by Olivia Fleming and Susan Steer
June 3, 2021
The term “sanctuary cities” is commonly used in the field of immigration to refer to communities that decline to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. But recently, other movements have used the term “sanctuary cities” to refer to other causes unrelated to immigration. In particular, Second Amendment activists and anti-abortion activists have urged local governments to adopt ordinances that protect gun ownership and restrict abortion. This explainer examines the legal and policy issues surrounding these movements.
The Second Amendment and anti-abortion activists who urge local defiance of laws with which they disagree are part of a larger trend in which local officials assert the power to defy federal or state laws, including rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus, for example, so-called “constitutional sheriffs”—a right-wing anti-immigrant movement—assert that within a sheriff’s county, “the power of the sheriff even supersedes the powers of the President.”[i] (To say this assertion is legally incorrect would be an understatement.)
These movements differ fundamentally from the localities and states that identify themselves as immigration sanctuaries. Immigration sanctuaries fundamentally aim to comply with federal obligations, not defy them. As explained in an earlier Government Law Center explainer on “sanctuary” jurisdictions, immigration sanctuaries principally identify areas in which the law does not require them to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, and—in those areas of lawful discretion—choose not to support immigration enforcement. Their right to do so is protected by basic principles of federal constitutional law under which localities cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing its own laws but need not assist it in doing so.
Immigration sanctuaries exercise their right not to commit their resources to federal enforcement activities, but gun and anti-abortion sanctuaries have a different goal: preventing the enforcement of state gun laws, and preventing people from exercising their right to choose abortion under the U.S. Constitution.
I. Background: The SAFE ACT and the Right to Bear Arms
Governor Cuomo signed the SAFE Act, a complex law with multiple provisions, into law in January of 2013. It was partly a response to the shootings in December 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.[ii] Despite online rumors to the contrary, the weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting included an AR-15 style assault weapon with high-capacity (30-round) clips.[iii] Many other mass shootings have also used AR-15s or similar rifles.[iv] The SAFE Act bans weapons and magazines like those, and includes numerous other provisions as well. They are summarized in the following sections.
- Banned weapons and ammunition
The assault-weapon ban. The SAFE Act restricts the ownership of “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines. The provision on assault weapons strengthens New York’s ban on assault weapons by expanding the definition of “assault weapon” to encompass any semi-automatic guns with detachable magazines that possess at least one feature commonly associated with military weapons. (Before the SAFE Act, a weapon fell under the assault-weapon ban if it had two features.) Listed features included telescoping stocks, conspicuously protruding pistol grips, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, and grenade launchers.[v]There is a grandfather clause under which people who lawfully own assault weapons before the SAFE Act may continue to possess them if they register the weapons with the State Police.10
The Second Circuit (the federal appellate court with jurisdiction over New York State) in 2015 held that the SAFE Act’s expanded ban on assault weapons did not violate the Second Amendment.[vi]
Limits on large-capacity magazines. The Act also bans all large-capacity magazines that have the capacity to hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.[vii] Originally, the SAFE Act prohibited magazines that held more than seven rounds; but the Legislature recognized that seven-round magazines are difficult to buy, and so it amended the Act. The amended Act limits capacity to ten rounds with a new seven-round load limit, meaning that a ten-round magazine cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds outside of a firing range or official shooting competition. 13
The Second Circuit upheld the ten-round capacity limit.[viii] But it struck down the seven-round load limit, saying that it would not reduce the number of ten-round magazines in circulation, and therefore was “entirely untethered from the stated rationale of reducing the number of assault weapons and large capacity magazines in circulation.”[ix]
- Registration and background checks
The Act also strengthens systems for registration and background checks. It:
- Establishes a statewide gun license and record database, which contains records of all licensed handgun owners;[x]
- Requires background checks for all gun sales, except those between family members;
- Requires that sellers of ammunition register with the State Police, perform background checks on buyers, and make their sales electronically accessible to the State.
The Act also makes clear that certain groups won’t pass background checks because the Act makes them ineligible for licenses:
- criminal defendants found to lack capacity, or found not guilty by “reason of mental disease or defect”;
- those who are “mentally ill and dangerous”; and
- people against whom an order of protection has been issued.
