Second Amendment Sanctuaries?

Second Amendment sanctuaries have been compared to immigration law sanctuaries, but these are not really comparible except for their political overtones. These movements reflect cultural reactions and searingly different political points of view to law and a resulting reluctance to enforce laws with which constituencies disagree. From there, the two "sanctuary movements" diverge on legal grounds.

A sheriff, like any law enforcement officer, has a certain amount of latitude in how to enforce law but the bottom line is, constitutionally justified law must be enforced. None of the bills being pushed by the legislature have been found unconstitutional in any judicial venue. Badly written, maybe. Constitutionally defective, not.

There is latitude in how law is enforced. One of my buddies from college days, Officer Fred Woodard of the Rochester Police Dept., set up his radar trap for 12 mph over the limit. He enforced the speed laws, but gave people a lot of latitude. As "Woody", a WW II veteran of the 101st Airborne Div who fought at Bastogne told me, "If I get 'em for 12 over, they don't have an excuse". I watched Woody write 'em up for more than 12 over. Likewise, sheriffs can decide how to enforce the law and how tightly to read it.

If a judge hands a sheriff a domestic violence restraining order that requires someone turn in the arsenal and if that order is not served, there may be severe consequences. If a family is lined up and shot by a disgruntled family member, the sheriff has some serious answers to give and he and his constituents might be facing massive fines, not to mention the sheriff facing legal sanction on his own. If on the other hand, two law abiding ranchers exchange a squirrel gun on the sly, it might be overlooked.

Finally, as a constitutional issue, 2A sanctuaries cannot be compared to states or counties declaring sanctuary status from Federal immigration law. There is US Supreme Court precedent in the form of Printz vs. United States that affirms local and state law enforcement cannot be coerced into, or required to expend resources, enforcing Federal law. Look it up. There is no analogous ruling I know of saying sheriffs can ignore state law. So these are apples v oranges comparisons on constitutional law, but good comparisons on resentful politics.

No one likes to have law rammed down their throat and in this legislative session, the contrast in urban vs rural cultures and politics could not be more polarized. A lot of good could have been done, but we seem to have missed the point in the effort to win and beat the other guy.