Mediaboss Marketing

BLACKFOOT More than 20 people were in the Bingham County commissioners chambers Tuesday afternoon to discuss the possibility of Bingham County becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary as talks and concerns whirl around gun laws, ammunition, magazines, and firearm accessories.

County Prosecutor Paul Rogers, Civil Attorney Chase Hendricks, and John Dewey worked to put together a proposal for the commissioners to review.

Commissioners Mark Bair, Whitney Manwaring, and Jessica Lewis made it clear early that they support the rights of the residents of Bingham County, but wanted to ensure that they were not delving into a rabbit hole as they pursued the information regarding such a sanctuary.

Rogers noted that he did not like the language of sanctuary because of the connotation that it could appear as Bingham County is trying to distance itself from the state of Idaho. Under former Gov. Butch Otter in 2014, Idaho approved a similar law that they would not impede the rights of its citizens from procuring a firearm or the size of the magazine, or any other accessory that could be placed on one.

Members of the community asked to speak with the commissioners on the subject with expressing information that has been in the United States history including the Federalist Papers by James Madison. He expressed that he understands the Federalist Papers to include that the federal government and local governments would work together in certain processes and left the state government out of the process.

He fortified this explanation following comments from Bingham County Sheriff Craig Rowland who explained that when his office works with federal agents, be it FBI, ATF, or the U.S. Marshals, it does not normally involve the Idaho State Police as they are normally notifying him that they will be in his area of jurisdiction working, or requesting his office aid in an investigation. Rowland explained that it is not a jurisdictional issue that ever arises, but more so that they work in unison to achieve a goal or apprehend a suspect.

Others asked if going forward with declaring Bingham County a sanctuary county would in turn cause issues with the state, essentially noting each person as a felon for disobeying law. It was expressed that the state searched out the answer on this exact subject matter, which was decided to be completely legal under the law and would not inadvertently create a large number of criminals by accepting such a resolution.

Commissioner Bair noted that he wanted to ensure that any resolution that they would affirm would not be limited to only firearms, but also include ammunition, attachments and accessories, as well as magazines. He noted that some of the discussion involved limiting the magazine size of the firearms, in essence, forcibly lowering the persons right to bear arms to the extent that they wish.

Others noted that the previous bills introduced federally involved limiting caliber, magazine size, ammunition, and firearm type or at minimum, charging specialized taxes depending on type of firearm. Commissioner Manwaring echoed Bairs input, expressing the desire to go forward with a resolution that would state that they would not support any new legislation surrounding gun control.

The resolution states, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners of Bingham County commits not to support, financially or otherwise, any enforcement of any new federal law, statute, policy or standard that will infringe upon the rights of the citizens of Bingham County that are granted upon them through the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and furthermore granted by Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of the State of Idaho and in Idaho Code and we fully support the enforcement of Idaho Code 18-3351B.

Sheriff Rowland noted that he would not be willing to enforce any new gun law that would directly infringe upon the rights of the residents of Bingham County provided to them by the Second Amendment.

The commissioners would go on to sign the resolution and have it notarized by county Clerk Pamela Eckhardt.

Go here to see the original:
County affirms resolution recognizing 2nd Amendment - Post Register

Regarding the Feb. 6 Editorial Board Roundtable, Should Ohio become Second Amendment Sanctuary State?: Oh, for joy! Yet lets look at the Second Amendment, which reads: 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. It is, simply, one sentence, and written to ensure that states have a well regulated Militia.

So while the gun lobby and gun industry are pushing only the second half of the amendment, Ohio legislators and governor could, if they wanted to, pass legislation defining a well regulated militia in Ohio. Firearms for everyone else would then be illegal. Right now, we do have a well-regulated state militia and its known as the Ohio National Guard. And dont cite the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller. The District of Columbia is not a state. Its the central government for which the Second Amendment was written so that the states could be ready to defend it in case of a hostile takeover. Thats it, folks!

Given that, what is the Editorial Board Roundtable blabbering on about?

Dennis Lambert,

North Olmsted

See the original post here:
Roundtable ignores crux of issue - that 2nd Amendment is being misinterpreted - cleveland.com

There are almost two dozen pieces of proposed legislation concerning firearms this session in the Missouri legislature. While I cannot tackle each one, I wish to highlight three bills.

