The Sanctuary Cities that matter

In a growing backlash to pre-filed gin control bills, 23 counties and localities have voted to become Second Amendment Sanctuaries, with dozens more on the way, a largely symbolic declaration that local law enforcement resources will not be used to enforce new gun control ,measures that conflict with the 2nd Amendment and Article I section 13 of the VA Constitution.I’m not sure what the legal effect of this will be, but it shows a stark divide between the Northern VA/Richmond/Petersburg urban concentrations and the rest of the State.

This division cannot end well.

Unexamined prejudices should not be imposed by law on people who live very different lives.

50 thoughts on “The Sanctuary Cities that matter

  1. @Tabor
    “This division cannot end well.”

    Maybe you can share what you have in mind with this ominous observation? It sounds like typical idiotic “Second Amendment solutions” bullshit. Or, do you simply fear that with all this irresponsible gun rhetoric a number of the weaker-minded gun-toting pinheads will be going down the Ruby Ridge / Bundy Ranch road with tragic results?

    Maybe these lovers of the Constitution ought to think about using Constitutional means to resist laws that they think do not pass Constitutional muster? Sheriffs and police chiefs are not empowered under our rule of law to make such decisions. If they try the courts and fail they can either enforce the law or seek another line of work.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You’re the only person I know who goes on-and-on about Second Amendment Solutions.

      But you certainly have a caviler attitude about people dying for their beliefs.

      The 2nd Amendment Sanctuary movement IS a Constitutional means for resisting and for raising awareness. Judging by voter turnout, 2nd Amendment voters were caught sleeping last election, but they are awake now. Next statewide election, expect 100% turnout. That may not have much effect on the Blue districts in N VA, but whoever the Democrats put up to succeed Northam is going to find it tough sledding.


      1. Second amendment solutions – just me? Yeah right. I am the one who opposes every attempt to register and track the ownership of guns because I am afraid I will have to use it some day to oppose “tyranny.” I am the one whose Dear Leader incites mobs to solve judicial appointments that way and who seems to expect a violent uprising should he ever be held accountable for his crimes. And, of course, I am the one making ominous predictions about things not ending well.

        But, if that bullshit is not what you meant with that ominous prediction, what did you mean.

        My “cavalier attitude” amounts to this – if you expect to defy court orders with threats of gun violence then whatever happens to you is YOUR fault.

        As a publicity stunt, sure the “Sanctuary City” is constitutional. And promises to break future laws is protected by freedom of speech. However, should any of these people actually fail to enforce the statutes they do not like, they should be punished to the full extent of the law and held civilly libel if their failure to act causes harm.

        I think you are kidding yourself about voter turnout being a problem unless you mean turnout by decent people sick of Trumpism. THAT will continue to be a problem for every Republican candidate. IMHO.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. @Tabor

            Your professed ignorance is not convincing, but I will play along.

            A “second amendment solution” is when some pinhead with a gun decides to use it against the government because – in his opinion – he has a duty to resist what HE thinks is an UnConstitutional Law.

            As for who has suggested it – Start with Dear Leader . . .

            But he is not alone. It is a threat frequently made by so-called “conservatives.”


            And then there is YOU. Your frequent blather about taking arms against “tyranny” combined with your very broad and self-centered definition of “tyranny” and it becomes a serious proposal.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “ It was Sharron Angle, Republican opponent of Sen. Harry Reid, who said it straight:
            Angle said that America’s problems may need Second Amendment remedies. She means, not even in code, solving political issues by using guns against political opponents.”

            HuffPost, 2010.

            “ Donald Trump said on Tuesday that his opponent Hillary Clinton “wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.” Trump followed his claim, which was not supported by any source or proof, with a not-so-veiled suggestion, adding, “although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.”


            I don’t think those kinds of threats are idle ones, and they are certainly dangerous when they come from major political candidates for Senate and the presidency.

            And so unnecessary and totally irresponsible in a country that has a lot of gun violence already, not even counting suicides.

            Of course Angle lost, but our current regime is headed by Trump. The candidate who offered to pay the legal bills for supporters who would assault and beat a critic.

            There is not a serious gun law being considered that would reduce your collection of arms.

            Liked by 3 people

          3. SB 16. As written would make possession of any centerfire rifle or pistol CAPABLE of accepting a magazine holding more than 10 rounds a felony.

            Not necessarily having a larger magazine in place, just capable of accepting one.

            SB 14 would make hunting illegal for anyone nder 18

            SB 64 would make teaching a person how to use a firearm a felony if that person MIGHT use it for civil disorder.


          4. SB64:

            “A person is guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity, punishable as a Class 5 felony if he: 1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder”.

            The problem is?


            “ Trigger activators; prohibition; penalty.”. Hunting?


            ”The bill makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to import, sell, barter, or transfer any firearm magazine designed to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.“

            Liked by 1 person

          5. “ SB 17 Same-sex marriages; civil unions.
            Introduced by: Adam P. Ebbin | all patrons … notes | add to my profiles

            Same-sex marriages; civil unions. Repeals the statutory prohibitions on same-sex marriages and civil unions or other arrangements between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage. These prohibitions are no longer valid due to the United States Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (June 26, 2015).


