Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy is at it again. Never one to pass up the chance to make political hay before the blood dries, Murphy recently told CNN that the US Senate should consider withholding federal law enforcement funds from localities dubbed “Second Amendment Sanctuaries.”
The Second Amendment Sanctuary movement took off several years ago amid political rhetoric, and actual efforts, to enact strict gun control. Most federal gun control legislation has, thus far, failed, but gun controllers have seen more success at the state and local levels. Rural and conservative counties responded by declaring themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries” in which federal and state gun control would not be enforced or would receive the lowest priority.
The Missouri legislature passed a law making the entire state a Second Amendment Sanctuary, and a recent ballot measure did essentially the same thing in Iowa via a Constitutional amendment. Murphy noted that “the majority of counties in this country have declared that they are not going to enforce state and federal gun laws. They have decided that they are going to essentially refuse to implement laws that are on the books.”
It’s About Disarmament, Not Safety
But, like all hardcore gun control activists, Murphy draws the wrong conclusions from his statement. He is clearly appalled to see American citizens and Constitutionally elected sheriffs having the gall to stand up for their rights against one-size-fits-all gun laws. Especially laws enacted by metropolitan politicians and funded by out-of-state billionaires like Michael Bloomberg and Connie Ballmer.
Flawed Examples
Murphy’s latest statement was prompted by the recent murders at an El Paso County, Colorado gay bar. El Paso County is a Second Amendment Sanctuary, so Murphy saw an opportunity. The police had earlier declined to pursue a “Red Flag” warrant against the shooter, despite his threatening his mother with a bomb. In fact, he faced no penalty at all for that incident. Sounds like El Paso County has more problems than whether or not it’s a Second Amendment Sanctuary.
Senator Murphy referenced the Chesapeake, Virginia Walmart shooting as a swipe at Cheasapeake, which is a Second Amendment Sanctuary. But he failed to mention that the shooter passed the federal background check since he had no criminal record. How is that Chesapeake’s fault?
Tellingly, Murphy left out the tragic shooting of three University of Virginia students on a bus returning from a class trip. Neither the City of Charlottesville, Virginia nor Washington, D.C., the trip’s destination, are Second Amendment Sanctuaries. Funny how that didn’t make any difference, isn’t it?
Murphy is All In on Gun Control
But Murphy found his career niche after the horrific Sandy Hook shooting ten years ago. Understandably upset by that tragedy, Murphy went all in on gun control. Since then, he hasn’t missed an opportunity to push draconian firearms laws whenever he sees an advantage. He has even admitted that many measures would not have stopped the shooter in his crusade of the month, but he always wants to do it anyway.
That’s because gun controllers aren’t about safety. They are about disarmament. Murphy is merely one of the worst offenders. He is the Senate’s heir apparent to arch gun-banner Dianne Feinstein, who reportedly keeps pre-written gun control bills on her computer, ready to be rolled out in the event of a tragedy she believes can be exploited.
A Backwards Approach
Murphy apparently sees no irony in threatening to reduce law enforcement funding for localities he doesn’t like, simply because those localities have decided to stand up for their citizen’s Constitutional rights. He claims to care about public safety, yet he seems to believe hamstringing the police is a great way to achieve that goal.
How would cutting money from police forces or sheriff’s departments advance public safety? It wouldn’t and Murphy is smart enough to know it. His threat is designed to bring those localities in line with what Murphy and his ilk have decided is best for them.
In reality, Murphy likely knows that cutting funding for police means crime will increase and higher crime gives him more opportunities to rail against legal gun ownership in the guise of public safety. Again, gun control activists don’t want lower crime rates. They want to ban gun ownership, whether it be responsible citizens or not.
Don’t believe me? Just look up north in Canada. They are on track to ban all private gun ownership. Murphy no doubt wishes it were that easy here. Fortunately, we have the Second Amendment standing between him and us. And he can’t stand it. That’s why he’s so angry about Second Amendment Sanctuaries. How dare those locals defy Washington politicians and their billionaire supporters who clearly know better?
Purposely Unconstitutional
Never mind that gun control schemes are falling across the country thanks to the Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision. But Constitutionality has never been the gun controllers’ strong suit. Some of them are genuinely ignorant of the Constitution, but most know exactly what they are doing.
Gun control schemes are often passed in full awareness that they are unconstitutional, but also knowing that legal challenges will sometimes take years to work through the judicial system. Meanwhile, gun control becomes more normalized in the public’s eyes, and the Supreme Court’s ideological makeup could change. Too bad that knowingly passing unconstitutional laws is not illegal.
But that’s how it is, and so Murphy will threaten and cajole. “Give up your rights or we’ll stop giving you money.” Or perhaps, “Just give up this one right and we will keep giving you money.” It’s basically a protection racket right out of “Goodfellas.” Well, as a resident of one of those Second Amendment Sanctuaries, all I have to say is “Shall Not Be Infringed.”
