This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, May 7, 2018:
When Effingham County, Illinois, passed a resolution declaring itself a sanctuary county for gun owners, The New American failed to give sufficient credit to Effingham’s state attorney Brian Kibler for generating the idea. Joe Thoele, an Effingham County board member, took the idea and ran with it, persuading seven of the eight members of the board to pass it. Said Kibler at the time: “If you can be a sanctuary county for undocumented immigrants, why can’t you be one for firearms [owners]?”
It was later revealed that Kibler’s use of the word “sanctuary” was deliberate and intentional: “It’s a buzzword, a word that really gets attention. With all these sanctuary cities, we just decided to turn it around to protect our Second Amendment rights.”
And, oh by the way, it put Democrats into a philosophical and ideological bind, to say nothing of exposing their hypocrisy and lack of logical consistency. Kathleen Willis, a Democrat state representative in Springfield, came close to explaining the bind: “I don’t think you can say, ‘I don’t agree with the law so I won’t enforce it. I think that sends the wrong message.’”
But that’s exactly the message Kibler and others want to send: What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If it’s all right for cities and states to order their employees to refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials in enforcing federal law regarding illegal aliens (sorry, undocumented immigrants who reside in the country illegally!), then — to be logical and consistent in their reasoning — it must also be all right for counties to order their employees not to cooperate with state officials enforcing anti-gun legislation that infringes on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Effingham County is one of five Illinois counties that have adopted similar resolutions, while another 20 counties from around the state and in Oregon and Washington have also expressed interest in adopting them as well. Aside from deliberately co-opting Democrats’ language through the use of the word “sanctuary,” it also puts anti-gun politicians on notice: They might just have a problem enforcing laws they are passing that ignore or abrogate precious Second Amendment rights. Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson declared, “They [those counties] are trying to make a point that they really resent how the city of Chicago treats the rest of the state, and how they’re [being] treated as gun owners.”
In addition to putting in a bind Democrats seeking consistency in their ideology, the “sanctuary” county vs. city and state “sanctuaries” debate is putting into bold relief not only the difference between rural and urban views on the matter, but also the chasm between those who honor and support the Constitution and its Bill of Rights (all of them) and those who are willing to scuttle them in order to advance their tyrannical ideological anti-gun agenda.