The concept of "sanctuary" has been around for about as long as there has been a Christian church to support it, and it was even acknowledged by various country’s laws over the years, but it has always been something of a polite delusion, born mostly out of the once-strong power of the Roman Catholic Church. The concept was simple – churches were considered to be inviolate (again, thanks to the tremendous sociopolitical power of the mother Church), and thus the people contained within them were considered to be "safe". Being pursued by thieves and brigands? Duck into your closest nave. Being chased by the police? Likewise – the Church was fairly non-discriminatory when it came to giving people sanctuary.
But what held the concept in place? What could the priests do to stop those thieves and brigands from simply burning down the church and calling it a day? In reality, not much. Oh, sure, whatever sect owned that particular chapel could excommunicate the offenders, and that was considered to be harsh punishment indeed at the time, but what if the transgressors simply did not care about their immortal souls? Individual churches did not maintain their own security forces, and while the churches and Churches could employ legal force against the offenders, if the criminals were actually concerned about such things, they probably would not be running around, burning churches.
So, as I said, the concept of "sanctuary" remained a nice tradition and quaint communal fantasy for over a millennium, backed by nothing more than arbitrary lines and the shared faith that Bad Guys would care about the Something Really Bad (TM) that would happen when they dared disobey them.
Rolling the clock forward a few years, I contend that "Gun Free Zones" consist of nothing more than the modern adaptation of the "sanctuary" delusion, complete with the same kind of imaginary lines and ardent belief that Bad Guys will care about the repercussions.
If a person is intent on causing harm to another person, do you really think an invisible line on the ground will cause him to turn around, go back to his car, put his guns up, and then go continue to cause harm to another person? If a person is intent on causing harm to another person, do you really think they will care about the punishments for stepping over that arbitrary line with their firearm? If a person is intent on causing harm to another person, do you really think disarming those intended victims is the best way to go about seeing to their safety?
If you answered any of those questions in the affirmative, you are doing wonders for substantiating my "anti-rights cultist" meme; after all, you are buying into the same blind, baseless faith that caused medieval Christians to believe the barbarians at their church’s doors would not just burn the building down with them in it. You are, of course, more than welcome to believe however and whatever your little heart desires, but try not to be surprised when I take some degree of offense at you attempting to limit my life on the basis of your delusions.
"Sanctuary" did not save the Irish monasteries and chapels from Viking raids; why do we continue to unnecessarily hamper our society by religiously relying upon arbitrary, invisible, and wholly ineffective lines to keep evil out?