Mediaboss Marketing

Selectman Glenn Bear Zaidman wants to bring his resolution to make Bridgton a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary back before the board and questioned why he was told he couldnt.

I believe that our Constitution and our Bill of Rights are under attack in more ways than one, Zaidman reiterated at Tuesdays meeting, two weeks after his resolution failed on a tie vote.

Selectboard members Paul Tworog and Carmen Lone voted March 9 against Zaidmans resolution to create the sanctuary to oppose unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms for its citizens, and Zaidman and Fred Packard voted in favor. Chairperson Liston Lee Eastman, who would have cast the tiebreaking vote, was absent, but said later he would have voted for it.

Declaring the town a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary would have no effect on the law, according to Geoff Bickford, an attorney and director of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition.

Some folks have said that some of the Amendments are not under attack, that is their opinion. It might not be under attack in their minds, Zaidman said.

He did not provide details on what the attacks are, nor did any members of the board mention the shootings in the Atlanta area that killed eight people and another mass shooting in Boulder, Colo., that killed 10 one week and one day earlier.

Zaidman said it was not his intention Tuesday to get another vote on the resolution at that meeting, but he questioned Town Manager Bob Peabodys apparent rejection that the resolution could not be renewed.

According to Roberts Rules of Order, the parliamentary procedures the Selectboard follows, renewing a motion is the only method by which to put a motion back on the table after it has been defeated.

Zaidman said that when he approached Peabody following the March 9 vote about renewing his motion to adopt the resolution, Peabody told him that he would be challenged.

Peabody said defeated motions cannot be brought up again until after the next board is sworn in so that things dont come up meeting after meeting after meeting.

Zaidman said he will not renew this motion at least for the next couple of weeks and would seek clarification.

Tworog, who voted against the resolution, said that resolutions are not typically of a controversial nature.

The usual intent is to do it on an item that the town is basically in agreement on because as soon as this type of resolution passes, it brands the town as a whole with that, he said.

Tworog said he reviewed all of the letters for public comment sent to the board and of those, 30 residents wrote in favor of the resolution and 55 wrote on the record that they were against it.

In this case, those put in writing overwhelmingly rejected the idea of doing this resolution, he said.

Previous

Next

View post:
Bridgton selectman wants reconsideration of Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution - pressherald.com

SHAWANO, WI- The Shawano County Board voted to pass the long-awaited 2nd Amendment Resolution with some changes to the original resolution.

The resolution to declare Shawano Countys Vigorous Support of the Peoples Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms passed on a 24-3 vote with Supervisors Kimberly Leffel, William Switalla and Joe Miller voting no.

Prior to the vote, Supervisor Kathy Luepke made a motion to amend the resolution to eliminate the portion that addressed the duty of the County Sheriff in regards to enforcement. Luepkes request to remove the second Be it further resolved section was approved by the board. That vote removed the section that stated;

Be it further resolved that Shawano County shall not appropriate any funds for any enforcement of unconstitutional laws against the people of Shawano County, and requests the Sheriff to utilize his discretion to avoid the unlawful enforcement of any law which unconstitutionally impedes our fundamental Second Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms.

That vote did not come without discussion. Luepke originally requested having the third piece of the resolution removed as well. That portion states Be it further resolved, that the Shawano County Board, hearing the will of its constituents, hereby declares Shawano County to be a Second AmendmentSanctuary County.

The board was advised to split the motion for the amendment into two separate votes, one for each section.

Everyone seems to have different opinions on what sentences to leave in, Supervisor Deb Noffke said.

The board voted 20-7 to split the amendment to the resolution into two votes. The board then voted 18-9 in favor of eliminating the language that requests the Sheriff to utilize his discretion to avoid the unlawful enforcement of any law which unconstitutionally impedes our fundamental Second Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms.The next vote was on eliminating the portion that stated Be it further resolved, that the Shawano County Board, hearing the will of its constituents, hereby declares Shawano County to be a Second Amendment Sanctuary County.That vote failed and it was a 15-12 vote to keep the wording in.

Supervisor Deb Noffke then made a motion to return the wording Be it further resolved that Shawano County shall not appropriate any funds for any enforcement of unconstitutional laws against the people of Shawano County.

