forget that Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution covers the naturalization of immigrants and could at least suggest that the federal government has authority on this issue, yet immigration sanctuaries popped up in spite of the constitutionality of immigration law.

Meanwhile, Second Amendment sanctuary counties are, in fact, upholding the Second Amendment. These are people’s rights, and this idea that we should ignore the authority when it’s just and adhere to it when it’s unconstitutional is hypocritical as hell.

It’s also kind of insane under the circumstances.


What’s more, they’ll tell you that it’s dictatorial to not uphold the Constitution.

It’s amusing how the anti-gun media repeatedly twists itself into pretzels to pretend that they’re not supportive of tyranny and are, in fact, in the complete opposite camp. It’s not remotely true and that’s obvious for anyone with eyes at this point.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member