Members of the Libertarian Party of New York filed a lawsuit to challenge New York’s licensing and background-check requirements, but the Second Circuit rejected this challenge in 2020, finding that the requirements do not violate the Second Amendment.[xi] The court also found that language in the statute that required a showing of “good moral character, integrity and the absence of good cause to deny a license” was not unconstitutionally vague.[xii]
- Other provisions
The SAFE Act’s other provisions have not featured as prominently in litigation. These include a provision that creates safe-storage requirements, and other provisions that create new and enhanced penalties for illegal gun use in multiple criminal statutes.
After the SAFE Act became law, gun-rights advocates mobilized to undermine it in whatever ways they could.[xiii]
II. “Second Amendment Sanctuaries” in New York
Gun-rights advocates in New York State and elsewhere have recently begun advocating so-called “gun sanctuary” policies. The gun-sanctuary movement wants local law enforcement, including sheriffs, local legislators, and district attorneys, to not enforce the SAFE Act.[xiv] These gun-rights advocates make appeals to their county legislators, district attorneys, and sheriffs, asking them to essentially ignore the SAFE Act.[xv]
A group called “2ANYS” (formerly known as “2AWNY”) is the major gun-sanctuary advocate organization in New York State.[xvi] 2ANYS refer to gun control laws as “Albany’s unconstitutional civilian disarmament industrial complex,”[xvii] and calls itself “New York State’s premier civilian rearmament enterprise.”[xviii] National groups, like the gun lobby group Gun Owners of America, have also supported “Second Amendment sanctuaries.”[xix]
What’s in a “Second Amendment Sanctuary” Law?
Along with other claims about the unconstitutionality of gun-control laws, 2ANYS asserts that “Local governments have the legal authority to refuse to cooperate with state and federal firearm laws that violate [Second Amendment] rights and to proclaim a Second Amendment Sanctuary for law-abiding citizens in their cities and counties.”[xx]
2ANYS proposes a “Second Amendment Sanctuary” ordinance that bars local officials from “[k]nowingly and willingly participat[ing] in any way in the enforcement of any Unlawful Act.” Their draft ordinance defines “Unlawful Act” to include any federal or state law that “bans or effectively bans, registers or effectively registers, or limits the lawful use of firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition (other than a fully automatic firearm which is made unlawful by federal law).”[xxi]
The proposed sanctuary ordinance then lists the kinds of laws that 2ANYS deems unconstitutional. It’s a very broad list. It includes any tax or fee on firearms or ammunition, any registration or tracking of firearms, any restrictions on ownership, and indeed “[a]ny prohibition, regulation, and/or use restriction related to ownership.”[xxii] There are exceptions for gun ownership by people who have been convicted of felonies, and people “who are prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law.”[xxiii]
All laws that fall into these broad groups would be “considered null, void and of no effect” in a jurisdiction that adopts 2ANYS’s model ordinance. The ordinance goes on to say that anyone who violates it may be sued, and that “[n]either sovereign nor official or qualified immunity shall be an affirmative defense in cases pursuant to this section.”[xxiv] It also proposes fines for people who violate its terms.[xxv]
Finally, the proposed ordinance says, “Any peace officer may enforce this ordinance.”[xxvi] It’s not clear what “enforcing” the ordinance would entail.
Current “Gun Sanctuaries” in New York
As of this writing, four jurisdictions in the State of New York have adopted “gun sanctuary” resolutions. Two are towns, Broadalbin in Fulton County[xxvii] and Grand Island in Erie County,[xxviii] and two are counties, Jefferson[xxix] and Wyoming.[xxx] These resolutions don’t go as far as 2ANYS’s model ordinance. Instead, they express support for the Second Amendment and opposition to any laws interfering with that right. They are “non-binding, largely ceremonial resolutions speaking out against state gun-control measures under consideration at the time” and are a way for those opposing the SAFE Act and other strict gun regulations to openly disagree with enforcement of those laws.[xxxi]
Officials in the Towns of Solon,[xxxii] Truxton, and Cincinnatus (all located in Cortland County)[xxxiii] have taken the further step of adopting ordinances that prohibit local municipal employees from enforcing future gun control legislation.[xxxiv] They do not implicate any existing gun control regulation, like the SAFE Act. Known as the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” it defines “unlawful acts” as those laws that affect a person’s right to possess a firearm, firearm accessories, or ammunition.[xxxv] The fact that none of these towns has a police department means these laws are no more than an expression of support for the Second Amendment. Nevertheless, they can cause confusion about what type of activity is legal within that municipality.