Thats a no-brainer, said Noffke. Kathy Luepke said she did not agree. If Shawano County is spending money on laws that are unconstitutional, we have a huge problem, she said. If we do that, we should attach that onto every resolution we pass.Given the strength of our legislature in Madison and their inability to do what is common sense sometimes, I would leave that in there, Jerry Erdmann responded.

Noffke said it is about local enforcement. We could get another one of those madidates that someone dreams up in the bathroom overnight, and the question is Shawano County. Why should we pay for enforcement of things that the court systems might deem unconstitutional anyway? It is possible that we get an unfunded mandate and I think we should say no.

The board voted 16-11, however, not to re-add that line to the resolution.

The discussion then began on the passing of the newly amended resolution. Supervisor Joe Miller addressed his concern of backlash on social media.

If anyone of us vote no on this is automatically raises a red flag that we do not support the constitution, it is not that simple, he said. Miller also addressed a discussion that Sheriff Adam Biebers had with WTCH radio where he expressed his hope to see who votes yes. That could be very easily interpreted as a potential for retaliation. Miller said it is something that he will not tolerate. I can be your best cheerleader but I can be your staunch enemy as well.

Supervisor Jerry Erdmann expressed his desire to defend the constitution. This resolution does nothing more than say that we support the second amendment and I will support it simply on the fact that I had guys next to me that did not make it back and they took an oath to defend the constitution and I am darn well sure that I will make sure that their memory of doing so does not die.

The question was called by Noffke that vote took place. In the end, the approved resolution reads:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Shawano County Board of Supervisors, in session this 24th day of March, 2021, that it hereby opposes the enactment of any legislation unlawfully infringing on our rights under the Second Amendment, and further makes clear that all law-makers are hereby urged tohonor the Second Amendment, as well as Article 1, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and to be vigilant in their duty to avoid improperly or unconstitutionally abridging a citizens right thereunder to keep and bear arms.Be it further resolved, that the Shawano County Board, hearing the will of its constituents, hereby declares Shawano County to be a Second Amendment Sanctuary County.

Prior to the vote, three members of the community spoke in favor of not passing the resolution.

Usually it is court that determines if a law in unlawful, but this resolution makes us read between the lines, said John Culhane.

Jackie Miller addressed her concern with giving Sheriff Adam Bieber the ability to utilize his discretion to avoid the unlawful enforcement I am an avid hunter and my entire family owns guns but I think the board passing this resolution is very ill advised, she said. We have a Sheriff who, in my opinion, he runs around like a class clown, and you are going to allow that person to determine if a law is unconstitutional, she asked? I am not sure he is all there and if you do something that he does like, he will retaliate.

Nearly two dozen members of the community we present for the discussion and the vote. Prior to the vote, County Board Chairman Tom Kautza said he felt it was his duty to bring the issue to full board after it was requested in committee last year before COVID-19 hit. The discussions on the issue have been ongoing in Shawano County for nearly a year since it was first brought up.

Go here to read the rest:
Shawano Board Passes Amended Version of 2nd Amendment Resolution - tchdailynews.com

Caribou City Council narrowly voted in favor of becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary city on March 22. The resolution sends the message that the city is opposed to any unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms for its residents.

CARIBOU, Maine Caribou City Council narrowly voted in favor of becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary city on March 22. The resolution sends the message that the city is opposed to any unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms for its residents.

Caribou is now the third municipality in Aroostook County and the fourth in Maine to become a Second Amendment sanctuary city. Fort Fairfield was the first in The County, making the declaration on Jan. 20, and Van Buren did the same on March 2. Paris passed its resolution in 2019. And while the other two Aroostook towns passed the resolution unanimously, Caribous city council was split on the matter.

The topic was first brought to the council on March 8. Mayor Jody Smith said Deputy Mayor Thomas Ayer suggested putting the item on the agenda for councils consideration, and that he supported the resolution.

Four of the seven councilors expressed support for the resolution during the first read. Ayer and councilor Doug Morrell in particular explained their position during this meeting.

What were saying is, when it comes to the grand scheme of things, coming in and taking our firearms, any sort of magazine restriction were saying you cant do it, Ayer said in early March.

Morrell, during this meeting, said he was 150 percent behind the resolution, adding that stopping gun crimes is just as futile as the war on drugs.

