Jump to content

Talk:Second Amendment sanctuary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Caps

[edit]

I believe that this article should be renamed, from "Second Amendment Sanctuary" to "Second Amendment sanctuary" -- that is, the word "sanctuary" in the title should not be capitalized. The guideline for this is at WP:NCCAPS, where it says "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." Furthermore, the word "sanctuary" should not be capitalized in the text of the article either. (Note however that "Second Amendment" is considered a proper noun.) — Mudwater (Talk) 11:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection.Terrorist96 (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone else will object either, so, I'm going to go ahead with this. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Maps and Content

[edit]

There has been significant activity in Virginia, with counties and towns passing sanctuary resolutions. I have been adding more counties, as well as citations. However, I have not updated the map as I don't know how to do that. Can someone provide guidance?

Also, the citations are generally pointers to news articles. Should it also be a goal to provide references to the actual document if available?

This article could also be improved by providing summarizing Pro's and Cons that are being discussed (with references). Additionally, there has been 1 City in Virginia where a sanctuary resolution has failed. Should we also begin tracking those in order to balance out the article?

Thanks in advance. Richfromvirginia (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original creator of the map (and this article) and I have kept the map updated. If you don't see the latest update, refresh the page bypassing cache. Both types of sources would be sufficient. A pros/cons section would just be purely editorial and would not add much to the article. And I don't think it's worth the time and effort to track failed attempts.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good. I am new to editing wikipedia pages and will of course follow your lead. I'm happy to help update the successful passages by counties/cities/towns as they occur. Thank you.

Hello Terrorist96, I have noticed that some jurisdictions in VA are passing "Constitutional sanctuary" resolutions. What are your thoughts on adding links to the actual passed resolutions from each municipality? Similar to what you have done for State laws, adding "The text can be read here" (and of course a link to the official document for each location). Richfromvirginia (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richfromvirginia: Sure, that can be a supplemental reference footnote link. I don't think it would be good to follow the same format as the state laws section as that is more of a prose whereas this is more of a list. It could just be a footnote reference, otherwise the list would be full of "text can be read here" on each line and would not look good.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia

[edit]

I opened one source and read this "Several Hanover supervisors debated over the board’s exclusion of the word “sanctuary.” Henrico supervisors also avoided using the term, one that some government officials worry could be interpreted as an intent to subvert state law and judicial processes." Do you think it is appropriate to list Hanover and Henrico as Sancutuary counties when neither passed that resolution? I believe we need to be more nuanced, neutral, and follow the sources. Perhaps there is a way to footnote or asterik cities that only passes 2nd amendment support resolutions, instead of full on 'sanctuary' status? I hope we can all agree it is not appropriate to call Henrico a 'sanctuary' when they specifically edited the resolution to remove that language, right? And then sourcing, I feel like we can do better than ammoland and keepva2a. I'd highly recommend upgrading the soucing there. Please take my advice under consideration to build a more neutral, encyclopdic article. Thank you. -Andrew c [talk] 12:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid point, but also comes with a lot of extra analyzation. Some websites distinguish these counties/cities while others don't (like VCDL). I think it's too much effort to analyze each single resolution and make those notes. Also regarding sourcing: I've only used keepva2a when no other sources are available at the time, but have updated the sources as the news sites catch up. And ammoland isn't being used as the only source for anything, just as a supplement.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washington state

[edit]

The counties in the State of Washington don't fit the 2A sanctuary definition used in the article. The map should be edited to reflect that none of them are sanctuary counties. --Mox La Push (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've restructured the placement of Washington. However, unless actual gun sanctuary measures have been adopted in Washington state the state should probably be removed from the article altogether as the verbal pledges of sheriffs re: I-1639 falls far short of sanctuary legislation and it is misleading to indicate otherwise. --Mox La Push (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washington is a special case. It already has different wording at the beginning of its section ("sheriffs that have vowed to not enforce I-1639 while it is being challenged in court" vs. "adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions") and is grouped among other Second Amendment sanctuary jurisdictions; example.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"X out of Y counties have Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions"

[edit]