As a reminder to my regular readers and for those of you just discovering the Opinion page, I am a gun owner and used to sell firearms.

I am also an advocate of reasonable gun laws that will keep firearms out of the hands of felons, abusers, underage individuals, straw buyers and terrorists foreign and domestic.

Allow me to start with the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Paragraph 2, establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

The Second Amendment states that 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.

The Second Amendment is not absolute. Because there was no standard of spelling or grammar in 1789, we can argue that the language could have been better, but like the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment should and does have restrictions.

So why would three of our Republican state legislators, Sen. Eric Burlison, Rep. Jered Taylor and Rep. Bishop Davidson, representing Christian and Greene counties, want to write laws that are in apparent violation of the Constitution? I really do not know.

SB 39, HB 85 and HB 310 essentially say the same thing. They declare as invalid all federal laws that infringe on the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution. The laws would also require state and local courts and law enforcement agencies to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

HB 85 and HB 310 go further, stating that any law officer who seeks to enforce federal laws restricting the Second Amendment may be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers in this state or in any political subdivision of this state. Both bills are now on their way to the state Senate.

These three pieces of legislation appear to be in direct violation of the intent of the Constitution. They would surely be shot down by the federal courts. So, why would they propose such laws?

District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. the City of Chicago, as well as numerous lower court cases, declared that the right to bear arms is not without limitations. As Steven Grossman wrote in an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun: Reasonable laws limiting the possession and sale of certain guns are clearly not violative of the Second Amendment.

Grossman concludes, Yes, that might result in some delay and paperwork, but such is a reasonable price to pay to prevent felons and terrorists from purchasing weapons of death. I fully agree with this statement.

For example, how easy is it to convert a semi-automatic AR-15 to fully automatic? In a simple search on YouTube, I found nearly 20 videos on how to make the conversion. Some of these are as short as a minute and a half.

As of today, YouTube has either deleted or modified most of these videos, but there is still enough information to make the conversion.

I must admit it is fun to shoot a fully automatic weapon, but from a practical standpoint there is no reason to make such a conversion. Unless, of course, you believe you need such a weapon as protection from an overreaching government. Ah, conspiracy theorists.

The fact remains that the AR-15/M-16 was designed for military combat. This also holds true for many other semi-automatic rifles and machine pistols currently on the market.

There is no logical reason to claim that you own a semi-automatic rifle for hunting.

There is no logical reason why the gun show loophole should not be closed, requiring that all sales of firearms at gun shows be subject to the federal background check.

There is no logical reason why private sales should not be subject to the same requirements as a sale from a licensed dealer.

This does not mean we will take your guns away, unless of course you are a terrorist, felon or abuser.

So, are these proposed laws merely based on the unreasonable fear of the government taking over or being confronted by a bad guy? I believe they are and need to be voted down by our state senators for public safety.

See the original post:
Firearms legislation and the Constitution aren't matching up in Missouri - Columbia Missourian

I am endlessly amused when I hear a gun owner tell me, I am not political, or, I stay out of politics. In a perfect world, our liberties would be secure enough that we could ignore politics at our convenience. However, we dont live in a perfect world and there are political forces hell-bent on taking your constitutional rights away from you. If you believe in maintaining the tools and skills to defend yourself from evil, then congratulations on preparing for that fight, should it come to you. However, you need to be an active combatant in a second fight: the fight to maintain your liberty.

There is only one firearms-related venue in which I hold my tongue on politics, and that is when teaching people how to shoot. I dont want to turn off new shooters and I applaud them for arming themselves and seeking training regardless of how they vote or what they think. Beyond that, however, I am quite blunt:

If you believe in being armed so that you can defend yourself and your loved ones from violence then you should also be engaged in fighting those who would strip you of that right.

Who is out to take your rights from you? Well, one particular American political party has infringement of the Second Amendment written right into their party platform. I will leave it at that. If you believe in constitutional liberty, that particular party is your adversary. Let us not mince words. If you favor that party over the other because there are different issues that mean more to you, no problem, but be honest with yourself; you are supporting those who seek to strip you of your right to keep and bear arms. True, some on the other side of the aisle seek to do the same, but as a party platform, the choice should be clear to you if you want to protect your 2A rights, and arguably most other Constitutional rights.

