Mediaboss Marketing

Boulder, Colorado mourns the ten people murdered during a shooting rampage inside a King Soopers grocery store. USA TODAY

WASHINGTON With Republicans and Democrats already speeding toward a familiar stalemate over whether to respond to a recent spate of mass shootings, experts on both sides of the debate are predicting the Supreme Court is poised to expand Second Amendment rightsafter a decade-long hiatus from the issue.

The only question, several court observers said, is when.

From a challenge to New York's restrictions on carrying firearms outside a home to cases involving lifetime gun ownership bans for people convicted of certain crimes, the court's months-old 6-3 conservative majority will soon have a number of high-profile opportunities tojumpinto the turbulentnational debate over gun rights.

Four conservative justices alreadysignaled a desire to address outstanding Second Amendment questions, but it's not clear if the recent shootings in Colorado and Georgia will temper that enthusiasm.President Joe Biden has called for a federal responseto the killings and several Republican lawmakers have dismissed the need for stronger gun laws. The court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has sometimes beenhesitant to jump into Washington's raging political battles.

More: Amy Coney Barrett steers the Supreme Court to the right

But even if the court delays, few expect it to wait for long.

"There's no doubt that the Supreme Court is poised to take a Second Amendment case soon," saidAdam Winkler, author of "Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America" and a UCLA School of Law professor. "There's no doubt that there's a majority of justices on the court now who've expressed the desire."

Eight people were killed, including six Asian American women, in a series of shootings March 16 at Atlanta-area spas and massage parlors. Ten people were killed days later in a mass shooting at a supermarket in Boulder, Colorado. The mass killings have quickly snapped Washington's attention back to the deeply partisan gun debate after the issue was sidelined during the coronavirus pandemic.

Local courts: Gun groups findsuccess in blocking local firearm controls

Pause: Supreme Court sidesteps major Second Amendment case, a setback for NRA

The nation's highest court has skirted Second Amendment disputes sinceissuing blockbuster rulings in 2008 and 2010 that struck down gun restrictions in theDistrict of Columbia and Chicago. The justices more recently considered a New York Cityprohibition on gun owners transporting firearms to ranges or second homes outside of the city, but dropped the matter after local officials rolled the regulation back.

Supporters of gun control and firearm safety measures hold a protest rally outside the Supreme Court as the court hears oral arguments in State Rifle and Pistol v. City of New York, NY, in Washington, D.C., on December 2, 2019.(Photo: SAUL LOEB, AFP via Getty Images)

But the dynamic has changed since Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the benchin October. While conservatives previously had the four votes needed to take a case, it wasn't clear whetherRoberts would deliver the fifth vote needed to corral a majority of the nine for a win. Now, with Barretton the court, several experts said, Roberts' vote is no longer as pivotal as it once was.

"While the Supreme Court in the past has held off on taking up Second Amendment cases, we have four justices who have said they're eager to do so and it also appears likely that Justice Barrett is with them," saidHannah Shearer, litigation director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "They're not going to wait forever."

And that has raised alarms for gun control advocates.

Mourners shield the flames of their candles from the wind at a vigil for the victims of a mass shooting at a grocery store earlier in the week, Wednesday, March 24, 2021, outside the courthouse in Boulder, Colo. (Photo: David Zalubowski, AP)

Asserting that the court erred when it threw out the claim over New York City's gun transport rule last year, conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wrotein a dissent that the rule was unconstitutional.Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed to drop the matter but said lower courts may be misapplying the court's precedents and called on his colleagues to "address that issue soon."

Five months after that decision, liberal Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgdied, further shifting the balance of the court to the right.

Barrett, who drew headlines during her confirmation hearing for telling senators her family ownsa gun, has given Second Amendment advocates reason to cheer in the past. In 2019, as a judge on the federal appeals court in Chicago, Barrett dissented from an opinion upholding a law that bans convicted felons from owning a gun.

The Wisconsin man who challenged the law,Rickey Kanter, had previously pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud. Barrett wrote in her dissent that the ban went too far when applied to someone who had not been convicted of a violent crime.

"History is consistent with common sense: It demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns," she wrote. "But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons."

