Make Frederick a Sanctuary City

By Eric Beasley

Yes, you read that right. I completely support Frederick becoming a Sanctuary City. There is no reason for people to be living in the shadows, afraid of that day in which the State or Federal Government comes and rounds them up. People should be free to live their lives, with or without proper documentation. It is clear that the only way forward for Frederick is to declare itself a Sanctuary City.

A Sanctuary City from absurd Federal and State law, of course.

In essence, that’s the principle behind an sanctuary city from immigration laws. It’s a level of government declaring non-compliance with the laws which govern our country. In our example here, it is a City deciding that they will not enforce or assist with enforcing federal laws regarding immigration.

So let’s take this same principle (nullification) and apply it to some truly absurd federal laws. Maybe #SafeHavenFromDumbLaws For Frederick?

If it is legal and morally acceptable for Frederick to nullify Federal immigration law, then why not declare the Federal Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 null and void? All of these laws involve some sort of licensing requirement, that’s the “proper documentation” part.  They also have some absurd requirements, like:

• Cannot purchase a handgun until 21. Yet you can train on machine guns, grenades, and handguns at the age of 16 and operate them in war at 18.
• Cannot own a suppressor without approval, which reduces the firearm’s volume to a tolerable level without hearing protection.
• You can only own a selective fire (fires more than 1 round per trigger squeeze) rifle if it was manufactured before 1986.

Absurd federal laws are not just limited to firearms. Let’s run down some other ridiculous federal laws that Frederick should declare itself a “sanctuary” from:

• Both Federal and Maryland law prevent the sell or distribution of raw milk. #MyBodyMyChoice
• Federal law prevents mariners from consorting with pirates. #Yaaaaarrrr!
• Federal law prevents using diced onions to mimic onion rings without a warning that is at least 1/2 the size of the words “onion rings” on the package. #REALOnionRingsOnly
• Federal law prohibits the use of a foreign parachute unless you are a foreigner. #ThisMightBeRacist
• If you are attacked by a Polar Bear, federal law limits sound producing devices to 140 dB to be use for no more than a 30-second continuous time interval. #DontAirhornMeBro
• It is illegal to park on a bush at the Defense Mapping Agency. #ACarInYourHandIsWorthTwoInTheBush
• Federal law mandates that the labels on mixed nuts display the nuts used in descending weight order. #SizeDOESMatter
• The entire vaping regulation package is utterly absurd, as we have written about before. #HarmReductionSavesLives

Thanks to Crime A Day for cataloging everything above except vaping.

So here’s the dilemma for the Sanctuary City advocates. How much autonomy do you believe municipalities have from the Federal Government? If a municipality has the ability to nullify federal law, then what other Federal laws could they ignore that you actually agree with? Could Brunswick decide to ignore Federal Law and secede to Virginia? Could Thurmont nullify the raw milk restrictions? Could Middletown decide to allow smoking in bars and restaurants? Could Mt. Airy decide that onion rings were still onion rings, even if made from diced onions?

If you answered “no” to any of the above, then your issue advocacy is emotionally based.

Emotionally-based issue advocates ignore the harsh realities of their legislative remedies. They do not take the time to consider the repercussions of their desired policies, the 2nd and 3rd order effects should their proposals pass.

How much do I really care whether or not Frederick becomes a sanctuary city? Not a whole lot, although I know that this legislation would help get Republicans elected (Team Parsley, Duke, and King, or #ParDukIng, for BOA).