I notice that the current year/date isn't being included when the number of sanctuary resolutions is given. That may make it harder to maintain this page in the future. I suggest editors add "as of 2020" (or something like that) to help for the future. Jlevi (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirm 2A is different than sanctuary status

[edit]

The citation for Marquette, Michigan clearly states that they did not vote to become a sanctuary county but instead voted to reaffirm the second amendment. However, it is incorrectly placed in a list that says that it has passed a sanctuary resolution. A county reaffirming the second amendment is distinctly different from the definition of sanctuary at the top of the article. Marquette county has not passed (as far as I know) anything which "...prohibit or impede the enforcement of certain gun control measures perceived as violative of the Second Amendment such as universal gun background checks, high capacity magazine bans, assault weapon bans, red flag laws, etc." (definition from top of article). I don't think it is "too much effort" to clearly and accurately report what different resolutions do when one of the major points of this page is to apparently document which places are sanctuaries. I fully agree with User:Andrew c here. Scottk (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just counted 707 localities in this article. Would you like to volunteer to go through every single one and determine the exact scope of each resolution?Terrorist96 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorist96, you added Marquette County, MI on 02 Feb 2020 even though the article you cited clearly says the County did not adopt a sanctuary resolution. It's clear you're passionate about this subject. That's great but you're not doing anyone any favors by adding information that fails verification and then proposing to shift the burden for checking your work to someone else.--Mox La Push (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we added "(or similar)" to account for the variations of resolutions being adopted.Terrorist96 (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this article, as indicated in the title, is about "Second Amendment sanctuary" measures not "Second Amendment sanctuary or similar" measures. Moreover, folks such as Rob Morse at ammoland.com, who apparently doesn't realize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, are seemingly relying on this WP article. For example, Morse writes: "The second-amendment-sanctuary movement spread over the next few years from Illinois to Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and to Texas." The last time I checked, in late December, that was simply false as not a single Washington county had then adopted a 2A sanctuary measure. So, including non-sanctuary jurisdictions on the map or listing them under the vague "or similar" rubric without clearly pointing out which ones don't actually have 2A sanctuary measures is misleading, at best. Arguably, from an advocacy point of view, it may also give some 2A supporters, misled by this article or the map and unwittingly living in these "similar" jurisdictions, a false sense of security that their local elected officials have already taken substantive action when they have not. As an aside, this article should probably be broken up into an article about 2A sanctuary and a separate list of jurisdictions with 2A sanctuary measures. --Mox La Push (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I used to keep the Michigan section accurate by making sure only counties that actually became sanctuaries were on the list. I left multiple notes in the section and by the map but my notes were ignored and everything I removed was added back. I only add counties that have passed sanctuary laws. Only 21 counties in Michigan have sanctuary resolutions but the list on here shows 31. If you want to update the list/map, the counties that should not be on the list include: Alcona, Antrim, Bay, Berrien, Eaton, Emmet, Marquette, Otsego, Sanilac, and St. Clair. --Farmboybello (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To echo Mox La Push, Tri-County Times also is citing information in this article. I don't think adding "(or similar)" is the best fix since it is open to interpretations that are not in line with the selection criteria in the lead. WP:LSC indicates that selection criteria should be unambigious. Marking all of the items in the list as "(or similar)" makes the selection criteria ambigious. If we wish to document which counties reaffirm the 2A, shouldn't that get put into some new article titled "List of US Counties which Reaffirm Second Amendment"? Scottk (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

[edit]

Should the list of Second Amendment sanctuary jurisdictions be moved to a stand-alone list and limited to jurisdictions that actually have adopted measures that fit a stricter definition of sanctuary jurisdictions? --Mox La Push (talk) 07:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a majority of editors who have weighed in on this talk page may share concerns about inaccurately or misleadingly mixing categories of measures under the rubric of Second Amendment sanctuary. Therefore, I have two questions:

1. Is there consensus to split the list of jurisdictions off from the article to make it a stand-alone list to be included in the Lists of U.S. state topics?

2. If so, should the list include only actual jurisdictions that have adopted some form of sanctuary measure, clearly defined, rather than the more amorphous collection we have now?

