Daily Archives: March 11, 2021

Published: 3/10/2021 7:25:12 AM

In his My Turn op-ed, (Monitor, March 1), James Fieseher contends that the same insurrectionists who brought pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails to the Capitol on Jan. 6, were too afraid of D.C.s gun laws to bring their firearms. Dr. Fieseher concludes from this that firearms regulations save lives.

He also sees the Second Amendments call for a well regulated militia as an invitation for us to heap on new gun control regulations.

There are problems with both of these assertions. First of all, Dr. Fiesehers reasoning that the same people who brought bombs to the Capitol in order to overthrow the government were somehow too law abiding to bring a firearm is preposterous. There was only one reported discharge of a firearm during the riot, and that was when a Capitol policemen shot and killed an unarmed women. Its more than likely that most of the rioters acted spontaneously, and were unarmed.

Secondly, when the founders were debating the Second Amendment, the term well regulated Militia had more to do with equipment and training, than the misconstrued definition of piling on more gun regulations. In other words, a more precise reading is: A well (equipped and trained) Militia. In his Aug. 3, 2016, My Turn, Welcome to the militia, former NH Supreme Court Justice Chuck Douglas states: The US Supreme Court also said that the conception of the Militia at the time of the Second Amendments ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court has defined lawful weapons as those that are in common use, which would include the AR15, the most popular rifle platform in the country.

Years ago, there was a famous law review article entitled, The Embarrassing Second Amendment. The authors, who were not pro-gun, concluded that for better or worse, the Second Amendment basically means what it says, namely, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

(Mike Briggs of Hopkinton is the former Director of Competitive Shooting at the SIG SAUER Academy, and a past President of Pioneer Sportsmen club in Dunbarton. He currently owns and operates New England Tactical, which specializes in firearm safety and proficiency training.)

Read this article:
My Turn: The Second Amendment protects 'lawful weapons' in 'common use' - Concord Monitor

At a future meeting, the Huron County Board of Commissioners will decide whether to further confirm its commitment to the Second Amendment.

Wendy Smith, a Bad Axe resident, has been gathering signatures for a resident created proposal for the commissioners to declare its support for Second Amendment rights, having gathered 1,465 signatures for the proposal in the past month.

During her appearance at this weeks county commissioners meeting, Smith re-read a letter she sent to the commissioners, which states while she is aware of a resolution passed on Feb. 25, 2020, that affirmed their support for the Second Amendment, it does not go far enough in countering red flag laws.

The Second Amendment is the only right that has been under attack for the last 20 years, Smiths letter reads. Its the only inalienable right that has been attacked without opposition. Twenty years of gun control legislation has infringed on our Second Amendment rights. It has eroded the true meaning of the rights our forefathers gave us.

The letter further argues that red flag laws do not make the country safer and that the real issue is mental health, in that instances where a gun has been used to commit homicide, the person has been found to be mentally unstable, a felon committing another felony, or someone who has no legal way to obtain a firearm. The letter also claims that according to the Michigan Department of Community Health in 2018, firearms are the 68th leading cause of death in Michigan, with heart disease and malignant neoplasms the top two causes.

We ask that you join us and pass a resolution that states Huron County will not sit by and watch its law abiding citizens be disarmed, Smiths letter ends.

Smith also read a letter from Huron County Prosecuting Attorney Tim Rutkowski voicing his support for the proposal, and saying that the United States is at a pivotal time where there are those who want to protect our history and those who want to destroy it.

Officials take the oath of office to protect the constitution, Rutkowskis letter reads. Our oath does not allow us to protect only the parts of it we like.

The letter further goes into how there are forces who seek to undermine the rights of religion, free speech, and the right to bear arms, the Bill of Rights addresses the tyranny of the British government, and the right to bear arms is not a lesser right than any others.

The resolution Smith presented to the commissioners says that they will declare laws and resolutions contending gun laws such as universal background checks, high-capacity magazine weapons bans, assault weapon bans, that red flag laws are in violation of the Second Amendment, that public funds will not be used to directly or indirectly restrict Second Amendment rights for Huron County citizens, and the county will declare its intent to oppose such unconstitutional restrictions.

The resolution also requests that copies be sent to every other Michigan county board of commissioners, the state Legislature, the governor, and Michigans representatives in Congress.

Chairman Sami Khoury noted that he also received six or seven pages of signatures in support of this measure.

The resolution was passed onto the safety committee for review before being presented at the next commissioners meeting. The commissioners did note that Smith did not provide sources for other statistics she used in her letter.

In other commissioners news:

The commissioners unanimously elected four members to the Mental Health Services Board to three-year terms.

They are Karen Currie, Patty Bock, Mary Anne Ney Carder, and Mary Babcock.

