Mediaboss Marketing

OTTAWA COUNTY, MI The Ottawa County Board of Commissioners have eliminated an obstacle blocking a plan to pass a Second Amendment sanctuary county resolution.

During the Tuesday, April 11 meeting, the board officially rescinded a rule that prevents the commissions far-right majority from adopting resolutions outside of the county boards authority. The original resolution, adopted in 2021, limited the boards resolutions to items they had the authority upon which to take action.

Now that the rule has been eliminated, it paves the way for board members who belong to the conservative group Ottawa Impact to move forward with the Second Amendment sanctuary county resolution.

The motion to rescind Tuesday said the policy established by the prior board limited the boards ability to speak on important issues. It is unclear when the resolution will come before the full board.

Related: Should West Michigan be a 2nd Amendment sanctuary? Kent, Ottawa GOP groups say yes

One of the things that I know a number of people on this board have advocated for in the last couple years is that citizens use their voice, board Chairman Joe Moss said at an April 4 committee meeting. I think its great that the board also be able to use their voice on important issues, whether its Second Amendment or parental rights or constitution or whatever the board might take up.

Declaring a county or city a Second Amendment sanctuary is often mostly symbolic but could include a local governing body passing a resolution rejecting state or federal gun laws like universal background checks, red flag laws and assault weapon bans. These resolutions can, however, become legal liabilities to local sheriffs who dont enforce laws on the books.

Ottawa County Prosecutor Lee Fisher said he was sent a proposed resolution to review but did not say who shared it.

As far as a sanctuary county, my position is I dont believe its appropriate for me to publicly support or not support a political statement, Fisher said during the Tuesday meeting. If theres a violation of the gun laws, I have to objectively and fairly review those complaints to decide if somebodys going to be charged with violating the law.

In February, the Ottawa County Republican Party requested the county board pass such a resolution, proposing language that includes requesting the sheriff and prosecutor do everything in their power to defend the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Ottawa County from any and all infringements.

Related: Ottawa County board wants to weigh in on political issues outside their authority

Since the new conservative majority took over the county board in January, some residents have requested the board take up a Second Amendment sanctuary resolution.

The county voted for this board to be representative of the people, not to be ignored, said Grand Haven Township resident Stephen Rockman on Tuesday. One of the first resolutions Id like this board to take up is a Second Amendment resolution. Ottawa County is a conservative county. Responsible gun ownership is proven to save lives.

Others residents opposed the board taking up a Second Amendment resolution, questioning whether the resolution would actually make citizens safer.

Im here to express my anger over Ottawa Impacts desire to turn Ottawa County into a Second Amendment sanctuary county, said Grand Haven resident Cindy Spielmaker. If having more guns would make us safer as you believe, why does the United States have so many gun deaths? Im angry you want to disregard common sense gun laws.

Have any of you been through an active shooter drill? I have and I can tell you it was terrifying. Maybe you need to experience that before making Ottawa County a Second Amendment sanctuary county.

Outspoken Holland Township resident Joe Spaulding called potential Second Amendment resolution an attempt to nullify state law.

Theres going to be more mass shootings, Spaulding told the commissioners. When those happen, theyre going to look at politicians that did nothing. Youre going to nullify state law and make Ottawa County more dangerous.

More from MLive:

Ottawa County had highest number of jury trials ever in 2022

Police video shows pursuit that led to arrests of 5 teens in stolen car

Spring Lake boards $49.8M bond request would fund new classrooms, secure entrances at high school

Originally posted here:
Ottawa County commissioners remove obstacle to proposing a Second Amendment sanctuary resolution - MLive.com

Repeal the Second Amendment

I appreciate the concerns behind HB 23-1230 to ban assault weapons in Colorado. However, this proposal clearly violates the independent clause of the Second Amendment. The proper first step towards gun control would be repealing the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment was a product of a different time, predating modern weapons of mass destruction. It was rooted in armed slave patrols to suppress potential slave uprisings.

The U.S. Constitution is an archaic document with no legitimate authority, yet legislators take an oath to uphold it. If the United States continues to exist as a political entity, a new constitution should be designed and approved by a new constitutional convention.

The original constitutional convention was held in secret by a handful of rich white men predominantly slaveholders who designed a system to preserve their own wealth and power. The constitution they drafted excluded about 94 percent of the population from the right to representation in government.

I would support a vote at a new constitutional convention to repeal the Second Amendment as a precursor to debating legislation regulating personal weapon ownership.

Slaveholder Thomas Jefferson wrote that a constitution could not bind future generations. He argued that a constitution should expire after one generation. I agree that future generations should not be bound by the dictates of their barbarous ancestors. Each generation should hold its own constitutional convention to create a new system of government, at least once every 20 years.