            Might want to try again.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. RE SB64

            “Article I. Bill of Rights
            Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power

            That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, TRAINED TO ARMS(emphasis added), is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

            SB64 makes training to arms a felony. Peaceably assembling to train would be a felony.

            SB64 violates the State and national Constitutions in so many ways it is hard to list them all.

            SB16 is way more than magazines.


          7. “ SB64 makes training to arms a felony. Peaceably assembling to train would be a felony.”

            If the training is for civil disorder.

            The problem is?

            Liked by 2 people

          8. The problem is who decides what is for civil disorder.

            Is a peaceful, but armed, civil protest civil disorder? Is training for the purpose of deterring oppression covered?

            A Prosecutor with an agenda could prosecute almost any firearms training program and bankrupt the trainer proving his innocence.


          9. “ Is a peaceful, but armed, civil protest civil disorder?”

            Why would it be? Of course it begs the question that if the protest is civil, what are the guns for?

            Liked by 1 person

          10. The battle was the last vestiges of the Indian Wars. Not exactly a point of pride in the US history, but it was by many considered a battle. So much so that 20 medals of honor were awarded. I don’t believe the Lakota were considered American citizens, but rather a nation we were at war with. Not excusing such slaughter, but not a good example of government oppression of its citizenry.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. It was women, children and old men and it wasn’t a battle. In a battle both sides are armed. It was mass murder sanitized by giving medals to the agents of the murder.


          12. Like I said, not a point of pride. We could bring up 6000 lynchings by armed whites who were not government oppressors.

            At Wounded Knee, both sides were armed. The shooting started when one of the Lakota refused to give up his rifle.

            Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “The problem is?”

          Define “civil disorder.” Is it actual or potential, real or imaginary, an act of commission or of infliction?


          1. For a start, it would be up to the state to prove that the training was for civil disorder to a jury.

            So far, the feds have disrupted some individuals or groups intent on carrying out terrorist attacks by evidence gathered such as manifestos, websites, emails, texts, communication with undercover officers and informants. Such evidence along with large caches of explosives, arms and ammunition are pretty good indicators.

            Of course we could just wait until these folks kill people. That is also a good indicator, but an ineffective way to provide for the security of a free state. Particularly if you or someone you know or love is the target of such groups.

            The “security of the free state” certainly includes preventing rebellion and that is civil disorder.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. We could also just wait until the government starts killing people. Can’t happen here?

            What was the worst mass shooting in US history? (312 mostly women and children)Hint:It was carried out with Henry lever action rifles.

            Part of protecting the security of a free state is for the people to be sufficiently well armed and skilled to pose a deterrent to oppression.


          3. RE: “For a start, it would be up to the state to prove that the training was for civil disorder to a jury.”

            For a start, the definition has to be provided in advance of the prosecution. Without the definition, how can a prosecutor know a crime was committed? How can a jury determine whether the events it is considering meet the definition?

            Your idea is radically cavalier about the rule of law. The “security of the free state” is no excuse for implementing the rule of man.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Why should NYC be forced to honor Wyoming’s gun carry laws when a visitor comes into town? That is the goal of reciprocal concealed carry laws.

    Wyoming has virtually no restrictions on carry. But NY is very population dense and has strict laws regarding possession and carry.

    NY has the third lowest gun death rate in the country at 4.4 per 100,000. NYC is lower yet at 3.5.

    Wyoming has one of the highest at 17.4 per 100,000.

    Arizona has the most lax laws in the US. Yet Tucson and Phoenix have gun death rates more than double NYC.

    As a matter of fact, except for Maryland, the top states for gun violence are all red and have much more lax gun laws than NY.

    NY and NYC have found ways to reduce gun violence, yet it is the gun lobby that insists they have to honor the loose laws of other, conservative states with higher gun violence. Why do want to force your prejudices about the Second onto others?

    There is another side to the debate gun lobbies don’t consider.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. The evidence is in and it is overwhelming. The states and countries that have the most restrictive gun laws have significantly less gun violence per capita than states and countries with lax regulations. And yet some people still seriously suggest that to be secure we need MORE guns and MORE people carrying them. And THEY are the ones who claim to be ruled by reason while everyone opposing them is simply being emotional. You cannot make this stuff up.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. That is not at all what reciprocity is about.

      Reciprocity is simply that each state affords CHP holders from other states the same privileges as CHP holders from that state.

      The state’s laws still apply, just like a drivers license. Texas drivers don’t get to drive 80mph in Connecticut, they follow the same laws as CT drivers there.


      1. So the fact that another state has little or no screening or training will allow that person to carry in NYC?

        Isn’t that forcing NY to abide by rules that it rejects?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. As far as I know, NY is not a ‘shall issue’ state, so it would not be covered.

          As with driver’s licenses, reciprocity would require some degree of conformance in standards between states.


