The American Constitution Society
The Rise of Second Amendment Sanctuaries | 2
to take specific actions as governments. Moreover, by drawing comparisons to immigration
sanctuaries, Second Amendment sanctuaries seem to be interested in more than just expressing
opposition to gun restrictions. Rather, the goal for some seems to be the creation of a refuge
where gun laws will not be enforced at all, or at least not by the local officials who serve there.
Immigration sanctuaries have long imposed limits on local law enforcements participation in
federal immigration enforcement. Can Second Amendment sanctuaries do the same with
respect to gun restrictions? And does the answer to this question apply equally to Second
Amendment and immigration sanctuaries?
This Issue Brief addresses the legality of Second Amendment sanctuaries. Part I surveys Second
Amendment sanctuary resolutions, which vary from state to state and locality to locality, and
identifies common strands and particular provisions worth considering. Part II analyzes the
legal effect of these provisions. It does so through various legal frameworks: the federal
constitution, state constitutions, and the common law. It also considers a number of legal
doctrines: federalism, home rule, and law enforcement discretion. Moreover, this Part explores
the various ways that Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions can be interpreted or put into
effect. Part III compares Second Amendment and immigration sanctuaries. It examines the legal
standing of the two sanctuary movements, and whether arguments made in favor of one
applies to the other. This Part also probes the local interests underlying their declaration.
In short, I conclude that Second Amendment sanctuaries face legal obstacles that immigration
sanctuaries do not, especially in their resistance to enforcing state laws. This does not mean that
states can easily compel officials of sanctuary jurisdictions to zealously enforce state laws, or in
precisely the same manner that they would do themselves through state officials—some
amount of administrative discretion is granted to local law enforcement officials and strict
supervision by the state is difficult. Yet, the legal analysis does suggest that Second Amendment
sanctuaries lack the power to unilaterally nullify state gun laws in their jurisdiction. Nor are
local officials immune from state efforts to compel their participation or face sanctions, like
removal from office. All of this sets Second Amendment sanctuaries apart from immigration
sanctuaries.
I. Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolutions
In declaring their towns, cities, or counties Second Amendment sanctuaries, local officials and
their residents are doing more than simply making a political statement. They are also taking
legislative actions that have legal implications. Second Amendment sanctuaries are the result of
resolutions adopted by the legislative bodies of local governments. And in the vast majority of
cases, these resolutions have been adopted by boards of county commissioners. The specific
language of these resolutions varies, and their sponsors often describe the underlying goal and
purpose in different ways. Yet as this Part outlines, there are common strands that can be found
in nearly all resolutions, reflecting the broader movement of which Second Amendment
sanctuaries are a part. Moreover, there are noteworthy trends that suggest where this