Gary Swing, Boulder

I dont understand why Marcia Martin and the City Council object to proposed SB 23-213 on allowing apartments and condos to be built everywhere and anywhere (Times-Call, April 6), as the proposed law codifies what the city of Longmont has been doing for some time. SB 23-213 is as good as gold to developers as it allows for uncontrolled rape and pillage.

Bill Butler, Longmont

Best in Local News

Your email is already registered. Please subscribe to Longmont Times-Call to continue.

$1 for 6 Months of Unlimited Digital Access

Get this deal

Already a subscriber? Login

View more onLongmont Times-Call

Continued here:
Letters: Second Amendment; SB 23-213 - Longmont Times-Call

Gun control advocates are ceaseless innovators in the realm of limiting freedom. They continuously devise new and bizarre policies to undermine the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) poses a serious problem for these gun control pioneers. In striking down New Yorks discretionary carry permitting regime, the court emphasized the proper test by which gun control measures should be judged against the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Justice Clarence Thomass opinion made clear that in order for a firearm regulation to pass constitutional muster it must fit within the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment right. Specifically, the opinion noted,

[w]hen the Second Amendments plain text covers an individuals conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nations historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individuals conduct falls outside the Second Amendments unqualified command.

This would appear to preclude many gun control advocates favorite policies. It should certainly preclude gun control policies that gun control advocates and anti-gun politicians have explicitly admitted are innovative.

To take a somewhat Antonin Scalia-like approach to the matter, Merriam-Webster defines innovative as characterized by, tending to, or introducing innovations. Innovations is defined as,

1: a new idea, method, or device: novelty2: the introduction of something new

An innovative gun control measure would be something that is foreign to the Nations historical tradition of firearm regulation, and thus prohibited under the Second Amendment.

Consider so-called red flag gun confiscation orders. These civil orders, sometimes termed extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), empower the government to extinguish a persons Second Amendment rights and confiscate their firearms without due process.

Prior to Bruen, red flag backers were eager to stress the innovative quality of this gun control measure.

In 2019, Giffords Managing Director Robin Lloyd described state red flag laws as innovative policy solutions. In fact, the anti-gun group has repeatedly stressed that this manner of gun control is innovative.

In 2014, while pushing Californias red flag law (termed Gun Violence Restraining Orders in the not-so-Golden State) Everytown for Gun Safety put out a press release titled, Moms Demand Action Urges Passage of Innovative Gun Violence Prevention Bill.

In light of Bruen, a February 2 decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidated a federal firearms prohibition (18 USC 922(g)(8)) that is based on a mere civil order. The decision explained,

The distinction between a criminal and civil proceeding is important because criminal proceedings have afforded the accused substantial protections throughout our Nations history. In crafting the Bill of Rights, the Founders were plainly attuned to preservation of these protections. See U.S. Const. amend. IV; U.S. Const. amend. V; U.S. Const. amend. VI; U.S. Const. amend. VIII. It is therefore significant that 922(g)(8) works to eliminate the Second Amendment right of individuals subject merely to civil process.

By this logic, red flag gun confiscation schemes would be found similarly unconstitutional.

To address another gun control measure, in January 2022, San Jose, Calif. enacted an ordinance requiring gun owners to maintain liability insurance in order to exercise their Second Amendment right.

Admitting the novel nature of the gun control, the City of San Jose posted two testimonials from gun control activists describing the innovative quality of the measure on its government website.

One testimonial quoted Everytowns Shannon Watts as stating Our grassroots volunteers have been proud to work hand-in-hand with the mayor, city council, and community partners to help get this innovative package of gun safety laws crafted and across the finish line." In another, a gun control advocate explained, This ordinance is an innovative approach to address the costs of gun violence

A January 24, 2022 press release from the city titled, San Jose poised to become the first city in the nation to require gun liability insurance and investment by gun owners in violence reduction, stressed the unconventional nature of the citys policy. Moreover, the release included a statement from Giffords Senior Counsel and Director of Local Policy Allison Anderman, who remarked, We applaud Mayor Liccardo and the City of San Jos for continuing to search for novel and innovative ways to prevent gun violence in the community and redress its harms. The mayor of San Jose boasted about how the bizarre insurance scheme was innovative in a June 8, 2021 tweet.

In the case of California, gun owners should question just how much of the states convoluted gun control regime is outside the nations historical tradition. According to gun control advocates, its quite a bit.

The California-based organization now named Giffords began in 1993 under the name Legal Community Against Violence. The group appears to acknowledge that much of the byzantine firearm regime they have helped enact in the last three decades broke new ground. Their materials state that California has been a trailblazer for gun safety reform for the past 30 years. Their own organizational history states, that in California the group assisted in drafting and passing innovative laws that served as a model for other states.