    3. DO not conflate “gun death rate” with homicide.

      Suicide accounts for a lot of gun deaths, but it does not impose a risk to others.

      If you adjust Wyoming’s rate for suicide, primarily by Amerindians you would see a very different picture. Same for Alaska.


      1. Alaska’s is still high. Wyoming drops to closer to NY.

        Red states still have higher rates for just gun homicide and adding in suicide it becomes worse.

        It makes one wonder why life is so unbearable in Republican states.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Where is your source for statistics, I’d like to see the numbers. Don’t doubt them, just want the reference.

          As for why suicide is high in red states, my first guess would be blue states imposing regulations on them willy-nilly and wrecking their lives. That certainly was the case in Louisiana when I moved here. Carter’s fuel use act plunged hundreds of thousands of hard working people into destitution, and many couldn’t handle the unfairness.


          1. There are a plethora of sites, but this one actually pulls out suicide from homicide and goes in detail state by state.


            This site has a table that separates homicide and gun homicide along with other minutiae.


            Blame Carter for the current suicide rates in LA? That is 45 years ago. At some point people need to move on with their lives. When you look at some of the stats I provided, the unfortunate facts are that the conservative states have a lot of violence problems.

            Other places will provide obesity, longevity, education levels, divorces…red states fare poorly.
            Except, ironically, in church attendance. Maybe it’s the climate. Or just maybe the constituents have been sold a bill of shady goods by the GOP.


            Liked by 1 person

          2. I left Louisiana in1987, after hanging on about 8 years longer than I should. The late 70s and early 80s in LA are the best example I could come up with of Big Government liberals inflicting crushing destitution on a red state, though I suspect coal country has endured similar hardship more recently


          3. “ Homicide appears to be a function of urban concentrations and Indian Reservations. Blue counties in Red States.”

            Well, NY has both Indian reservations and urban concentration. Not to mention that NYC is probably one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world. It has been the port of entry for immigrants since before our founding.

            Plus NYC has some tough gun laws. And this is despite the problem with the “Iron Pipeline” of guns from Virginia.

            I think it is a cultural thing also. And not helped by being relatively poor states as well.

            It’s funny. Often NY is described as “who would want to live there” referencing crime, crowding, costs, etc. Yet, although not for everyone, it does pretty well in most areas.

            Maybe better now that Trump has bailed. 🙊

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “ Again, don’t conflate NY with NYC.”

            OK. Let’s compare NY State with Texas. NYC with Houston. NY and NYC are much less violent.

            Both big states. Both cities major ports. Gun laws way different.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Demographics are also very different.

            Median income between NYC and Houston is very different. Petty criminals almost can’t afford to live in NYC any longer, they have to commute from Jersey.

            You are making the same mistake as Paul by assigning differences to a single variable when there are many others you are not accounting for.


          6. You don’t know NY,obviously. People might not afford Manhattan, but the live in the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island. Those 5 boroughs make up NYC. The demographics may not be exact, but there a huge variety of cultures, legal and illegal. There are gangs in NY, including some MS-13.

            I think the red states are just more violent.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Again, I think it is a mistake to characterize a State as violent. Violence is more local that that. There are violent cities and and counties in many states, but the great majority of counties in any state are not violent.

            I would say that red states are PEACEFUL. But keep in mind that to be peaceful, you must be capable of violence. It you aren’t capable of violence, you aren’t peaceful. you are harmless, and thus, helpless.


          8. “ But keep in mind that to be peaceful, you must be capable of violence.“

            Maybe. Yet some of the greatest movements in history were brought about by non-violence. Well, more correctly, the violence was perpetrated by the powers in place. Yet, they lost.

            Jesus’ Christianity
            Gandhi’s Indian independence from Great Britain
            MLK’s Civil Rights movement.

            What do you think would have been the result if Jesus had raised an army against the rulers in Palestine? Or Gandhi had attacked the Brits? Or if millions of armed African-Americans stormed the state houses in the South and the Capitol in DC?

            Armed rebellion often just changes the debate from injustice to revenge and survival.

            Here’s a fleeting hypothesis. Suppose Pol Pot had gone from town to town preaching the virtues of an agrarian society. Maybe it would have caught fire and resulted in some positive changes for the rural poor. Instead, of course they ended up with “killing fields”.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Gun mayhem apologists do not get a pass on suicides with guns. According to peer-reviewed epidemiology a person is five times as likely to die of suicide – by all methods – if there is a gun present in the household than if there is not. Guns are very good at fulfilling their designed function – killing.

        Suicide DOES impose risks to others. Leaving aside the emotional pain and economic costs of a suicide in the family, murder-suicide is a frequent tragedy when a depressed person has access to a gun.

        One cannot help but notice how frequently your “arguments” involve adjusting damning statistics to exclude people who are different from you in some way.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Well, so much for “States’ Rights”

    Ya know Don, it’s The Commonwealth of Virginia, not The United Counties and Townships of Virginia. If you keep leaning into these atomizing approaches, you’ll only lose the Civil War again.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s