RVA Mag

Richmond, VA Culture & Politics Since 2005

Menu

Making Sense of Virginia’s Many “Second Amendment Sanctuary” Resolutions

|

Topics: , , , , , , , , , , ,

As we approach the start of the 2020 General Assembly session, here’s an up-to-date look into an ongoing fight over guns that has the whole Commonwealth concerned.

It has been a truly tumultuous month since Virginia’s November elections.  Specifically, the conversation around the Second Amendment, gun ownership and potential gun control legislation has flooded headlines. Since the commonwealth went “full blue” last month, a large handful of counties and municipalities have declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries.” There has been a heated discussion about what that term means, and how it will be upheld if gun control legislation is passed during the upcoming General Assembly session. 

So, how did we get here? What have people been saying across the state? Who are the key players? Well, let’s try and figure that out.

What’s happening?

As we know, the November 5 elections resulted in the first completely Democrat-controlled Virginia state legislature in 26 years. Many were quick to hypothesize about issues that would climb to the top of the docket once the General Assembly session begins in January.  The issue of gun control legislation immediately took center stage.

It began in Campbell County on November 7 — only two days after the elections. At a board of supervisors meeting, Brookneal District Supervisor Charlie Watts proposed a resolution emphasizing the board’s “deep commitment” to maintaining its citizens’ Second Amendment rights. In the resolution, Watts declared the county a “Second Amendment sanctuary” — meaning that the supervisors of Campbell County support gun rights and oppose any legislation that would limit gun ownership. The resolution passed unanimously, and thus, the snowball was pushed down the hill.

In the days that followed, a number of other counties began holding meetings to discuss adopting sanctuary resolutions and policies. One after another, board of supervisors meetings were being flooded with crowds gathered in the hundreds — even thousands in some cases — to voice their support for such policies. Appomattox and Pittsylvania counties designated themselves sanctuary counties as well. 

To this date, at least 20 counties, and a couple of independent cities, across the state have declared or have considered declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries. Below is a map showing counties known to have adopted or considered adopting such policies.

Almost all of the counties that have adopted or considered adopting sanctuary are rural, with a large number of them being in the southwestern part of the state.

It’s worth noting that this post-election behavior is not the first Virginia has heard of Second Amendment sanctuaries. Back in April, months before the current wave, Carroll County adopted a resolution declaring themselves a Second Amendment sanctuary in response to similar actions nationwide.

What’s important to understand about these declarations is that because of the Dillon Rule, they have no legal authority unless the General Assembly adopts actual legislation that legitimizes them. The Dillon Rule says that unlike the powers of the states, municipalities only have powers that are expressly granted to them by the state government. Virginia is one of 31 states that abides by the Dillon Rule. Because of this, counties and cities cannot legally refuse to enforce laws and policies they don’t agree with.

Who are the key players?

One group that has made a lot of noise since the November election is the Virginia Civil Defense League — a non-profit organization created to protect citizens’ right to bear arms. Their president, Philip Van Cleave, has been urging lawmakers and law enforcement across the state to adopt sanctuary policies. He’s even gone on record suggesting that law enforcement not enforce gun-control legislation should any be passed by the General Assembly.

“We can push for more Second Amendment Sanctuary Localities, like Carroll County, which will refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws,” the group stated. “Sheriffs and other law enforcement have no obligation to enforce unconstitutional laws, either.”

Van Cleave and other VCDL members have been present at many of the meetings held across the state since November 5.

“VCDL is not going to back down — the fight is on,” Van Cleave wrote in a statement.

Philip Van Cleave at Virginia Citizen Defense League’s 2012 Roanoke County Picnic. (Image via VAGunRights/YouTube)

Meanwhile, gun-safety groups like Moms Demand Action, led by Shannon Watts, viewed the elections as a massive win for gun-control activism.  These groups have been in long-running, heated debate with organizations like the NRA and VCDL over gun-control legislation. 

What are people saying?

As can be expected, many gun rights supporters have turned up to meetings to have their voices heard. Here is a short list of quotes from people across the state:

  • “If we don’t have our guns to protect our rights, we’re not going to be able to worship freely.” – Dr. Mark J. Matney, resident, Washington County
  • “I read somewhere the quickest way to overthrow a country is to disarm citizens, and that’s what we’re seeing.” – Bennie Woody Jr., resident, Amherst County
  • “All I can say is we’re just going to have to lock and load.” – Joe Davis, Dan River supervisor, Pittsylvania County
  • “It is time to stand up to tyrants who want to transform America into something that it wasn’t meant to be,” Mark Matthews, retired firefighter and sheriff’s deputy, Pittsylvania County

The Lee County Sheriff’s Office even posted on Facebook about their lack of enforcement of any potential gun control restrictions: “I want to assure the citizens of Lee County that me and my officers will stand up to any federal or state agency that attempts to infringe upon our gun rights. We stand for the Constitution and the second amendment. May God bless Lee County and our great nation.”

For as many governing bodies have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary declarations, lawmakers have been quick to educate citizens to the reality of the situation.

Tim Tatum, supervisor for the Blue Ridge district in Franklin County, spoke in support of showing solidarity with other districts across the state. However, he was quick to remind the crowd of over 350 people in Franklin County of the principle laid out by the Dillon Rule.

“I want to make sure that all of you don’t get some false sense of security that when we pass this that this gives you some type of protection from any laws that the state may pass,” Tatum said.

Lee County Sheriff Gary Parsons. (Photo via Lee County Sheriff’s Office/Facebook)

What’s next?