The commissioners also appointed Hank Weitenberner to the Region VII AAA Board of Directors for a three-year term, Gary Osminski to the Department of Public Works for a two-and-a-half year term, Julie Epperson, Todd Talaski, and George Lauinger to the Planning Commission for three-year terms, and Mike Eisengruber to the Economic Development Corporation for a five-year term.

View post:
Commissioners hear proposal on affirming second amendment protections - Huron Daily Tribune

SUNDANCE All 23 Wyoming sheriffs have voiced alarm about a bill before the Legislature the Second Amendment Preservation Act, or House Bill 124/Senate File 81 that they say, while intended to be pro-Second Amendment, has anti-law enforcement implications.

Its not intended to be anti-law enforcement, but it is, Crook County Sheriff Jeff Hodge said. The intention was good, but they need to talk to peace officers and prosecutors.

Were the bill to pass, Hodge said, it could turn an ordinary arrest into a career-ending decision for a peace officer.

While it does little to protect the average citizen and removes a protection police rely on, he said, it provides protection for one group: criminals.

The intent of the Second Amendment Preservation Act is to prevent firearms from being confiscated by federal entities under federal laws that may be passed in the future. It does this by holding state law enforcement officers accountable.

While the sheriffs have no issue with the concept, they feel the wording is flawed.

For starters, the bill states that no person, including a peace officer, shall have the authority to enforce any federal law or ordinance that infringes on a persons right to keep and bear arms. Anyone who does so knowingly or who knowingly deprives a Wyoming resident of their Second Amendment rights shall be held liable.

Another section states that anyone who commits the above-mentioned act will be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer and immediately terminated from their position. The bill removes the qualified immunity that protects officers from civil suits unless it can be shown they violated statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable person would have known.

Hodge said Wyomings sheriffs were not consulted about this wording. Police could quickly have explained the problematic implications, he said.

In a real-life situation where a crime has been committed, Hodge said, a peace officer may seize a firearm as evidence or to prevent further harm. But if the case becomes federal and the gun owner is not convicted and thus remains a law-abiding citizen, the officer could lose his job.

Everything youre doing, youre always going to have that in the back of your mind, Hodge said. This could actually inhibit law enforcement from doing our job.

While the bill is intended to address situations in which federal laws are applied, Hodge said, its not unusual for federal law enforcement to become involved in local cases, such as child pornography, aggravated assault or child trafficking.

They might originate locally, he said, but they can expand outside of our jurisdiction so we automatically look for federal officers to partner with.

Another example of how problematic the proposed legislation could become involves self-defense, Hodge said. If one person shoots another in self-defense, an officer will seize the firearm used as evidence until the investigation is complete.

If the investigation is completed and it turns out to be self-defense, you have just taken a firearm from a law-abiding citizen, he said. You are law abiding until you have been convicted.

If it ends up going to court and hes found not guilty, hes still a law-abiding citizen so [the officer who seized the firearm] has violated the statute.

Its not difficult to imagine a scenario in which an officer feels reluctant to seize a firearm, even in a potential murder case, as doing so could end their career.

Even though we have probable cause to arrest, it can still get to court and be dismissed, Hodge said.

A letter signed by all 23 sheriffs to the Wyoming Legislature describes this as an impossible dilemma.

For example, the letter states, we could normally seize a firearm as part of a local case and turn the firearm over to federal entities for prosecution. These cases run the gamut of aggravated robbery, child pornography and various dangerous drug investigations.

The letter also expresses concern over the stripping of qualified immunity, which protects police from unintentional violations of rights.

The effects of the legislation would be immense, Hodge said, from huge increases in insurance costs to impacts on recruitment.

Hodge is concerned the bill, which is co-sponsored by 13 representatives and six senators, will pass as it stands.

The thought now that youre hearing from legislators is that, if they dont sign on to these bills, theyre automatically anti-Second Amendment, which is just absurd. ... Surely we can do good legislation and protect Second Amendment rights and be pro-law enforcement [too].

Hodge does not believe effective legislation caters to special interest groups: Good legislation comes from everybody discussing, debating and at times compromising. Being bullied into signing legislation over fear of special interest groups that likely do not have the best interests of Wyoming citizens in mind and are often not even from Wyoming should be very concerning to Wyoming citizens.

Hodge also worries about HB-117, which would prohibit private property owners from restricting firearms on their property. Again, the intention seems to be to protect Second Amendment rights, but he said it hasnt been thought through.

If you own a restaurant, you cant prohibit someone from walking in there with an AK-47 and sitting down to eat, he says. You cant restrict someone from coming on your private property with a firearm on.

That is an attack on private property rights, Hodge said.

As Ive always said, your rights dont trump another persons rights, he said.

Another bill on the horizon looks to repeal gun-free zones on school property. While Hodge said hes not a huge supporter of gun-free zone signs at schools, he doesnt think Crook County students would enjoy a junior high basketball game knowing someone on the sidelines had a rifle slung over their shoulder.