What Do Advocates Argue?
Second Amendment Sanctuary advocates often cite the U.S. Constitution.[xxxvi] As recently as February 2020, Lewis County in Western New York held an open forum to hear from constituents about a possible sanctuary policy that would protect gun owners from enforcement of the SAFE Act. A gun-rights advocate at the meeting argued the SAFE Act attacked his personal rights and the “inalienable right to security” protected by the Second Amendment.[xxxvii] Those opposed to the gun-sanctuary resolution argued the SAFE Act helped prevent gun violence in New York State, and one woman used an example of suicide for why New York State needs stricter gun laws.[xxxviii]
The gun-rights advocate then argued that suicide should not be considered when making Lewis County a Second Amendment Sanctuary County, saying suicide “was not a malicious use of firearms towards another individual and hardly can be categorized as a violent crime.”[xxxix]
County legislators in Lewis County said they must discuss a possible resolution based on the effort of the gun-rights advocates, and one legislator stated that “the people gave a very passionate presentation, and I support them fully,” which may indicate a possible trend in the future of gun sanctuary resolutions passing if advocacy work continues to grow.[xl]
Law Enforcement Officers’ Rejection of “Second Amendment Sanctuaries”
Gun-sanctuary advocates encourage sheriffs to ignore the SAFE Act and to not arrest those in violation of the SAFE Act.[xli] However, if officers do not comply with this state law, they are subject to removal by the governor,[xlii] or at a minimum, pressure to resign.[xliii]
Some sheriffs who may disagree with the SAFE Act personally are nonetheless not ignoring the SAFE Act when performing their jobs. [xliv] One sheriff (identified as “conservative” by local media) stated that if they did not enforce the law on the books on the job, “[it] would make [themselves] or any other sheriff derelict in their duties and subject to removal.”[xlv]
A different sheriff said that even though he personally did not like the law, he took an oath to enforce all of the laws, even the ones he personally opposes and will continue to enforce the SAFE Act.[xlvi] And in response to the passage of these ordinances in Cortland County, the county sheriff there has stated that he is not bound by them and will continue to follow New York state law.[xlvii]
IV. Anti-Abortion Sanctuaries
In the context of abortion, an increasing number of local jurisdictions have adopted provisions called “sanctuaries for the unborn,[xlviii] “safe cities and counties,”[xlix] or “safe havens for the unborn.”[l] The purpose of these sanctuary provisions is to essentially “outlaw” abortion in the jurisdictions they cover, even though Roe v. Wade,[li] the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, is established law.[lii] The 1973 decision ruled that abortion constituted a personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and therefore protected the right to have an abortion to varying degrees depending on the trimester during which the abortion is performed.[liii] In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a plurality of the Court affirmed Roe but changed the standard, upholding abortion-related laws that do not “unduly burden” the fundamental right to abortion and are rationally related to legitimate state purpose.[liv] The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that laws are unconstitutional if they have “the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s choice.”[lv]
The groups behind the “sanctuary for the unborn” movement are frustrated with what they perceive to be the lack of sufficient action at the federal and state level to prohibit abortion, so they have instead turned their focus on local governments as a means to effectively eliminate the locations where abortions can be performed. Mark Lee Dickson, the director of Right to Life of East Texas, explains, “We’re really trying to protect the culture and the atmosphere that these cities already have.”[lvi]
While they recognize that these laws may have no legal effect, supporters encourage local governments to adopt these ordinances with the intent that the laws will become effective immediately, if the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade. This outcome, however, is unlikely given the fact that the Roe court specifically found that the Texas abortion laws were unconstitutional and Texas courts have ruled that statues that have been declared unconstitutional are null and void. [lvii]
The supporters also know that these local resolutions and ordinances will limit the numbers of abortions being performed by creating confusion for women choosing whether to exercise this right.[lviii] They also support their adoption as a means to create opportunities for legal challenges that might result in the Supreme Court ultimately overturning Roe v. Wade.
