Reason.com38%
Local Officials Vow To Shield the Public from Virginia's Authoritarian New Gun Laws 75%
By J.D. Tuccille0%
6/29/2026, 11:00:30 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 36 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 44.6% saturation with 448 hits. Analysis detected 2,472 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,005 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.3% and a BS Rank of 75% (5,195 of 20,544 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.70% of the article peer group.
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.
Officials Refuse To Enforce 'Obviously Unconstitutional' Gun Ban
"The assault weapons ban and the public carry ban are obviously unconstitutional," Spotsylvania County Commonwealth's Attorney Ryan Mehaffey, a Republican, informed 7News earlier this month.
"And it's incumbent upon constitutional officers in Virginia to come out and clearly state that they cannot be lawfully enforced, and to defend the people's rights to keep and bear arms."
Mehaffey has been joined by prosecutors from at least 15 other jurisdictions.
On June 5, Hanover County Sheriff Gregory Six announced that he "shares many of the concerns that have been expressed regarding the constitutional implications of these laws" and that "the Hanover County Sheriff's Office will exercise its lawful discretion and will not pursue enforcement actions under these new laws while the courts consider the pending constitutional challenges."
These skeptics make a strong case.
Last week, Lancaster County Circuit Judge John Martin issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ban on so-called "assault weapons."
He considers it likely the prohibition will be found in violation of state constitutional protections.
The list of new laws in question include the ban on the purchase, sale, manufacture, and transfer of "assault weapons"—popular semiautomatic firearms with certain largely cosmetic features that make them look scary to some people.
They also include a ban on magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition (a problem when standard magazines for popular firearms like the Sig Sauer P365 Fuse hold 17 rounds or more).
Other laws include impossible-to-enforce restrictions on home-built guns, increased liability for firearms makers, and enforcement-resistant background checks for private sales.
Basically, Democrats won the last election and immediately moved to implement their long-stymied gun control agenda in a state populated by people with widely divergent views and lifestyles.
They're running up against a lack of cooperation from local officials who do most of the arresting and prosecuting.
Unsurprisingly, the politicians who pushed for the restrictive new laws that are set to take effect next month are unhappy that so many local officials disdain their legislative efforts.
"Commonwealth's Attorneys are elected to enforce our laws, which is what we expect them to do when these laws take effect on July 1," complained Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones.
Advocating Local Control or Centralized Power When They're Convenient
Ironically, as Gov.
Abigail Spanberger pushed for the gun law package that's meeting resistance, she claimed that old cooperative agreements with the federal government "improperly cede accountability and discretion over Virginia law enforcement to the federal government by requiring that Virginia law enforcement agents work 'under the supervision or direction of' the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ('ICE')."
She not only terminated those agreements but also advocated legislation that would limit federal immigration enforcement in the state.
Spanberger insists Virginia isn't becoming a "sanctuary state" that resists enforcement of federal immigration laws, but that's a distinction without a difference.
Virginia's Democrat-dominated state government is unfriendly to the Republican Trump administration's migrant policies and plans to withhold assistance and place roadblocks in the way of enforcement.
Localities within Virginia, such as Arlington, have already done the same.
Fundamentally, Virginia Democrats view federal immigration laws much the same way that Virginia Republicans see state gun laws: They're dangerous, illiberal, and should be resisted.
And yes, of course, the Trump administration has excoriated sanctuary jurisdictions.
"We are exposing these sanctuary politicians who harbor criminal illegal aliens and defy federal law," huffed Department of Homeland Security then-Secretary Kristi Noem last year in an expression of the sort of sentiment Virginia's Jones would undoubtedly endorse in a different context.
The Long History of Legal Local Resistance to Laws
Such confrontations have repeatedly played out across the country over guns, immigration, drugs, and more.
During the 1920s, New York City and state officials withheld police cooperation in enforcing Prohibition.
Later, many local prosecutors, including Norman Vroman, the onetime Libertarian district attorney of Mendocino County, California, refused to enforce marijuana laws.
Sanctuary jurisdictions, as mentioned above, opt out of immigration enforcement.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, county sheriffs in multiple states declined to arrest people for violating lockdowns and mask mandates.
Second Amendment sanctuaries won't commit resources to enforcing gun laws they consider repugnant.
The law is largely on the side of the rebels.
"Thanks to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government cannot force states to help them enforce federal law," George Mason University Law School's Ilya Somin wrote in 2016 about immigration.
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.
Speakers
7speakers30%attributed speech700writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageKristi Noem
42 attributed words14% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.