Because they can, somebody will, said Hodge.

Original post:
Sheriffs in stand-off over Second Amendment bill - Jackson Hole News&Guide

This essay was written by Jakub Cajk, a graduate student in Prof. Jana Sehnlkovs class, Major Issues in Contemporary Public Debates in the Department of North American Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, at Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic. Her class partnered with Dr. Mark Neuzils TommieMedia students to produce opinion pieces on issues of interest to Czech students. Dr. Neuzil edited.

In the Czech Republic, we have a strict law for the possession of arms. Only the holders of the firearms license may legally own guns. Our legislation determines the conditions for obtaining a firearms license. If we want to acquire the license for keeping arms, we must meet several requirements. We cannot have any criminal record, we must undergo a medical examination, and we must pass a test of qualification for holding a weapon. The law even states that we have to be responsible to gain the firearms license and defines this responsibility. This process ensures that all owners of guns are thoroughly selected and registered.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the right to bear arms is embedded in the Second Amendment of the Constitution and deeply rooted in society. Each day an average of 100 people die from gun violence in the United States. The estimated number of guns owned by civilians is 393 million. There are more guns than people in the United States. The more weapons, the bigger the risk of an intentional or unintentional shooting. Consequences of such shooting may be serious injury, death or everlasting trauma of survivors.

It is time to take action and limit the ownership of guns by stricter legislation.

No other constitutional amendment has recently gained so much attention and has been so controversial as the Second Amendment. It is more remarkable if we realize that the amendment consists of one single sentence: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In my opinion, the interpretation in favor of an individual right to bear arms is incorrect.

Written documents reflect the times during which they were created. Americas founding documents were mostly written between 1787 and 1791. It should appear obvious that some sentiments from these times may now be outdated, such as the Third Amendment, which forbids the quartering of the soldiers in any house. This amendment was aimed against the British, who had forced people to take soldiers into their homes before American independence. In 2020, this is no longer a concern of U.S. citizens.

Any governing document older than 230 years needs updating in order for the system to function. Clinging to old documents is an obstacle to progress. No document should be inviolable, no matter its importance. Based on the Founding Fathers vision, the Senators should be elected by the legislature. This vision has altered during history, and since 1913, people have elected Senators directly.

The Second Amendment allows states to organize militias. The right to bear arms allowed the people to be ready for a possible British intervention after the Revolution. The Second Amendment served for the protection of the newly emerged Union against foreign powers. If such a threat existed today, the military would defend the citizens against foreign intervention. Law enforcement protects Americans from domestic intervention. I reckon the state Militia is not necessary since the U.S. military is so numerous and powerful.

If the Second Amendment means the right to bear arms for individuals, likely it serves for people to overthrow the government. However, if todays government becomes too oppressive, it can be toppled by peaceful protests or elections where guns are not needed.

Stricter gun laws would not limit ownership for people who use their guns for hunting or sport shooting. The law could moderate conditions for acquiring the firearms license for people who want to use guns for these activities. Such people would prove their intentions with guns by certain documents which would validate the reasons for keeping arms. Limiting gun ownership means that the number of guns would decrease and reduce the risk of mass shootings, suicides and intentional or unintentional shootings.

Anti-regulation supporters are right when they say that todays regulation is ineffective. However, the regulation can be enhanced. If we strengthened the regulation and pushed through stricter gun laws similar to the Gun Control Act of 1968 or Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the regulation would become efficient. It is also necessary to unify the states laws of carrying weapons. This unification will be best ensured by a federal law that would establish a standard for the whole United States.

Amending the Constitution is almost impossible. But stricter gun laws are not impossible. If you want them, write to your Congressperson.

More:
OPINION: The Second Amendment and the right to bear arms an outdated relic - Tommie Media

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., is often seen carrying one of the worlds most widely used pistols: a 9 mm caliber Glock.

Whether challenging open-carry protocol at Capitol Hill or holding a rally in downtown Rifle, Boebert almost always has the Austrian-made pistol at her side.

More recently, the 34-year-old Republican made headlines during an online Congressional House committee meeting aimed at addressing gun control. Boebert displayed two modern sporting rifles along with a shotgun and a Glock on a shelf behind her.

Shes a strong supporter of (the Second Amendment), as am I, said Garfield County Sheriff and longtime Boebert supporter Lou Vallario, during a conservative rally in Glenwood Springs in January. Our Second Amendment rights are always trying to get eroded. Im proud of her for being able to stand up for the Second Amendment.

Glenwood Springs pawn shop gunsmith and seller Greg Algazi said he not only agrees with Boeberts support of the right to bear arms, but also her go-to weapon of choice.

