Third Way: The Dangers of 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Cities
Second Amendment sanctuary cities have begun popping up all over the country as far right activists began pushing for it from their local governments. In response, these local government have declared counties and cities safe havens for the Second Amendment right to bear arms. By doing this, local governments claim they can circumvent state and federal gun control measures as the Constitution is supreme to these laws. However, Second Amendment sanctuary cities do not have any actual legal enforcement and pose a real danger to the rule of law. This attempt to ignore federal and state law undermines the system of federalism and suggests local officials can ignore any laws they see fit.
Background
What is a Second Amendment sanctuary city? Across the country, local governments pass resolutions declaring their cities to be Second Amendment sanctuaries, which means these localities will refuse to enforce state and federal gun safety laws. Some counties have gone as far as refusing to dedicate tax money to the implementation of gun safety measures. The resolutions that are passed are defended by the concept that gun control legislation is unconstitutional. Some far right groups believe any restriction on firearms goes against the intention of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Currently, approximately 60% of all U.S. counties or 1200 counties and 42 states have passed resolutions declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuary cities.
The Power of the Resolutions
So, what do the resolutions do? Short answer- nothing. Localities cannot ignore state and federal law. In fact, ignoring state laws especially is unconstitutional as the Constitution demonstrates the clear supremacy of state laws. Additionally, the Supreme Court has specifically ruled on the constitutionality of gun control laws. As recognized by the Supreme Court in D.C. v Heller (2008), state legislatures can pass common-sense gun safety laws that do not interfere with the rights of gun owners — but they do keep guns out of the hands of those who cannot or should not possess them. Therefore, not only is there no legal basis for enforcement, but supporting the resolution is unconstitutional. Law enforcement and local governments cannot refuse to enforce public safety due to extremist ideology.
The Unknown Dangers
If these resolutions have no real legal effect, what is the danger they pose? The danger posed here is the power of localities to undermine state and federal law whenever they see fit. With state laws, it's the responsibility of state legislators to pass legislation, for the governor to sign them into law, and — if challenged — for the court system to rule on their constitutionality. It's improper and dangerous for a local government to try to circumvent state law and to falsely imply that these townships, and the people residing in these townships, are not subject to the law. This raises the question of who has the legal authority to decide which laws are unconstitutional.
Federalism
The U.S. system of checks and balances and separation of powers bestows elected legislators with the power of enacting laws, law enforcement officials with enforcing laws, and courts with deciding the constitutionality of laws. Second Amendment sanctuaries are an attempt to circumvent these constitutional processes. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution clearly establishes that federal law is “supreme” to state law. In the event that state law conflicts with federal law, the federal law is the ultimate authority.
States have enshrined similar supremacy clauses in their constitutions that make state law supreme over local law, and this includes gun laws. These resolutions undermine the rule of law, purposely mislead the public into thinking local government and sheriffs have the power to decide what laws are unconstitutional and wrongly suggest that local officials can and should take the law into their own hands and refuse to enforce laws they believe are unconstitutional. This is extraordinarily dangerous for democracy.
Danger of Extremism
Another danger posed by Second Amendment sanctuary cities is ignoring the public’s desires and letting extremists’ groups make government decisions. Many gun control laws have wide support from the general public and have been passed in many states, which is why antigovernment extremists and gun rights activists see them as a threat. 6/10 Americans say gun violence is a huge problem, 61% believe it is too easy to get a gun, and 58% favor stricter gun laws. Additionally, across the political spectrum, most Democrats and Republicans support raising the minimum age to buy a gun and preventing mentally unfit people from purchasing a gun.
Therefore, it is clear this legislation is not the result of an organic, grassroots movement but rather a well-funded campaign marketed by the gun lobby and supported by antigovernment extremist groups such as Gun Owners of America, Oath Keepers and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA). These groups support a “sheriffs’ movement” which believes sheriffs have the highest authority within counties. The Constitutional Sheriffs movement today also incorrectly claims county sheriffs are the highest law enforcement authority and encourages sheriffs to use their “supreme power” to reject laws they believe are unconstitutional, especially gun laws. These resolutions are not citizen driven. Rather, they are led by extremists’ groups intent on subverting the will of the American people and undermining the rule of law and federalism.
Second Amendment sanctuary cities make up 60% of all local counties in the country. These cities claim to protect the constitutional right to bear arms against all gun control measures. However, because of federalism and the Constitution, local governments cannot override state and federal authority. That power for overriding laws lies in the courts alone. Despite their lack of real power, these resolutions pose a real danger. They exist to show that local governments can ignore higher authorities and decide for themselves what is constitutional and what is not. It also undermines voters’ power since many voters support gun control. These resolutions must be stopped to protect the institutions of democracy.