Its not going to stop the criminals, he said, never has and never was. And what would I put up against that as proof? Look at the drug battle. We spent billions with a B and havent made a dent in it. The road to Hells paved in good intentions, but taking away somebodys right? I cant see that happening. I think thats one of the catalysts for the whole country to go in a very rough spot if they attempt to do that.

The remaining three councilors Joan Therieault, Lou Willey and Courtney Boma asked for more time to look into the matter before making a formal vote.

And when the matter was taken up again on March 22, Theriault, Willey, and Boma expressed opposition while the other councilors voted in favor but did not make any additional comments on the matter.

Theriault said that while she has no problem with the Second Amendment, she opposed the resolution.

This is a big declaration, and for seven people to make that decision for 7,000-plus in the community, I dont think we should be doing this, she said.

Theriault said the decision should be made by the will of the people, one way or the other.

I think its sending the wrong message, perhaps, that if you dont like a specific law that mightve been passed or whatever, that youre going to deem it unconstitutional and youre not going to obey those laws, Theriault said. And actually its the [U.S.] Supreme Court that can decide whats unconstitutional.

Councilor Doug Morrell, who voted in favor of the motion, suggested that the council at a future meeting make Caribou a sanctuary city for the whole constitution.

Willey agreed with Morrells sentiment, but said it may be a superfluous gesture as councilors already swear to uphold the constitution. She added that she was opposed to the Second Amendment sanctuary resolution as it would likely not have any real impact.

Its probably not worth the paper youre signing it on, she said. When the government and state decide to change laws, theyre not going to say Oh, everyone but Caribou. Theyre going to change the laws and were going to have to abide by them like everyone else.

Willey said shes discussed this resolution with residents and that it has left many feeling angry, frightened and disappointed.

One person told her that the city might as well advertise bringing guns into Caribou on their welcome sign, and another woman in her 90s told Willey the resolution scared her.

I know you guys wont agree, but I just feel this degrades our city, she said. Caribou has always been, I cant say polished, but weve always been a proud community, and this is like bringing us down a level.

Boma said she has also received several messages and emails from community members who are opposed to the resolution.

I think Doug might have a good point if we look at this as more of a constitutional declaration, that might be one thing, but I think really honing in on this as a gun sanctuary is just not a good idea for our community, Boma said. I think this does send the wrong message to people who might be considering coming to this community, not just to the people who already live here, so I dont support it either.

Councilors Theriault, Willey, and Boma were opposed to the motion while Thomas Ayer, Morrell, and Mark Goughan voted in favor. Mayor Jody Smith broke the tie by voting in favor of the resolution.

Continue reading here:
Caribou narrowly becomes Aroostook's third Second Amendment sanctuary city - The County

The following op-ed is written by State Rep. Savannah Maddox (R-Dry Ridge).

Nearly a decade has passed since the Obama administration implemented Operation Chokepoint, under which the Department of Justice sought to discourage banks from doing business with industries, like the firearm industry, that the administration opposed. The Trump administration rightly discontinued this initiative in 2017. However, financial institutions have continued to cave to political pressure applied by anti-gun billionaires and gun control groups and are refusing to conduct business with the firearm industry more frequently than before.

A recent survey of firearm industry members conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., demonstrated nearly 75% of surveyed businesses reported being denied financial services solely because of their affiliation with the firearm industry. Manufacturers of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), firearms which are deceptively labeled assault rifles by anti-gun groups, are not the only ones impacted. You do not have to look far to find a shooting range offering gun safety classes that has been denied the ability to process credit cards or manufacturers of hunting equipment that have been denied business loans.

These denials are not based onlegitimate credit worthiness or credit risk, but simply on political bias. This political bias on behalf of banks exists even as they receive an extraordinary amount of taxpayer-funded financial support through agencies and programs including the FDIC, Automated Clearing House, Open Window, the Federal Reserve System, and more. It is wholly inappropriate for the taxpayer- supported financial services industry to discriminate against any lawful business that provides goods which are necessary to the exercise of the Second Amendment rights of those same taxpayers.

In recent years, however, lawmakers at the state and federal level have begun to push back against this financial discrimination. For instance, a law was enacted in Georgia to prohibit discrimination against the firearm industry in 2016. In 2018, Louisiana State Treasurer John Schroder helped keep Citigroup, Inc. and Bank of America from participating in bond sales because of their policies that discriminate against the firearm industry.