So, as a law-abiding gun owner who believes in the founding principles of this nation, what should you be doing to defend those principles? If your answer is to post a come and take it meme on social media, you are not helping. Fighting with your ignorant friends on Facebook or with strangers in a comment section is not particularly constructive. Instead, we must be engaged in a rabid fight in the political and cultural war in a way that matters if we want to preserve our freedoms, and, indeed, win back what has already been lost. How do we do this?

As a gun owner, you should belong to the national gun rights groups as well as your state-level groups. With the NRA in turmoil right now, I will leave joining it to your discretion, but I highly recommend joining Gun Owners of American and Second Amendment Foundation at the national level. Beyond this, join your state-level group. Much of the fight for our rights happens at the state level, so supporting your state group is just as important as supporting the national groups.

Beyond just joining and paying the annual member dues, contribute what you can, when you can. I find that too many shooters who spend thousands of dollars a year on ammunition are not inclined to kick in a hundred bucks to actually protect their rights by supporting the 2A groups. Really? Remember that the anti-gun organizations are well funded by certain billionaires who invest millions upon millions of dollars into the sole mission of disarming you, the law-abiding citizen. We have no such sugar daddies on our side, so it is up to you and me.

Send emails, letters, and most importantly, call your state and federal level representatives. Speak to who picks up, or leave a message. Politely demand that your representatives uphold the constitution and reject anti-gun legislation. The single thing that can override a politicians goal of trampling liberty is the thought of not getting re-elected. When these politicians receive phone calls in favor of rights rather than against them at a ten-to-one ratio they read the cards on their own re-election. Dont let up on this pressure. While the anti-gun radicals have the money, we have the numbers, if we would simply be active.

Be sure to turn out at peaceful rallies that are held to support the Second Amendment. Be sure to turn up when your county or city council has meetings on the subject. Be at the state capital to lobby and make it clear that you and your fellow gun owners are not going to accept further infringements on your rights. The activists for the groups that wish to disarm you always show up. They have big money and organization behind them. We need to show up tenfold compared to what they do. When it comes to electing representatives, be willing to volunteer to help the ones who respect the Constitution. Knock on doors, make phone calls, donate money, do anything you can do to help win this fight.

The best way to cure an emotionally driven fear of firearms is to take the individual suffering from it to the shooting range. Never once have I taken a first-time shooter, no matter their political leaning, to the range that did not have a good time. The best way to fight gun control is to fix the ignorance that too many citizens have on firearms. While those who lead the anti-gun movement are ruthlessly tyrannical, the average sucker that votes in favor of their agenda is simply ignorant. Take people shooting and have civilized conversations with them to give them the facts. It is not rocket science; the places in the United States with the strictest gun laws are the most crime-ridden murder capitols. Arm yourself with the facts and share them.

There are over one hundred million gun owners in the United States, probably well more than this since most gun owners dont volunteer such information to pollsters. If even ten percent were active in preserving our rights, there would be no gun control at all. Time to get motivated and to motivate your fellow gun people. If we take action, we win. If you sit on the sidelines, we lose our rights for ourselves and for our children. Dont let that happen.

See the original post here:
We Fight Two Fights: Second Amendment Rights are Lost without Political Action - USA Carry

A petition is going around to make Twin Falls a Second Amendment Sanctuary City. The petition is to try and convince Twin Falls City Council to pass the resolution protecting citizens of Twin Falls' right to bear arms.

According to the petition, the order is to help protect people's right to bear arms. Something similar has been passed recently in Gooding and other cities in Idaho.

The resolution states that "Whereas the Twin Falls City Council has been elected to represent the People of Twin Falls...and the citizens of Twin Falls are opposed to any legislation or the United States Congress that would infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and would ban the possession and use of any firearms, magazines, ammunition or accessories..."

It looks like it is basically stating that Twin Falls would be a place of sanctuary if laws were passed that would prevent the legality of owning weapons and ammunitions and accessories for weapons.

There is a lot to read through here and if you want to see the complete resolution and sign the petition to ask Twin Falls City Council to make Twin Falls a Second Amendment Sanctuary City you can click here and fill out the form. It goes further into details about what would and would not be allowed if the resolution were to be passed.

View original post here:
Petition To Make Twin Falls A Second Amendment Sanctuary City - kezj.com