President Donald Trump granted Kanter a pardon in December.

Two similar questions are now awaiting consideration at the Supreme Court. In one, a Pennsylvania man who pleaded guilty to driving under the influence in 2005 is challenging the ban on purchasing or owning a gun. In another, a Pennsylvania woman who pleaded guilty to making a false statement on her tax returns sued over the ban.

The court hasn't yet decided whether to take the cases.

The justices struck down handgun bans in the District of Columbia and Chicago in2008 and 2010. The landmark, 5-4decision in District of Columbia v. Hellerspecifically nodded to the right to own a gun for lawful purposes,likeself-defense within the home.The late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote that opinion, nevertheless suggested that there were limits to the Second Amendment.

"Handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid," he wrote at the time.

Since then the court has let stand aChicago suburb'ssemiautomatic weapons banand a variety of prohibitions againstcarrying guns in public, from New Jersey to California. It hasrefused to second-guess age limits for carrying guns in Texas andrequirements for disabling or locking up guns when not in use in San Francisco.

Now the court has another opportunity to probe the limits Scaliaalluded toin theHellerdecision. Anew round of litigation over how far states may go to restrictthe right to carry guns outside a homehaspercolatedup through the courts.

The California-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Wednesdayupheld a Hawaii gun regulation that limits the ability of people to openlycarry guns in public, a suit that appears destined to eventually make its way to the Supreme Court.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

The Supreme Court already has a similar dispute on its docket from New York State. In the first major Second Amendment case to come before the court since Barrett joined, two residents sought a license to carry guns outside their home but were denied because they didn't meet the state's requirement of having a "special need for self protection" above and beyond what's required by the general public.

They sued, arguing the state requirement is so onerous that it excludesvirtually everyone from carrying a gun. The New York-based federal appeals court disagreed, pointing to an earlier decision in 2012 in which the judges acknowledged a deep lack of clarity about what Scalia's 2008 decision in Hellermeant for guns outside a home.

"What we know from these decisions is that Second Amendment guarantees are at their zenith within the home," the court wrote at the time. "What we do not know is the scope of that right beyond the home and the standards for determining when and how the right can be regulated by a government."

It's that uncertainty that makes the New York regulation ripe for consideration, said Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. The court has managed to avoidthe issue for years,he noted, "but now we have a different court."

The justices are expected to discuss for the first timewhether to take the New York suitwhen they meet privately on Friday. It's not clear when the court might make a decision on whether to take the appeal.

"The issue has been floating around for nearly a decade and the court should answer the question, and the answer is either 'yes' or 'no,'"Blackmansaid. "All the pieces are there."

But the court has managed to step around major controversies in recent weeks, including on abortion, the 2020 election and immigrationpoliciesfrom the Trump administration. It could easily do so again with the pending gun cases.

The nation remains deeply divided over guns. Two-thirds of Americans back tougher gun laws, a recent USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll found, but Republican support has fallen significantly as the issue takes on a stronger partisan cast than it did a few years ago.

Poll: Americans back tougher gun laws, but GOP support plummets, poll finds

But the court also has time: Anycaseitdecides totakenow would not likely be argued until the fall. And that would almost certainly pusha decision back until next year. By then, the scorching debate over how to respond to the recent shootings inGeorgia and Colorado may be over.

"Everyone speculates on what may influence the court" on whether to take a case, said Stephen Halbrook,a senior fellow at the Independent Institute and an attorneywho has represented the National Rifle Association. "We dont really know whether a recent mass murder would be a factor regarding the courts willingness to take on a Second Amendment case."

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/26/second-amendment-supreme-court-poised-take-guns-rights-cases/6979460002/

Follow this link:
Supreme Court poised to jump into Second Amendment disputes, as nation mourns mass shootings - USA TODAY

BOULDER, CO - MARCH 22: Tactical police units respond to the scene of a King Soopers grocery store ... [+] after a shooting on March 22, 2021 in Boulder, Colorado. Dozens of police responded to the afternoon shooting in which at least one witness described three people who appeared to be wounded, according to published reports. (Photo by Chet Strange/Getty Images)

On Tuesday morning the hashtags #EnoughIsEnough and #SecondAmendment were trending and each had more than 30,000 tweets while there were an equal number of posts related to the topic of "Well Regulated" another reference to the wording of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

All of this was of course in response to the most recent mass shooting on Monday inside a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado. Ten people were killed, including a veteran police officer. As of Tuesday morning the motives remain unclear.