The Freedom Financing Act was introduced in the last Congress by U.S. Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and John Kennedy (R-LA), and in the House by Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX). Finally, earlier this month the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) finalized a rule that prohibits banking discrimination against lawful industries like the firearm industry. Acting Director of the OCC Brian Brooks summed up the threat succinctly in an op-ed recently published inGame & Fish Magazine; If successful, the powerful interests at work will restrict Second Amendment rights and availability of sporting arms by suffocating the industry from capital and financing that make them possible. Rather than winning national policy debates through elections and facing the legal substrate of our great Constitution, loud factions are simply pestering bankers to succumb to their political will.

As a legislator in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, I have a responsibility to stand up for the Second Amendment rights of the citizens I represent. Allowing financial discrimination against the firearms industry poses just as much of a threat to the people who seek to exercise their right to keep and bear arms as it does to the entities that supply the goods which enable them to do so. That is why I introducedHouse Bill 175 this Session, which passed the house earlier this week and awaits consideration in the Kentucky Senate. This bill does not prevent any bank or financial institution from making standard business decisions, nor does it preclude them from making legitimate determinations pertaining to credit worthiness or credit risk. It does, however, stipulate that financial institutions may not implement a policy of discriminating against the firearm industry at large. This bill was filed in support of over 4,000 Kentuckians who are currently employed by the firearm industry, as well as several thousand law enforcement and military personnel who rely on equipment and facilities that the Kentucky firearm industry supports. This legislation is for all Kentuckians who exercise their Second Amendment rights today, and for all who will do so in the future.

Representative SavannahMaddox(R) represents Kentuckys District 61 in the Commonwealths General Assembly.

The rest is here:
Op-Ed: To Protect 2nd Amendment Rights, Kentuckians Should Support Fair Access to Financial Services - The River City News

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

Westmoreland County commissioners will approve a resolution to support gun rights this week.

Republican commissioners Sean Kertes and Doug Chew, along with Democrat Gina Cerilli Thrasher, said they will declare Westmoreland a Second Amendment County, a move they concede has no teeth but shows support for gun owners.

There are bills seeking to take away our Second Amendment rights in the Legislature, and we want to work with our local law enforcement agencies, our sheriff, to protect our Second Amendment rights, Kertes said We want to protect our ability to own rifles and high-capacity magazines.

Commissioners did not disclose the text of the resolution they will consider at their meeting Thursday but said it is based on a similar resolution approved this month in Washington County. That resolution, according to Washington County commissioners, would enable nonenforcement of gun control laws prohibiting ownership of certain weapons if officials believe the law to be unconstitutional.

Kertes said Westmorelands proposed resolution will carry no specific policy directives.

Our powers are limited, but we want the public to know we are standing with them, Kertes said.

Thrasher called the resolution silly but said she will vote for its passage.

I am pro-Second Amendment, but I dont really understand the purpose of this resolution. We dont have any jurisdiction over the United States Constitution and the Second Amendment, Thrasher said.

In addition to Washington, commissioners in Greene and Fayette counties approved similar resolutions, and Westmorelands leaders said Thursdays vote is part of an effort to unify the region in support of gun rights.

Josh Fleitman, the Western Pennsylvania manager for the gun-control advocacy group Ceasefire PA, said resolutions such as the one under consideration in Westmoreland are unenforceable.

It does nothing to make the county safer and, in fact, makes counties less safe and creates confusion about how and when gun laws will be enforced, Fleitman said. Its kind a solution in search of a problem.

Chew said he will support the Second Amendment resolution, which he described as no different than other proclamations on key issues.

We are limited in jurisdiction, but governments all over pass resolutions in favor of key issues, Chew said. The County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania sends out resolutions they suggest we adopt annually. This isnt one sent by CCAP, but its the same: our support for the full Second Amendment rights granted in both the commonwealth and federal constitutions.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293, rcholodofsky@triblive.com or via Twitter .

Categories:Local | Top Stories | Westmoreland

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More Westmoreland Stories

Read the rest here:
Commissioners to declare Westmoreland a 'Second Amendment County' in favor of gun rights - TribLIVE