The first local jurisdiction to pass a resolution declaring its county to be a “Sanctuary for the Unborn” was Effingham County, Illinois, in 2018.[lix] As of May 1, 2021, twenty-two cities and counties in Texas have adopted ordinances and resolutions prohibiting abortions within their city limits.[lx] Dozens more have been proposed in other jurisdictions throughout the state. The movement has also expanded to other states where local jurisdictions in Utah (5),[lxi] North Carolina (2),[lxii] Mississippi (1),[lxiii] New Mexico (3),[lxiv] and Nebraska (2)[lxv] have adopted similar resolutions and ordinances. And in November 2020, voters in Santa Rosa County, Florida, passed a referendum declaring Santa Rosa County a “sanctuary for life.”[lxvi]
The Provisions of Abortion Sanctuary Resolutions and Ordinances
The specific language of the resolutions and ordinances vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but there are some similarities. In general, they provide a statement that all life should be protected and that life starts at conception, classify abortion as “an act of murder with malice aforethought,” and criminalize abortion except to save a mother’s life. Some of the ordinances also create civil causes of action against health care providers and organizations that help women seeking abortions.[lxvii]
For example, in Texas, the ordinances allowfamily members to sue an abortion provider if a provider has performed an abortion on their family member within city limits.[lxviii] Further, the Texas ordinances, as originally passed, named as “criminal organizations,” among others, the Texas Equal Access Fund and the Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, organizations that provide funding “to low-income people who can’t afford an abortion” and advocate for pro-choice legislation and reproductive rights.[lxix] The Texas ordinances limited their ability to purchase property or establish a physical presence within city limits.[lxx]
Another group, called the Personhood Alliance, promotes a “tiered approach,” encouraging local governments to first adopt resolutions before ordinances as a means to avoid lawsuits challenging their efforts by establishing strong local support for their efforts.[lxxi]
As their President, Les Riley, explained, “[t]he most effective pro-life ministry is local and relational. We’re seeing several sanctuary efforts being pursued by different groups now, but too often, they’re plagued with the same compromises and exceptions that have hurt the core mission of the pro-life movement for the last 50 years. These efforts intend to defy Roe—a goal we share. But at the same time, they wait for the unjust decision to be overturned. We must engage in these local efforts to take back our towns, by applying consistent moral principles and rejecting judicial tyranny. And we must involve Christians in protecting children and families in their own backyards, while also making sure principled local leaders have a strong community support system for the battle ahead.”[lxxii]
Their work has led to the adoption of “Safe Counties” resolutions in Davie County[lxxiii] and Yadkin County,[lxxiv] North Carolina, and in Pearl County, Mississippi,[lxxv] and the establishment of affiliate organizations in many states. They provide resources, such as templates for petitions and resolutions, for their supporters to use to expand the movement.[lxxvi]
VI. Challenges to Anti-Abortion Sanctuaries
Critics of the Movement
The most vocal critics of these sanctuary cities in Texas are the Texas Equal Access Fund and the Lilith Fund, who argue that the ordinances, while knowingly contrary to federal abortion law, spread misinformation about what is actually legal and confuse people about what their rights actually are.[lxxvii] The Texas American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU of Texas) stated they have “receiv[ed] calls from individuals asking whether they are still allowed to get abortions.”[lxxviii]
Like local district attorneys in New York, attorneys general and district attorneys in multiple states where these ordinances and resolutions have been passed, including in Texas, North Carolina, Illinois, New Mexico, and Utah, have spoken out against enforcing legislation criminalizing abortion.[lxxix] A group released a joint statement in June 2019 providing that they would use their discretionary powers to not prosecute women who seek abortions and the health care providers who care for them.[lxxx] They explained, “[l]egal precedent, as established by the highest court in the land, has held for nearly 50 years that women have a right to make decisions about their own medical care including, but not limited to, seeking an abortion. Enforcement of laws that criminalize healthcare decisions would shatter that precedent, impose untenable choices on victims and healthcare providers, and erode trust in the integrity of our justice system. To fulfill our obligations as prosecutors and ministers of justice to preserve the integrity of the system and keep our communities safe and healthy, it is imperative that we use our discretion to decline to prosecute personal healthcare choices criminalized under such laws.”[lxxxi]
In response to the ordinances passed in multiple municipalities in Texas and frustration over the confusion created by their adoption, the ACLU of Texas filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of the TEA, or Texas Equal Access, Fund and the Lilith Fund against seven of the Texas municipalities that passed abortion sanctuary ordinances.[lxxxii] The complaint alleges that the ordinances violate the First Amendment by “suppress[ing] lawful speech about abortion and other reproductive healthcare,” discriminating against pro-choice speech, and restricting association with people who perform and assist with abortions. They also argue that the ordinances are unconstitutionally vague, making it impossible for a person to know if their conduct violates the law. Further, the complaint alleges that by labelling the plaintiffs as “criminal organizations,” the ordinances “unconstitutionally punish them through the legislative process, without a trial.” [lxxxiii] The organizations claim they cannot “disseminate truthful information” without fear of criminal and civil liability and that the ordinances have a chilling effect by “creat[ing] the impression that residents of Defendant cities can no longer exercise their right to an abortion.”[lxxxiv]
In response to this lawsuit, the municipalities agreed to amend their ordinances by repealing those sections that labelled these organizations as criminal. The ACLU subsequently withdrew the complaint and as of now, the ordinances stand, as amended.[lxxxv] Nevertheless, litigation continues as the Lilith Fund filed a defamation lawsuit against Right to Life of East Texas and Dickson for allegedly repeatedly calling them criminal organizations.[lxxxvi] That litigation is currently pending.