Across social media, especially Twitter, many users made their opinion quite clear.

"We aren't numb - over 90% of Americans support stronger gun laws. It's a handful of US Senators beholden to the gun lobby who have refused to act. The Second Amendment wasn't meant to be a suicide pact," posted Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts), founder of @MomsDemand action.

On the other side of the issue, the NRA (@NRA) responded by sharing the wording of the Second Amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Anti-social Response

The responses that followed on Monday evening and Tuesday morning were anything but social. Many users called for greater gun control, casting blame at Republican lawmakers, while supporters of the Second Amendment blamed mental illness.

As with so many issues, both sides dug in and offered sharp and concise opinions. The issue of "Well Regulated" as in the well regulated militia, wasn't so much debated but rather a read through shows that it was an echo chamber. Many who see that the wording is to mean a government-regulated military force, akin to the National Guard, repeated that argument.

Across social media the opinions of the Founding Fathers was debated; and those who are opposed to firearms and the Second Amendment clearly see this as an opportunity to push for greater gun control, while supporters of the Second Amendment seemed as determined to make their counter arguments.

But the question must be asked whether any of this is remotely productive?

"Social media discussions are primarily about reaffirming your identity in a group," explained Dr. Matthew J. Schmidt, PhD, associate professor of national security and political science at the University of New Haven.

While today the discussion is about the Second Amendment, similarly hostile discourse has been seen for any hot button issue and people seem unwilling to even listen. The posts on social media don't seem to be aimed at changing opinions, but rather reaffirming one's point of view.

"Everyone has been cooped up for months, and we're living through the most tumultuous time in history, so for some people they just want their voices heard even if no one is actually listening," said technology futurist and brand strategist Scott Steinberg.

"Social media is a great platform to do just that right now," Steinberg added. "People aren't actually going to social media to have productive casual conversations. They tune into more to be part of crowd in fiery debates and hear from those that have similar opinions."

This is absolutely true of any issue and isn't limited to gun control or support for the Second Amendment.

"I doubt the issue of gun control will find resolution on social media, and it's now a well-established fact that social media tend to have a polarizing effect on most topics," said Mike Lawlor, associate professor of criminal justice at the Henry C. Lee College of Criminal Justice and Forensic Sciences at University of New Haven.

"That being said, social media does present the most user-friendly platform for grass roots organizing," said Lawlor. "You saw that in the post-Parkland 'March for Our Lives' event and organization."

Different Topic Same Responses

In many ways social media has allowed people to feel like they are part of a group or movement, even if the debate isn't all that social.

"Think of it as shouting into the void there is something cathartic about that," said Steinberg. "People need a forum right now. The downside is that because there are two sides of every issue it becomes very polarizing."

Steinberg added that we'd have to get back to a baseline where we agree to listen to one another before we can have any chance of having a meaningful debate, and that is unlikely to happen given the tone and open hostility.

"People use language that signals their strong belief in the ideas of their own group and some people attack the other side by way of reaffirming their own position as fighters in the culture war," added Schmidt. "This kind of speech starts to look like sectarian warfare. It's not reasoned debate designed to reconcile differences or find spaces of compromise. And conducting these arguments on platforms other than social media is unlikely to resolve any differences. People have picked their sides and very, very few will change."

Given that fact there is little chance that social media will result in any social change.

"There are, of course, two extremes in this debate," said Lawlor. "But there is also a soft, persuadable middle.Those without critical thinking skills will fall victim to conspiracy theories and paranoia.Those will critical thinking skills will focus on the events surrounding yesterday's shooting and consider whether reasonable steps could have been taken to prevent it or at least make it less likely. Each one of these tragedies is a teachable moment.Our challenge is to present the facts and analysis and hope people are willing to listen."