The reality of the situation is this; we have no way of knowing. For many, the comments and stances of radical gun owners across the state have been terrifying. Regardless of an individual’s beliefs, the idea of a law enforcement agency outwardly expressing that they will not enforce enacted law is troubling and concerning. 

The 2020 General Assembly session begins in early January, and all eyes, both in Virginia and across the nation, will be on the Capitol in Richmond. With gun-safety laws expected to headline the Democratic docket, we will have to wait and see what physical results come as a result of the shift in political power. 

Top Photo by Specna Arms on Unsplash

Trump Wants To End Citizenship By Birth. Can He?

|

Topics: , , , , , , ,

Donald Trump has made clear throughout his campaign and administration that he has no respect for the conventional norms of United States government. From his calamitous attempt, just after his inauguration, to institute a travel ban for several countries with predominantly Muslim populations to his equally uproarious attempt last summer to ban transgender people from the U.S. military by way of a tweet, he has continually pushed the limits of what the president can get away with.

The courts have stopped some of these attempts to rule by fiat (though the travel ban is very much in effect as of now). But court injunctions haven’t stopped Trump from trying… and his latest attempt might be his most blatantly dictatorial power grab yet.

In an interview with HBO news show Axios, scheduled to air next Sunday, Trump tells the show’s hosts that he’s interested in ending the Constitution’s guarantee of citizenship to anyone born within the United States. The interviewer tells Trump about how some legal scholars think this 14th Amendment policy can be ended by Executive Order, a legal directive that can be signed into law by the president without approval from Congress.

In response, Trump says he’s thinking about doing so. “It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” the president tells the Axios interviewer. “You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.”

“It’s in the process. It’ll happen — with an executive order,” Trump went on to say. He expressed contempt for the Constitution’s provision of citizenship by birthright. “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous, and it has to end.”

In truth, the United States is one of 35 countries that allows for unrestricted citizenship by birth; others include Canada, Mexico, and Brazil. Significantly, all but three of these countries are in the Western Hemisphere; birthright citizenship doesn’t exist anywhere in Europe.

In the US, citizenship by birth is guranteed by the 14th Amendment, one of three amendments to the U.S. Constitution signed into law after the end of the Civil War. The 14th Amendment’s roots lie in one of the Supreme Court’s most infamous moments, the Dred Scott decision. In this 1857 ruling, the Court said that Dred Scott, a slave who’d been taken to free states on multiple occasions by his captors, was subject to the control of his slavemasters regardless of the laws in the state he entered. They based this ruling on the notion that slaves, regardless of where they were born, were not citizens of the United States, due to the fact of their enslavement.

The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause reversed this decision. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” it read.

That “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” phrase has generated some controversy over the years, but according to constitutional law professor Suzanna Sherry, it’s pretty straightforward. “That means that they are subject to the laws of the United States; that they can, for example, be prosecuted for violating American law,” she told NPR.

In addition to being an attempt to make amends with former slaves, this clause also served to make immigrants feel more welcome in the US. In the late 19th century, immigration was vital to the United States workforce.

“The United States had experienced quite a bit of immigration, and immigration was viewed as a very good thing,” Sherry told NPR. “And so this was essentially putting out a welcome mat to immigrants by ensuring that their children born here would be citizens.”

These days, children of immigrants are seen quite differently. The growth of undocumented immigration to the United States from Latin American countries, which increased steadily throughout the late 90s and early 2000s, stoked right-wing fears — most of which were both unfounded and racist. By 2006, the term “anchor baby” had become ubiquitous on the right as a pejorative reference to US-born children of undocumented immigrants, who obtained citizenship at birth despite their parents coming to the country outside the legal immigration process.

The push to repeal the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and end citizenship by birth grew out of this (racist and hateful) right-wing movement, and as the US president with the most direct connection to that movement thus far, Trump is certainly in tune with it. However, his belief that an executive order alone would be enough to repeal a constitutional amendment is not supported by most scholars.

Earlier this year, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who served on the Court from 1975 until 2010, published an op-ed in the New York Times, calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment and its provision of unrestricted access to firearms. Stevens felt that the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case was wrong, and should be overturned by way of amending the Constitution. “Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple,” Stevens wrote.

This kind of amendment is not unprecedented; the 18th Amendment, which prohibited manufacture or sale of alcohol in the United States, was later overturned by the 21st Amendment. However, it required not only a two-thirds majority vote in favor of passage by both houses of Congress, but passage by three-fourths of the country’s 50 states. The fact that this has only happened once in the 240-year history of the United States shows how difficult it is to accomplish.

If Stevens had seen an easier path to repealing the Second Amendment, surely he would have proposed it. As a former Supreme Court Justice himself, one would think he’s more aware than most of exactly what the Constitution allows and forbids.

Indeed, people who study this sort of constitutional law expect the courts to ultimately arbitrate the constitutionality of Trump’s planned executive order. On Twitter, Mark Krikorian, who serves as the Executive Director for the Center for Immigration Studies, predicted exactly this. “This will set up the court fight,” he tweeted. “The order will be enjoined, the case will eventually reach SCOTUS, which will then finally have to rule on the meaning of ‘subject to the jurisdiction’.”

It seems likely that the Supreme Court, complete with brand-new Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh on board, will ultimately be the ones who decide whether Donald Trump should have line-item veto power over the Constitution of the United States. If the court were to rule in Trump’s favor, this would all but abolish, in real terms, the tripartite system of checks and balances we all learned about in middle-school social studies classes — paving the way for Trump’s joke(?) about being president for life to become a horrifying reality.

Let’s hope that doesn’t happen.