Despite these lawsuits, at least an additional forty-two local governments in Texas alone are considering adopting ordinances that prohibit abortion. And while most of those jurisdictions do not have any providers offering abortion services, at least one, Lubbock, Texas, does.
Late last year, a group of residents in Lubbock, Texas, petitioned the city council to adopt an ordinance that prohibited abortions from being performed within city limits, except to save the mother’s life.[lxxxvii] These efforts began after Planned Parenthood announced it would open a clinic in Fall 2020. Despite strong pressure from city residents and hours of public comment at meetings, the city council voted against the ordinance, relying upon outside legal counsel’s advice that the ordinance conflicts with and is preempted by Texas state law and that the private cause of action is unconstitutional. [lxxxviii] Undeterred, supporters petitioned to have the measure placed on the ballot, and on May 1, 2021, the measure passed with more than 60% of voters supporting the measure.[lxxxix] Unlike other “sanctuary cities for the unborn,” Lubbock is the only municipality where a health care provider, in this instance, Planned Parenthood, is currently providing abortion services. It remains to be seen what the next legal steps will be and if local law enforcement officials will attempt to enforce this ordinance against Planned Parenthood and its employees. In the meantime, Planned Parenthood announced that it will remain open and the ACLU vowed that it will take any necessary legal steps to ensure that the rights of the residents of Lubbock are protected.
Despite the dubious legal validity of gun and anti-abortion sanctuaries, they are viewed by supporters as both symbolic and practical ways of advancing their causes and promoting values they perceive as threatened. Local governments are, perhaps, the most direct venue to express their concerns, given their officials’ susceptibility to strong pressure by local grassroots movements and the close personal relationships some members of the communities have with the elected officials. Proponents of sanctuary movements are essentially arguing that governments are not bound by federal and state laws they believe violate fundamental rights, and that those local governments have an obligation to defy or obstruct those laws.[xc]
That said, absent legal challenges to their existence, sanctuary ordinances are dependent on local officials to enforce or ignore them. The Lubbock sanctuary ordinance, however, might just present the test case that courts could use to determine the extent to which local governments have the authority to carve out exceptions to state and federal laws regarding established constitutional rights.
[i] See Jessica Pishko, “Panic! At the Border,” Posse Comitatus, https://sheriffs.substack.com/p/panic-at-the-border.
[ii] Thomas Kaplan, U.S. Judge Upholds Most New York Gun Limits, The New York Times (Dec. 31, 2013), https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/nyregion/federal-judge-upholds-majority-of-new-york-gun-law.html.
[v] “Semiautomatic” is defined as “any repeating rifle, shotgun or pistol, regardless of barrel or overall length, which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge or shell to extract the fired cartridge case or spent shell and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge or shell” and “Assault weapon” is defined as “a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a thumbhole stock;
(iv) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(v) a bayonet mount;
(vi) a flash suppressor, muzzle break, muzzle compensator, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, muzzle break, or muzzle compensator;
(vii) a grenade launcher; or
(b) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least one of the following characteristics:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a thumbhole stock;
(iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(iv) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds;
(v) an ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
(c) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a thumbhole stock;
(iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(iv) capacity to accept an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(v) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(vi) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;
(vii) a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; or
(viii) a semiautomatic version of an automatic rifle, shotgun or firearm;
(d) a revolving cylinder shotgun;
See S.B. 2230; N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(22) (McKinney 2020).