More here:
Second Amendment And Gun Control Debated On Twitter Is Social The Place To Have This Discussion? - Forbes

Another mass gun murder just happened in America, the seventh in 7 days, and already "Second Amendment legislators" are offering the 2021 version of thoughts and prayers. Lauren Boebert just tweeted, "May God be with them." Standing in front of her wall of assault weapons, most likely.

And, of course, today on rightwing talk radio and Fox News they've already begun lengthy bloviation about the Second Amendment. So, let's just clear a few things up.

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the differencesee the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, an action necessary to get Virginia's vote to ratify the Constitution.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with making sure mass murderers could shoot up public venues and schools. Founders including Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that, and we all should be too.

In today's America, you have the "right" to a gun, but no "right" to healthcare or education. In every other developed country in the world, the reality is the exact opposite.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South they were called "slave patrols," and were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of CaliforniaLaw Reviewin 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

It's the answer to the question raised by thecharacter played byLeonardo DiCaprio inDjango Unchainedwhen he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" It was a largely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the answer: Well-regulated militias kept enslaved people in chains.

Sally E. Haden, in her brilliant and essentialbookSlave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, "Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller." There were exemptions so "men in critical professions" like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work. Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45including physicians and ministershad to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.

By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down uprisings by enslaved men and women. As I detail in my book The Hidden History of Guns and the Second Amendment, slavery can only exist in a police state, which the South had become by the early 1700s, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

Southerners worried that if the anti-slavery folks in the North could figure out a way to disbandor even move out of the statethose southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service enslaved men from the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, along with the southern economic and social "ways of life."

These two possibilities worried southerners like slaveholder James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 enslaved humans) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" Henry (Virginia's largest slaveholder).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise an army, could also allow that federal army to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free their enslaved men, women and children.

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army.

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through the newly-forming United States offering them military service.

At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:

"Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . .

"By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory."

George Mason expressed a similar fear:

"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution]"

Henry then bluntly laid it out:

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern forPatrick Henry?

"In this state," he said, "there are 236,000 Blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. May Congress not say, that every Black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."

Patrick Henry was also convinced that the power over the various state militias given the federal government in the new Constitution could be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias. He knew the majority attitude in the North opposed slavery, and he worried they'd use the new Constitution they were then debating ratifying to free the South's slaves (a process then called "Manumission").

The abolitionists would, he was certain, use that power (and, ironically, this is pretty much what Abraham Lincoln ended up doing):

"[T]hey will search that paper [the Constitution], and see if they have power of manumission," said Henry."And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the 'general defence and welfare'? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?

"This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper [the Constitution] speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it."

He added: "This is a local [Southern] matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress."

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" and a slaveholder himself, basically called Patrick Henry paranoid.

"I was struck with surprise,"Madison said, "when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. . . . There is no power to warrant it, in that paper [the Constitution]. If there be, I know it not."

But the southern slavemasters' fears wouldn't go away.

Patrick Henry even argued that southerner's "property" (enslaved humans) would be lost under the new Constitution, and the resulting slave uprising would be less than peaceful or tranquil:

"In this situation," Henry said to Madison, "I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone."

So Madison, who had (at Jefferson's insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.

His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a freecountry[emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word "country" to the word "state," and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a freeState[emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporationswould use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their "right" to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder people in schools, theaters and stores, and use the profits to own their own political party.

In today's America, you have the "right" to a gun, but no "right" to healthcare or education. In every other developed country in the world, the reality is the exact opposite.

Pointing out how ludicrous this has become, David Sirota (and colleagues) writes in his Daily Poster newsletter today: "Last week, the National Rifle Association publicly celebrated its success in striking down an assault weapons ban in Boulder, Colorado. Five days later, Boulder was the scene of a mass shooting, reportedly with the same kind of weapon that the city tried to ban."

The Second Amendment was never meant to make it easier for mass shooters to get assault weapons, and America needs rational gun policy to join the other civilized nations of this planet who aren't the victims of daily mass killings.

It's long past time to overturn Heller, which Ruth Bader Ginsberg repeatedly argued the Court should do, and abolish today's bizarre interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

This post originally appeared at hartmannreport.com, but is published here with permission of the author.

View original post here:
Boulder: Is it Time to End the Second Amendment? - Common Dreams

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