Sanctuary bill will do little to protect gun rights

A legislative push to have Wisconsin jump on the “Second Amendment Sanctuary” band wagon does more to try to ensure that Gov. Tony Evers does not win reelection next year than it does with protecting any gun rights for Wisconsin residents.

On June 9, Assembly Republicans and one Democrat voted in favor of AB 293, which along with its companion Senate Bill 314, would seek to prevent state and local government from enforcing any new federal firearms laws in Wisconsin.

According to the bill’s co-author, Mary Felzkowski of Tomahawk, the bill would “prohibit the government from confiscating firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are legally owned and made in Wisconsin,” and “prohibit state public funds and state employees from assisting in the confiscation of legally owned, Second Amendment protected firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.”

All this sounds nice. After all, there has been a lot of scary talk coming out of Washington, D.C. about the potential for a new federal crackdown to combat the growing epidemic of gun violence, especially in urban areas. The authors of AB 293 and the Senate bill SB 314 must think little of Rep. Tom Tiffany’s or U.S. Senator Ron Johnson’s abilities to inject Wisconsin common sense into the national gun debate and ensure the balance between freedom and responsibility is maintained.

Or perhaps, they just don’t care and instead want to enflame their base when Gov. Tony Evers inevitability vetos the measure. After all, Evers has called for the state to enact things like Red Flag laws to give tools to families to prevent mentally ill individuals from getting access to firearms as well as other measures being talked about at a national level.

Forcing the governor’s hand to veto a fundamentally bad bill gives ready-made ad copy in the battle for Republicans to regain control of the governor’s office.

The bill’s basic premise is built on labeling guns and ammunition produced in Wisconsin as being “Made in Wisconsin” and therefore not subject to the federal government’s authority to regulate interstate commerce under the “Commerce Clause.” The clause has been a major tool cited by both conservative and liberal courts to support the expansion of federal powers and regulations and this effort is laughable in context of constitutionality.

Beyond that, the legislation mirrors that of the pre-Civil War South claiming that federal laws shouldn’t apply to their residents when it came to something they felt strongly about. That balance of power was decided on the battlefields of Gettysburg and Sharpsburg and during Sherman’s March to the Sea, where the supremacy of the federal government was bought with the blood of a generation of Americans.

So-called sanctuary laws, such as the one recently passed by the Assembly and under review in the Senate, will generate their own battle. This time it will be fought in the courts rather than on battlefi elds with the only clear outcome being that more lawyers will be able to buy their second lake homes on the fees paid by taxpayers.

At best, the sanctuary state legislation is a way to go on record as a state opposing even considering any new gun regulations. At worst, it is a political stunt using taxpayer resources to generate ad copy for whichever Republican stands up to run against Gov. Tony Evers.

If the goal is to protect gun rights, on a national level then people must call on their congressional representatives to continue to stand up to those rights and not waste time drawing lines in the sand.