10 Id. § 265.00(22)(g)(v).
[vi] N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 263-64 (2d Cir. 2015).
[vii] The New York State Senate, Senate Bill S.B. 2230, New York Senate (Jan. 16, 2013), nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2013/s2230.
13 N.Y. Penal Law. § 265.20(a)(7-f).
[viii] N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 263-64 (2d Cir. 2015).
[ix] Id. at 264.
[x] S.B. 2230; N.Y. Penal Law §400.02 (McKinney 2019–2020).
[xi] Libertarian Party v. Cuomo, 970 F.3d 106, 128 (2d Cir. 2020).
[xii] Id. at 126-27.
[xiii] Jon Campbell, “Second Amendment sanctuary movement puts New York sheriffs in tough spot,” Democrat & Chronicle (Feb. 17, 2020), https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2020/02/17/second-amendment-sanctuary-movement-takes-hold-new-york/4722922002/.
[xiv] See Brian Mann, Gun rights “sanctuary” movement comes to the North Country, North Country Public Radio (Feb. 4, 2020), https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/40517/20200204/gun-rights-sanctuary-movement-comes-to-the-north-country.
[xv] Id.; see Julie Abbass, Hundreds show for 2nd amendment sanctuary comments in Lewis Co., Adirondack Daily Enterprise (Feb. 6, 2020), https://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/news/local-news/2020/02/hundreds-show-for-2nd-amendment-sanctuary-comments-in-lewis-co/.
[xix] Brian Mann, Gun rights “sanctuary” movement comes to the North Country, North Country Public Radio (Feb. 4, 2020), https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/40517/20200204/gun-rights-sanctuary-movement-comes-to-the-north-country.
[xx] 2ANYS, Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance (template) ¶ J (visited Mar. 20, 2021), https://www.2anys.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/SASO-Template.pdf.
[xxi] Id. at 3–4.
[xxii] Id. at 4.
[xxiii] Id. at 6.
[xxiv] Id. at 5.
[xxv] Id. at 5.
[xxvi] Id. at 5.
[xxvii] Briana O’Hara, Broadalbin Town Board supports 2A Sanctuary idea, The Leader-Herald(Feb. 13, 2020) https://www.leaderherald.com/news/local-news/2020/02/broadalbin-town-board-supports-2a-sanctuary-idea/.
[xxviii] Town of Grand Island, NY, Resolution Reaffirming Support of the Second Amendment (Jan. 22, 2019) http://cms5.revize.com/revize/grandislandny/Town%20Board%20Agendas/2017%20Packets/2019%20packets/AGENDA%20PACKET%202-4-19.pdf.
[xxix] County of Jefferson, NY, Resolution No. 92, Opposing Infringements on the Inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and Affirming Support for the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (Mar. 3, 2020) https://co.jefferson.ny.us/media/Administration/2020%20Board%20and%20Committee%20Minutes/March%202020%20Board%20Session.pdf.
[xxx] County of Wyoming, NY, Resolution No. 19-, Opposing Infringements on the Rights of Legitimate Firearms Owners (Jan. 8, 2019) https://co.jefferson.ny.us/media/Administration/2020%20Board%20and%20Committee%20Minutes/March%202020%20Board%20Session.pdf.
[xxxi] See Jon Campbell, Second Amendment sanctuary movement puts New York sheriffs in tough spot, Democrat & Chronicle, (Feb. 17, 2020), https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2020/02/17/second-amendment-sanctuary-movement-takes-hold-new-york/4722922002/.
[xxxii] Travis Dunn, Solon votes to defy future gun laws, Courtland Standard(Mar. 6, 2020) https://cortlandstandard.net/2020/03/06/solon-votes-to-defy-future-gun-laws/.
[xxxiii] Travis Dunn, 2nd Amendment sanctuary push spreads across US, Cortland Standard (Jun. 13, 2020) https://cortlandstandard.net/2020/06/13/2nd-amendment-sanctuary-push-spreads-across-us/.
[xxxiv] Town of Salon, NY, Local Law Number 2 of the Year 2020, Second Amendment Preservation Act (March 5, 2020) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EK1YscXIMs3ehjD7S5jgNlRt8tgHip5-/view.
