In Virginia, 91 of the 96 counties have declared themselves to be 2nd Amendment sanctuaries. How is it that the state passed a law that the overwhelming majority of counties oppose? This is a case of urban centers attempting to enforce their preferences in rural areas. The urban centers are far more populous than the rural areas and can swamp them with votes. However, a law that may be appropriate for a densely populated city might be unworkable for a low density area.
It is funny that the party that celebrates sanctuary cities, counties, and states when the issue is illegal immigration is outraged when the same tactic is used for gun rights. Why is it okay - even commendable - for California and Colorado to ignore Federal law as regards marijuana but it is wrong when that same tactic is used by 'the other side' to protect gun rights? Either we live by the laws that are passed or we have localities nullify laws they don't like. Pick one and be consistent.
As a fan of federalism, my preference is for localities to govern themselves. Cities should not be allowed to strong arm rural areas because they have more votes in the legislature. This is resolved at the federal level with the bicameral legislature but is meaningless at the state level thanks to a Reynolds v. Sims, which negated the point of bicameralism.
No comments:
Post a Comment