My thoughts: Re: #1 There should be a stand-alone "List of states with Second Amendment sanctuary measures" (or something similar). The text of the article needs expansion and I have already put some work into it previously. I would be willing to do so again as I am able. Here is a list of recent articles that may be used as sources:

Re: #2 The stand-alone list should use a strict set of criteria for inclusion. Either the article or the list or both could make mention that there are exceptions that didn't make the cut. The measures that fall short of "sanctuary" status are not noteworthy enough to warrant listing them all. --Mox La Push (talk) 07:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For #1, I think separating the article about 2A sanctuary areas from the list of 2A sanctuaries may be helpful. Right now, the article reads more like a list than an article on the topic.
For #2, I think areas should be included on the list if they make a clear commitment to impede/prohibit enforcement certain federal/state laws as described by the article's lead. An area which simply reaffirms the second amendment isn't evidence to a clear commitment and shouldn't be included on a list of sanctuaries. Although I think this criteria still leaves some room for interpretation, it leaves less room than the "or similar" criteria that the article currently uses to determine list inclusion.
I understand a lot of effort has gone into this page and recognize that using the criteria outlined in the article lead may require significant effort to implement. Mox La Push, was this supposed to be tagged with {{rfc|pol}} to get the opinions of other editors? --Scottk (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that counties that have specifically refused to enforce federal and state laws when the city/sherriff had a specific law requiring them to should also be included. We would need stronger proof like examples of not enforcement or testimony from a police chief, commissioner or sheriff saying so. - AH (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of one example of that right now: Wicomico county, Maryland. It's in the article but I put it as an invisible comment until something was passed.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the line is very blurry when we try to distinguish Second Amendment sanctuaries, safe havens, constitutional city, reaffirmations, and all other variations. It also borders on WP:OR. I think saying "(or similar)" is sufficient and anyone who is interested in the exact scope of a particular jurisdiction's resolution/ordinance/etc. can follow the source to see the details. When more watered-down resolutions are still being spoken of in the context of more strongly worded resolutions, we should include them here. We can add an extra note that makes clear that some are stronger than others. For example, we can take this to the extreme and question whether the majority of Virginia counties should be included because a small minority have gone even further to enact militias or have vowed to deputize citizens. The point is that there will be different degrees and no county will have the same exact resolution as others. Here is another example: Greene County Tennessee was about to pass a resolution but then removed the sanctuary wording at the last minute. Yet the resolution is identical in wording to the original one but minus the term sanctuary. Some news sites said they rejected being a sanctuary but the resolution is the exact same. Under your proposal how would this be treated? If we changed it to "have passed second amendment sanctuary (or other pro-second amendment) resolutions" would that be ok? Here's another example: AP: Arizona’s most populous county (Maricopa) becomes gun ‘sanctuary’ yet this article says it is a watered-down Second Amendment resolution, and the resolution removed its "teeth" to make it effective. One could argue that Maricopa county should be excluded based on your objections. This is all to drive home the point that we as editors should not be analyzing the exact wording of each resolution passed in order to determine if it should be added to this article. If a pro-Second Amendment resolution is passed, then it merits mention in this article. And regarding a second article just for the list, it would be governed by WP:CONTENTFORK and I don't think that it is necessary.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Mox La Push: what is your brief and neutral statement? At almost 3,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Thanks for bringing that problem to my attention. I wasn't actually planning to do a formal RfC until Terrorist96 Scottk brought it up. I'm not blaming anyone else, I should have thought things through more carefully. --Mox La Push (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've closed the RfC and would say the result was inconclusive. --Mox La Push (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska

[edit]

Cheyenne adopted a resolution February 18, 2020. I keep hearing rumor of other counties do so but have not seen anything official from them yet. Kewalaka1 (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My source for counties that have made resolutions is the Nebraska Firearm Owners Association Kewalaka1 (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local laws

[edit]