[xxxvi] Julie Abbass, Hundreds show for 2nd amendment sanctuary comments in Lewis Co., Adirondack Daily Enterprise (Feb. 6, 2020), https://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/news/local-news/2020/02/hundreds-show-for-2nd-amendment-sanctuary-comments-in-lewis-co/.
[xlii] NY Const. art. XIII, § 13(a).
[xliii] See Tanner Jubenville, Gun rights advocates pushing for ‘sanctuaries’ in New York, ABC13 WHAM, (Feb. 18, 2020), https://13wham.com/news/local/gun-rights-advocates-pushing-for-sanctuaries-in-new-york.
[xlv] Brian Mann, Gun rights “sanctuary” movement comes to the North Country, North Country Public Radio (Feb. 4, 2020), https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/40517/20200204/gun-rights-sanctuary-movement-comes-to-the-north-country.
[xlvi] Id.; see Cam Edwards, Second Amendment Sanctuary Movement Reaches New York State, Bearing Arms, (Feb. 4, 2020), https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/02/04/2a-sanctuary-movement-ny-state/; Conlin, https://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/news/local-news/2020/02/hundreds-show-for-2nd-amendment-sanctuary-comments-in-lewis-co/.
[xlvii] Travis Dunn, 2nd Amendment sanctuary push spreads across US, Cortland Standard (Jun. 13, 2020) https://cortlandstandard.net/2020/06/13/2nd-amendment-sanctuary-push-spreads-across-us/.
[xlviii] Harmeet Kaur, Towns in Texas are declaring themselves ‘sanctuary cities for the unborn,” CNN, (Jan. 25, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/25/us/sanctuary-cities-for-unborn-anti-abortion-texas-trnd/index.html.
[l]Gilmer becomes the sixth and largest Texas town to ban abortions within city limits, Texas Right to Life (Sep. 24, 2019) https://www.texasrighttolife.com/gilmer-becomes-the-sixth-and-largest-texas-town-to-ban-abortions-within-city-limits/.
[li] Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
[liii] Id. at 170.
[liv] Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (plurality opinion).
[lv] June Medical Services v. Russo, 140 S.Ct. 2103, 2120 (2020).
[lvi] Dionne Searcey, The Wall Some Texans Want to Build Against Abortion, N.Y. Times (Mar. 3, 2020) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/03/us/politics/texas-abortion-sanctuary-cities.html.
[lvii] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 164, 166; Smith v. State, 463 S.W.3d 890, 895 (Tex. Crim App. 2015).
[lviii] Marie Solis, Anti-Abortion Lawmakers Want to Create ‘Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn,’ Vice, (Jul. 17, 2019), https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3k3gq3/lawmakers-are-banning-abortions-in-cities-sanctuary-cities-for-the-unborn.
[lix] Keith Stewart, Effingham County becomes “Sanctuary for the Unborn,” Effingham Daily News (Jun. 18, 2018) https://www.effinghamdailynews.com/news/local_news/effingham-county-becomes-sanctuary-for-the-unborn/article_716ec4f2-2fe6-5ac1-ae67-eb1328384a23.html.
[lx] The Cities of Waskon, Naples, Joaquin, Tenaha, Gilmer, Rusk, Gary, Wells, Westbrook, Colorado City, Big Spring, Whiteface, East Mountain, New Home, Morton, Ackerly, Grapeland, Goldsmith, Carbon, Gorman, Murchison, and Latexo have all adopted ordinances. The Cities of Ellis, Gilmer, Omaha, and Lindale have all adopted resolutions.
[lxi] Utah County, Utah, and the Cities of Riverton, Highland, Enterprise, and Lehi, Utah.
[lxii] Yadkin and Davie Counties, North Carolina.
[lxiii] Pearl County, Mississippi.
[lxiv] Lea and Eddy Counties, Utah, and the City of Roswell, Utah.
[lxv] Hayes Center and Blue Hill, Nebraska.
[lxvi] Annie Blanks, “Election 2020: Santa Rosa County becomes first “sanctuary for life” county in Florida,” Pensacola News Journal (Nov. 4, 2020), https://www.pnj.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/03/election-2020-santa-rosa-county-declares-sanctuary-life/3748022001/.
[lxvii] Compl. ¶ 37.
