Virginia conservatives anticipate a spate of anti-gun legislation from a state Legislature now controlled by the swamp-dwellers in the state and federal capitals of Richmond and the D.C. suburbs.

In response, a sanctuary movement is rolling along, whereby county boards of supervisors adopt resolutions not to spend local resources on laws that transgress Second Amendment rights guaranteed by the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions.

One of the stock arguments of the gun-grabbers is that determinations of constitutionality are for the courts and not county supervisors.

My local board in Shenandoah County is considering such a resolution.  What follows comes from the statement I filed to counter the argument that supervisors should shut up and stand down:

Members of this Board took an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the U.S. and of Virginia.  They have the right and the duty to refuse to expend local resources to enforce laws which, in their considered judgment, transgress both the letter and spirit of the 2d Amendment.

An argument often made by opponents of the 2d Amendment Sanctuary movement needs refutation.  These opponents contend that determining the constitutionality of a law is the job of the courts.  Therefore, they say, local officials can do nothing.  If the state Legislature passes the dubious laws that have been promised, the board will have to sit on its hands for years while litigation works its slow way through the judicial system and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This argument is wrong.  To fulfill their oath, board members must necessarily make their own assessments of constitutionality.

Yes, in our system, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say, but until that decision is made, other officials are duty-bound to exercise their own judgment, and to do so in the light of political reality.

Current reality is that the Left denies the 2d Amendment.  It does not accept the Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald decisions, which concluded that the 2d Amendment recognizes rights of individuals, not just the need for an organized militia.

The opponents intend to reverse those decisions, if they ever get the opportunity.  But this goal was thwarted by the election of Trump and his appointment of originalist justices.

So the opponents have adopted a different strategy.  They are conducting guerrilla lawfare against the 2d Amendment.  They want to chip away at its protections, wear down its supporters with delays and legal fees, rely on their statist judicial allies in the lower courts, and enforce draconian restrictions right up until the moment these are tossed out by the Supreme Court.

Then they will pass new, slightly different laws and start the process again.

The answer to this strategy is to refuse to agree to play such a rigged game.