Mediaboss Marketing

Anne Orso of rural Viola said she was adamantly against the resolution. Its divisive; please focus on issues that unite the community.

Supervisor Mary Henry, who represents District 17, said most of the correspondence she received was opposing the proposed referendum. Henry said she strongly opposed the referendum, and the Board needs to spend time bringing the community together.

Dodie Whitaker of Viroqua said that as a woman of color, she and her friends and family see the area as a safe haven. Whitaker said shes a pacifist, but she supports the right of gun owners to have guns. She said she opposed the resolution for safety reasons, adding that she would like to see efforts focused on mental health and economic issues.

Paul Buhr of rural Viroqua also opposed the resolution. I see no reason to further divide us with this un-Constitutional measure, he said.

Cori Wilson of Ontario said she supported the proposed county resolution. She said she owns a gun and respects and appreciates the gun laws as they are currently written. Wilson said she encouraged people to look at H.R.127 thats now before Congress. She said the resolution is restrictive. Im surprised no one is concerned about restrictions to our rights.

Jared Lasky of rural Westby also spoke in favor of the resolution, saying the right to bear arms is not a suggestion but a directive.

Read more here:
Vernon County residents weigh in on Second Amendment resolution; Board to vote Feb. 2 - La Crosse Tribune

A lot of people falsely utilize the Constitution as a shield for selfish conduct.

However, free speech doesnt mean one can yell fire in a crowded theater; nor does free speech entitle one to commit libel or slander. Freedom of assembly does not override municipal permitting processes reasonably controlling marches or parades. Freedom of religion does not let one practice polygamy, cannibalism or forced marriages.

Fifth Amendment rights can be waived, and the Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial, can be blocked by an arbitration clause buried on the back of a receipt.

Before District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, no United States Supreme Court case ever held that the Second Amendment provided a right to own a handgun for residential protection. However, in Heller, Justice Scalia noted, Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

One may feel unnecessarily constrained by a mandatory seat belt law, but that does not make it unconstitutional. Selfishly questioning the constitutionality of masking requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic ignores a states power under the Tenth Amendment to protect health, safety and the general welfare.

So when we hear the Constitution invoked to support some real or imagined grievance, we should pause and consider who the speaker is and what their motivations are.

Fortunately and unfortunately, even ignorant whining is constitutional.

Craig OlivierDurango

Visit link:
Letter: Claims of constitutional rights are often wrong - The Durango Herald

Webster defines regulate as such: to control, direct or govern according to a rule, principle or system.

The Second Amendment states, 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. I assume well-regulated authorizes the governments ability to wisely determine the best way to control and direct said right.

On April 3, 2018, in a fit of rage, Nasim Aghdam used a handgun to shoot innocent victims at the YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California. Compare that to the massive carnage inflicted by numerous shooters, also consumed in fits of rage, who brandished military- style assault weapons to gun down their prey.

Although injured, no one was killed by Aghdam. Compare that to the dozens instantly annihilated by those using military, high-capacity-style weapons.

Dont be misled by the National Rifle Association. The Second Amendment allows for regulating the possession of high-powered weapons originally intended for use in times of war. Additional regulation wouldnt be anything new. For example, machine guns and short-barreled shotguns are already prohibited.

Raymond Hult

Bountiful

Link:
Letter: The Second Amendment allows for reasonable gun control - Deseret News

Gun violence prevention advocates

There is a good reason the process of amending Iowas Constitution is drawn-out. Two separate legislative sessions must act, followed by ratification by Iowa citizens. The intent is clearly for careful deliberation by legislators and a final decision by a fully informed public. Sponsors of SJ1 and HSB9, a constitutional amendment to ensure Iowans the right to bear arms, seem uninterested in either.

Its sponsors would have you believe it simply enshrines federal Second Amendment protections in Iowas Constitution. However, this is a supercharged Second Amendment stipulating that Any and all restrictions of this right [to bear arms] shall be subject to strict scrutiny. The Second Amendment does not say (and the U.S. Supreme Court never held) that strict scrutiny applies to all gun regulations.

Strict scrutiny is the highest level of scrutiny by the courts, putting up a high barrier not only to enactment of new restrictions on gun ownership and use but any and all restrictions. Recent polls in Iowa show the vast majority of the public, including a majority of gun owners, favor closing loopholes in the background check system and other sensible restrictions such as permit requirements. At a time when gun violence is increasingly recognized as a public health crisis, legislative committees dealing with SJ1 and HSB9 should show their commitment to responsive government by offering adequate time for their deliberation.

Gun violence prevention advocates:

Temple Hiatt, Iowa City

Lori Durian, North Liberty

Jodie Theobald, Iowa City

Lenore Holte, Coralville

Patricia Zebrowski, Iowa City

Leslie Carpenter, Iowa City

Susan Bryant, Iowa City

Rebecca Truszkowski, Coralville

Julie Kearney, Iowa City

Liz OHara, Iowa City

Gun violence prevention advocates

More here:
This is not the Second Amendment - The Gazette

On Monday, Feb. 1 there will be a public hearing, on Tuesday, Feb. 2 the Vernon County Board of Supervisors will vote on a resolution masquerading as something allegedly designed to preserve the Second Amendment of the United States.

This partisan resolution will preserve nothing. The Second Amendment like all the others is well protected by the U.S. Constitution. To make any change to a Constitutional Amendment requires a vote to pass by a minimum of three-quarters of the 50 states.

The Second Amendment is not in danger of being nullified or modified. No evidence has been presented to show the Second Amendment to be in danger.

The Second Amendment consists of just one comprehensive, concise sentence that needs no expansion or modification by Vernon County nor anyone else. There is nothing in the resolution that is new other than semantics intended to provide a solution for a problem that does not exist.

Rather than predicting future problems why not work on solving Vernon County's real problems and concerns rather than inventing one.

If this passes we can be assured that it will become precedent for more of the same in the future. We in Vernon County do not need this resolution. Represent the citizens of the county not some partisan idealism.

See the original post here:
Letter to the editor: Second Amendment preservation resolution is unecessary - La Crosse Tribune