"Here is the truth of the matter. Every county in this country should be sanctuaries for gun rights. If it is in the Constitution, it is the law of the land. As for any other sanctuaries which harbor law breakers, they are indefensible. It is as simple as that."
Much talk today about sanctuary this, or sanctuary that. Cities, counties, states becoming sanctuaries for harboring criminals or protecting Constitutional rights. How should a sheriff and other law enforcement officials react? If they don't obey the orders of the Mayor or Governor, are they doing the right thing? Maybe.
In the military, you are taught to obey all orders coming from the officers over you. That is, so long as they are lawful. I would assume that sheriffs also have a similar oath. To obey all lawful orders. Plus, there is this oath thing. To protect and defend the Constitution. All of a sudden, all this confusion as to which sanctuary city or state is acceptable, and which are not.
How about sheriffs which refuse to enforce the harboring of illegal aliens. Are they in the side of the angels? To ask a law enforcement official not to enforce the law is NOT a lawful order. In other words, any law enforcement official worth his or her salt would tell a Mayor, Governor , who whomever, to pound sand.
What about 2A sanctuaries? Totally lawful. Until the Constitution is legally amended, the right to bear arms is a right. And no law some pointy headed Mayor or Governor can change that. Sheriffs which come down on the side of 2A sanctuaries, are 100% right. Those who oppose 2A sanctuaries, need to immediately resign.
Here is the truth of the matter. Every county in this country should be sanctuaries for gun rights. If it is in the Constitution, it is the law of the land. As for any other sanctuaries which harbor law breakers, they are indefensible. It is as simple as that.