@Drmies: Hello. About your substantial reduction of the article, here, that's quite a big change, and we can already see that not everyone agrees with it. So, I think it should be discussed here on the talk page first. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mudwater, normal Wikipedia standards should apply, in terms of content and sourcing. There is no way we should have 300k worth of content about what local municipalities have decided, much of which has very little relevance. Terrorist96, you've been here long enough to know that this content, much of which with secondary sources or linked to an obviously not-neutral or reliable website sanctuarycounties.com, is not acceptable. If you want this content in, you should start at RSN for that website. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We aren't relying on that website by taking their word for it but relying on the texts of the resolutions from cities/counties themselves that that website has dug up. Besides, you deleted way more stuff than just that. Don't be surprised that there's going to be pushback from such a bold edit. Every single entry has been meticulously sourced. What is the distinguishing factor between listing states versus counties? There are plenty of other articles that note laws by state or county level like the Sanctuary city article for example, the most direct relative to this.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Actually, using the text of the resolutions is not original research. It's using primary sources as references. Secondary sources are generally better than primary sources, but it's acceptable to use primary sources. Original research, by contrast, is "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." All of this is explained at Wikipedia:No original research. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering splitting this section alphabetically into two: (A-M) and (N-Z). How does that sound? zsteve21 (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2021 (BST)

I agree with that split, however the local laws section should be split into it's own article, and then that article can be split alphabetically. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be too many splits. I think the article is ok as is for now. Maybe if it gets much bigger we can split.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is too long right now. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another proposal is that the in the local laws section, the Virginia section could be split into its own article. zsteve21 (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2021 (BST) (Updated at 20:47, 29 September 2021 BST)

Why give the Virginia one its own section? The point of this article is to have a comprehensive list. Not have people go to multiple scattered articles. Terrorist96 (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because Virginia is the largest portion (50,000 bytes) and therefore large enough for it to be its own article. While lists should be comprehensive, when articles get bigger than 400,000 bytes, article size, loading times, readability and the time to scroll the whole page should be considered. zsteve21 (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2021 (BST)

@Zsteve21: Virginia is no longer the largest portion, if you look at the section sizes at the top of the page. Therefore, I do not see any reason to split only Virginia. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The maximum article WP:LENGTH is 2 million bytes. This article isn't even half a million yet. What's the WP:HASTE? Additionally, WP:SIZERULE says that Please note: These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means), and each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters. Number of characters in an article can be found with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool; or Prosesize.

The rules of thumb apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and naturally do not apply to redirects. They also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table. The article prose itself is less than 2500 words. Most of the size comes from references.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I'll try to reduce the number of references first where by deleting excess references, every or nearly every reference is unique. However, I try to get all articles under 400,000 bytes and apart from inclusive scope, haste, readable prose or half a million bytes boundaries, I don't really see any other compelling reason that convinces me not to split Virginia. zsteve21 (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2021 (BST)

@Terrorist96: I found that a few states are both in state laws and local laws section. The state laws say that a governor signed the Second Amendment sanctuary, but the local laws say a fraction out of all counties signed it. Are some of the local laws information outdated? If not, please explain. zsteve21 (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zsteve21: They are two separate types of enactments. You can have local ordinances and statewide laws. You can see the distinction on the map as well. We cover localities that have passed laws/resolutions/etc. and also statewide enactments too. A county enacting something does not mean that they are passing what the state passed. They are passing their own thing and it could be different from the state passed version.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Map

[edit]

I deleted the previous map because it was 2 years old and not showing accurate info. For example, California has 3 counties with laws, the map shows 2; Iowa has 14 counties with laws, the map shows 0; Louisiana has 5 parishes with laws while the map only shows 1. I didn't bother to check the others, but based on these examples, the map is clearly out of date. Ideally someone will update it so it can be re-added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:498C:1500:6438:63C6:8833:A6 (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire

[edit]

Just passed in New Hampshire. https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB1178/2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:1D45:6F00:D521:29A6:8040:A4A (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map current to September 2021 located here showing 1,965 counties

[edit]

https://sanctuarycounties.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2A-Sanctuary-Counties-National-Map-Update-18SEP2021-Blog-Resolution.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.17.63 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map not up to date.

[edit]

Why does it say as of Feb 17, 2023, when it certainly doesn't appear current past 2021? 2607:FB91:16C9:7B48:ADB9:94CE:FC47:69D7 (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Amendment_sanctuary&oldid=1212740613"