[lxviii] Harmeet Kauer, “Small towns in Texas are declaring themselves ‘sanctuary cities for the unborn,’” CNN (Jan. 25, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/25/us/sanctuary-cities-for-unborn-anti-abortion-texas-trnd/index.html.
[lxix] Marie Solis, “Anti-Abortion Lawmakers Want to Create ‘Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn,’” Vice.com (July 17, 2019), https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3k3gq3/lawmakers-are-banning-abortions-in-cities-sanctuary-cities-for-the-unborn.
[lxx] Compl. ¶ 35.
[lxxii] Sarah Quale, Davie County, NC, Second Safe County for Pre-born Children, Personhood Alliance (Oct. 7, 2020) https://personhood.org/2020/10/07/davie-county-nc-second-safe-county-for-preborn/.
[lxxiv] Sarah Quale, First Sanctuary County Reflects New Pro-Life Strategy, Personhood Alliance (Aug. 19, 2019) https://personhood.org/2019/08/19/first-sanctuary-county-reflects-new-pro-life-strategy/.
[lxxv] Sarah Quale, Pearl, Mississippi, Takes the First Step in Becoming a Sanctuary for Life, Personhood Alliance (Oct. 17, 2019) https://personhood.org/2019/10/17/pearl-mississippi-sanctuary-city/.
[lxxvii] Harmeet Kauer, “Small towns in Texas are declaring themselves ‘sanctuary cities for the unborn,’” CNN (Jan. 25, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/25/us/sanctuary-cities-for-unborn-anti-abortion-texas-trnd/index.html.
[lxxix] Fair and Just Prosecution, Joint Statement from Elected Prosecutors (Jun. 2019) https://fairandjustprosecution.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Joint-Statement-from-Elected-Prosecutors-on-Abortion-Laws-FINAL.pdf.
[lxxx] Fair and Just Prosecution, Joint Statement from Elected Prosecutors (Jun. 2019) https://fairandjustprosecution.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Joint-Statement-from-Elected-Prosecutors-on-Abortion-Laws-FINAL.pdf.
[lxxxi] Fair and Just Prosecution, Joint Statement from Elected Prosecutors (Jun. 2019) https://fairandjustprosecution.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Joint-Statement-from-Elected-Prosecutors-on-Abortion-Laws-FINAL.pdf.
[lxxxii] Caroline Kelly and Carma Hassan, “ACLU Sues 7 ‘sanctuary cities for the unborn’ for violating abortion rights groups’ speech,” CNN (Feb. 26, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/aclu-sues-texas-sanctuary-cities-unborn-abortion/index.html.
[lxxxiii] Compl. ¶ 40.
[lxxxiv] Compl. ¶¶ 72–76.
[lxxxv] Stephanie Frazier, “Federal lawsuits against East Texas ‘sanctuary cities for the unborn’ dropped by ACLU,” KLTV (May 28, 2020), https://www.kltv.com/2020/05/27/federal-lawsuits-against-east-texas-towns-dropped-by-reproductive-rights-groups/.
[lxxxvi] Robin Y. Richardson, “Defamation Lawsuit Filed Against Right to Life East Texas Director,”Tyler Morning Telegraph (Jun. 11, 2020) https://tylerpaper.com/news/local/defamation-lawsuit-filed-against-right-to-life-east-texas-director/article_eb2431f7-070a-53bf-89a2-5bc98d57acac.html.
[lxxxvii] Camelia Juarez, “Sanctuary for the Unborn” Ordinance Proposed to City Council,” kcbd.com (Sep. 9, 2020) https://www.kcbd.com/2020/09/09/sanctuary-unborn-ordinance-proposed-city-council/.
[lxxxviii] Allysa Tellez, “The next steps for the Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinance,” everythinglubbock.com (Nov. 20, 2020), https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/the-next-steps-for-the-sanctuary-city-for-the-unborn-ordinance/.
[lxxxix] Shannon Najmabadi, “Lubbock votes to become the state’s largest “sanctuary city for the unborn,” Texas Tribune (May 1, 2021), https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/01/lubbock-abortion-vote-sanctuary-unborn/.
[xc] James Madison, Virginia Resolutions, Founders Online (Dec. 21, 1798) https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-17-02-0128 (“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no farther valid than they are authorised by the grants enumerated in that compact, and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties there-to have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the pro⟨gress⟩ of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”).