There is evidence that some California gun controllers may be ever-so-slowly catching on to their new reality.

In October 2007, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation requiring new models of handguns sold in the state feature microstamping technology once the technology was available. At the time, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence President praised California for "embracing this innovative technology."

The theory behind microstamping is that firearms could be equipped with a firing pin or other internal firearm part that could imprint unique microscopic identification marks onto ammunition cartridge cases when the gun is fired. For a host of reasons, explained in detail in this NRA-ILA Fact Sheet, this theory of microstamping" does not survive real world application.

On May 17, 2013, the California Department of Justice, under then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris, certified that the technology was available and started enforcing this novel firearm prohibition. In order for a handgun to be sold in California it must be included on the states roster of handguns that meet certain criteria, including containing microstamping technology. Since the microstamping requirement was certified in 2013, no new models of handguns have been added to the roster.

In March, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Judge Cormac Carney, citing the Bruen decision, issued a preliminary injunction against Californias Unsafe Handgun Act (the states handgun roster scheme) in the case Boland v. Bonta. Judge Carney explained,

the government has failed to proffer any historical regulation analogous to the UHAs requirements, Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that those requirements are unconstitutional.

On March 27, California Attorney General Rob Bonta defended Californias handgun roster regime by filing a notice of appeal in the case and sought to stay the preliminary injunction pending the appeal. However, while defending certain portions of the law, a press release from Bontas office explained The motion does not seek to immediately stop the part of the courts decision enjoining the microstamping requirement.

It seems that trying to defend a largely theoretical new technology as somehow in concert with the Nations historical tradition of firearm regulation may have proved too ludicrous, even for an anti-gun partisan like Bonta. This outcome certainly doesnt bode well for those seeking to mandate so-called smart gun technology.

By gun control advocates own admission, so much of what they seek to burden law-abiding gun owners with is innovative, and therefore should be precluded by a proper understanding of Bruen and the Second Amendment. However, those more concerned with having an actual impact on violent crime than harassing the law-abiding should take heart. Vigorously prosecuting and punishing those who use firearms or other weapons to commit criminal violence, while currently out of fashion, is well within the nations historical tradition.

See the article here:
The Second Amendment v. Innovative Gun Control - NRA ILA

SEDRO-WOOLLEY, Wash., April 10, 2023On the Saturday before Easter, the state Senates majority Democrats passed what they call an assault weapons ban. In reality, the bill targets several of the most popular sporting and self-defense firearms in the country, including most modern sporting rifles and even some shotguns used for hunting and competition shooting.

My Republican colleagues and I debated the measure for nearly three hours, using the amendment process to try to point out the fallacies of their arguments and mitigate some of the damage the bill would do to the rights of Washingtonians and small business owners who work as legal firearms dealers.

As it turned out, I was the only one able to get an amendment accepted one to support our military members and allow them to keep their firearms when they are ordered to move to Washington.

The proponents of this bill and I agree on one thing and one thing only. We are in a crisis in Washington. But it is a crisis of general lawlessness across our communities, one exacerbated by bad legislative decisions over the past several legislative sessions.

We have seen soft-on-crime policies, releasing criminals from incarceration; vilification of our law enforcement officers; toleration of life-destroying drug proliferation and use; failure to address mental health adequately; and poor decisions during the COVID lockdowns resulting in learning loss and depression among our youth. We need to focus on addressing the root causes leading to chaos and violence, not vilify firearm ownership.

Our nation has always had a history of gun ownership, and the Second Amendment to the U.S. constitution enshrines our naturally endowed right to defend ourselves and our families. But what we have not always seen what is new to the moment is the devastating loss of life we have witnessed due to crime, suicide, mass shootings and senseless violence.

House Bill 1240 declares the violent and inappropriate use of firearms appeal[s] to troubled young men intent on becoming the next mass shooter. But where is the effort to help these troubled young males and heal whatever there is inside of them that is broken and leading to violence and rage?

Instead, this bill goes after the implement, and completely ignores the underlying root causes of the problems we see today.

The problems are not just reflected in deaths caused by a demented person with a firearm. We see it in the increase of drug-related deaths, teen suicides, wrong-way and drunk-driving assaults on our roads, and in the sunken eyes of lost souls we see roaming our streets with unattended-to mental-health and substance-abuse issues.

It is reflected in fatherless homes producing rudderless young men who feel hopeless and unsure of their place in this world. It is reflected in the general lawlessness we have seen explode across this state, thanks in large part to the failed policies of the Democrat majority in the Legislature and Governor Inslee.

