When Locals Refuse to Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Bans

Everybody loves local control when they run towns and counties and their opponents hold federal or state offices. It works in reverse, too, with presidents and governors denouncing rebellious officials who won’t follow dictates from the state or federal capital.

So it is in Virginia, where Democrats who dominate the state government are upset that local prosecutors and police decline to enforce new restrictive gun laws they justifiably view as unconstitutional and dangerous to their constituents’ liberty. …

Localities technically don’t have the same constitutional protections against state mandates as states have against the whims of Washington, D.C. But as a practical matter, prosecutors, sheriffs, and police chiefs must prioritize the use of their personnel and resources and can drop the enforcement of laws they consider unconstitutional or immoral to the bottom of the list.

Importantly, local officials are likely to more closely represent local sentiment than their state and federal counterparts. They’re elected to office by smaller, more cohesive communities and have a better handle on how constituents want to live and what laws and policies regarding guns or anything else they’re willing to tolerate.

Ultimately, the most local authority is that which individuals exercise over their own lives. Just as sheriffs and prosecutors run interference against state officials who themselves intervene against the feds, so we all must decide how much meddling we’re willing to tolerate from the various levels of government. Refusing to enforce or obey authoritarian laws isn’t the only tool for defending liberty. But it is an effective and necessary check on power.

— J.D. Tuccille in Local Officials Vow To Shield the Public from Virginia’s Authoritarian New Gun Laws