The definition, or at least the connotation, of the word “sanctuary” still apparently lies in the eye of the beholder.

We are hardly surprised that, with a 5-4 Democratic majority on City Council, that Winchester is now one of 11 Virginia localities that has not taken up the cause of Second Amendment rights as a Democratic General Assembly is poised to impose new laws that may infringe on those rights. Some 130 cities and counties have passed resolutions supporting gun rights.

Now, for the word “sanctuary.” When it comes to shielding immigrants whose initial act on American soil is an illegal one, leftist officials are often quick to declare their municipalities “sanctuary cities” where, essentially, violators of federal immigration law receive local succor.

But when the cause is actually constitutional — preservation of the Second Amendment — Democrats and their ilk, maintain all rules should be followed. No sanctuaries allowed.

Take this comment, for instance, tendered during Tuesday’s council work session by freshman Democratic member Judy McKiernan, an administrator with Winchester Public Schools.

“I work every day with children,” Mrs. McKiernan said. “Are we ready to tell them, ‘I don’t like that rule, so I’m not going to follow it’?”

Well, that’s precisely what many people, kids as well as adults, are being told in certain precincts around the country. We would gladly second Mrs. McKiernan’s notion if we believed for sure she held federal immigration statutes in similar repute.

(5) comments

Jim McCarthy

Star editors are not stupid. They are merely ideologically blind. Sometimes they are even clever. This time not.

Rattler

Send em back. Sanctuary is sanctuary. Can't have it both ways

JEngels

Second amendment nuts are proposing that violating laws is a form of sanctuary, whereas there's no law requiring municipalities to enforce federal immigration laws. Your analogy is stupid.

The Node

Just the constitution which places federal laws above state laws above local laws. They also aren’t required to enforce the laws, only not interfere with federal agencies enforcing the laws. The analogy is valid, your argument is vapid.

Ping

How’s Karl? I think he would be disappointed in your lack of philosophical depth,Eng.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.