Banning some of the most popular firearms kept and used by law-abiding citizens today will do nothing to address these problems. Absolutely zero.

Look no further than the City of Seattle. Despite Washington ranking in the Top 10 nationally for gun control for the past five years, we have seen the number of shootings fatal or not and shots-fired events in our largest city hit an all-time high in 2022.

The fact of the matter is the law created by this bill will just be more of the same. Worse still, it will give the victims of these crimes and all Washingtonians a false sense of security that something is being done.

And lets not forget that this ban is also blatantly unconstitutional, and likely to cost taxpayers crucial dollars that could be invested in mental health and public safety, but which will instead be used trying to unsuccessfully defend this law in the courts.

HB 1240 now goes back to the House to reconcile changes between the version that passed the Senate and the one that passed the House earlier this year. That means there is still time for lawmakers to do the right thing, put this bill down, and set their sights on real solutions.

Sincerely,Senator Keith Wagoner, R-Sedro-WoolleyWashington State Legislature

Editors Note:Letters-to-the-Editor do not reflect the views of the Lynnwood Times, its publisher nor those of its employees and contributors, and are solely those of the author.

View post:
Commentary: Attacking the Second Amendment doesnt address ... - Lynnwood Times

On the Saturday before Easter, the state Senates majority Democrats passed what they call an assault weapons ban. In reality, the bill targets several of the most popular sporting and self-defense firearms in the country, including most modern sporting rifles and even some shotguns used for hunting and competition shooting.

My Republican colleagues and I debated the measure for nearly three hours, using the amendment process to try to point out the fallacies of their arguments and mitigate some of the damage the bill would do to the rights of Washingtonians and small business owners who work as legal firearms dealers.

As it turned out, I was the only one able to get an amendment accepted one to support our military members and allow them to keep their firearms when they are ordered to move to Washington.

The proponents of this bill and I agree on one thing and one thing only. We are in a crisis in Washington. But it is a crisis of general lawlessness across our communities, one exacerbated by bad legislative decisions over the past several legislative sessions.

We have seen soft-on-crime policies, releasing criminals from incarceration; vilification of our law enforcement officers; toleration of life-destroying drug proliferation and use; failure to address mental health adequately; and poor decisions during the COVID lockdowns resulting in learning loss and depression among our youth. We need to focus on addressing the root causes leading to chaos and violence, not vilify firearm ownership.

Our nation has always had a history of gun ownership, and the Second Amendment to the U.S. constitution enshrines our naturally endowed right to defend ourselves and our families. But what we have not always seen what is new to the moment is the devastating loss of life we have witnessed due to crime, suicide, mass shootings and senseless violence.

House Bill 1240 declares the violent and inappropriate use of firearms appeal[s] to troubled young men intent on becoming the next mass shooter. But where is the effort to help these troubled young males and heal whatever there is inside of them that is broken and leading to violence and rage?

Instead, this bill goes after the implement, and completely ignores the underlying root causes of the problems we see today.

The problems are not just reflected in deaths caused by a demented person with a firearm. We see it in the increase of drug-related deaths, teen suicides, wrong-way and drunk-driving assaults on our roads, and in the sunken eyes of lost souls we see roaming our streets with unattended-to mental-health and substance-abuse issues.

It is reflected in fatherless homes producing rudderless young men who feel hopeless and unsure of their place in this world. It is reflected in the general lawlessness we have seen explode across this state, thanks in large part to the failed policies of the Democrat majority in the Legislature and Governor Inslee.

Banning some of the most popular firearms kept and used by law-abiding citizens today will do nothing to address these problems. Absolutely zero.

Look no further than the City of Seattle. Despite Washington ranking in the Top 10 nationally for gun control for the past five years, we have seen the number of shootings fatal or not and shots-fired events in our largest city hit an all-time high in 2022.

The fact of the matter is the law created by this bill will just be more of the same. Worse still, it will give the victims of these crimes and all Washingtonians a false sense of security that something is being done.

And lets not forget that this ban is also blatantly unconstitutional, and likely to cost taxpayers crucial dollars that could be invested in mental health and public safety, but which will instead be used trying to unsuccessfully defend this law in the courts.

HB 1240 now goes back to the House to reconcile changes between the version that passed the Senate and the one that passed the House earlier this year. That means there is still time for lawmakers to do the right thing, put this bill down, and set their sights on real solutions.

Sen. Keith Wagoner, R-Sedro-Woolley, represents the 39th Legislative District. He serves as the Senate Republican Whip and is a member of the Senate Law and Justice Committee.

Go here to see the original:
Attacking Second Amendment doesn't address core causes of ... - Whitman County Gazette