I think shes just part of that mentality that the Glock is inexpensive, lightweight, easy to service (and there are) a lot of accessories for it, he said. The accessory market and the after market parts for the Glock are enormous. You can change sights out quickly and cheaply, you can get extra mags quickly and cheaply.

Algazi also said parts including slides, frames and barrels are manufactured in the United States.

According to the companys website, Glock has a subsidiary manufacturing facility in Smyrna, Georgia, where they produce the Glock 42 model. The production line makes up a small fraction of total Glock output, most of which occurs in Deutsch-Wagram and Ferlach, Austria, as well Bratislava, Slovakia.

Though Algazi also owns a Glock, he said he prefers to openly carry an American-made, American-based handgun.

For me, the Glock doesnt fit me, he said. When I pick up a Glock, its not a natural fit and doesnt point naturally for me. My everyday carry is a Smith & Wesson.

As to whether members of Congress should be allowed to open carry in the Capitol, Algazi said he appreciates the professional law enforcement who provide protection but that he didnt see any harm in allowing for open carrying either.

I think they have enough Capitol security. I really dont think they have to, he said. But why not? Why not be prepared?

In addition to Washington gun protocol, Algazi said Boeberts in a key position to advocate for American gun rights. Algazi said 2020 saw 6 million new gun owners because of politics, pandemic worries and summer protests. He also appreciates Boeberts support for open carry without requiring a permit.

I dont want to go get fingerprinted, go to the county sheriff and apply for it and be on someones list as a concealed carry, he said. If I can carry it open for free, thats what I prefer. When I walk with my gun, I notice people see it, and I notice people give me a bit more space.

Former chair of the Garfield Democratic Party John Krousouloudis said he also supports Second Amendment rights, but disagrees with Boeberts laissez-faire approach.

Taking a step back and looking at the position shes taking on handguns, my personal view is that people should own guns responsibly, which includes training and background checks. Nobody owns a car without a drivers license and proper testing And (Boebert) has a very cavalier, free-for-all view on weapons, which are incredibly dangerous, which have one purpose in life, which is to kill somebody.

Krousouloudis is far more concerned about other issues COVID-19, health care and economy and said he hopes Boebert would prioritize those more.

She should not focus on what kind of weapons she carries or what she does with it, Krousouloudis said of Boeberts position in Congress. She should focus on what is she going to do for the people of Garfield County that are hurting, in the areas of COVID, health care, education and the need to diversify the economy because oil and gas is deteriorating?

Put simply, Krousouloudis said he would like for Boebert to work in a bipartisan fashion with people in Congress to come up with constructive legislation.

Attempts to reach Boebert for this story were unsuccessful.

See more here:
Boebert's Second Amendment stand appreciated by many in Garfield County - The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel

Republican Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert has been praised by some of her constituents for giving them a voice, particularly on the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.

However, other constituents have felt differently, especially following her January 6 vote against certifying President Joe Biden's electoral victory. Critics say that votes like hers legitimized insurrectionists who rioted inside the Capitol in hopes of overturning the 2020 election. Others think that her focus on guns overshadows more-pressing issues facing her Colorado constituents.

Boebert has achieved notoriety in her opening days as a freshman representative. Barely two months into her first term, she is perhaps best known for supporting gun rights and expanding the fossil fuel industry as well as opposing Biden's election and his legislative effortsincluding putting forth bills to counter some of the president's executive orders on the environment and energy policy.

"I feel like she's my voice when I didn't feel like I had one," Boebert-supporter Jamie Cure told 5280, a Denver publication. "She's ignited me to be proud to be American again."

"She's a strong supporter of (the Second Amendment), as am I," Lou Vallario told The Daily Sentinel. Vallario is the sheriff of Garfield County, Colorado. "Our Second Amendment rights are always trying to get eroded. I'm proud of her for being able to stand up for the Second Amendment."

The freshman Republican Congress member has made guns a focus of her time in the Capitol. In a January 3 ad, she told viewers that she would "carry my Glock to Congress." She was also one of several Republicans who refused to participate in Capitol security measures following the January 6 insurrection.

On February 18, Boebert displayed three large firearms and a handgun in her background during a virtual House committee hearing. At the hearing, she pushed back on efforts to forbid Congress members from bringing guns to committee meetings.

She has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives all Americans the right to bear arms. She has also said that Congress members, in particular, should be allowed to carry guns in order to fight off any attackers in Washington D.C. or within the Capitol building.

But despite her advocacy for guns, it's unlikely that Boebert will vote on a firearms reform bill before she has to run for re-election in 2022, according to Mesa County Republican party chair and former Colorado state legislator Dan Thurlow.

"She should focus on what is she going to do for the people of Garfield County that are hurting, in the areas of COVID, health care, education and the need to diversify the economy because oil and gas is deteriorating," John Krousouloudis told The Sentinel. He is one of Boebert's constituents and the former chair of the Garfield Democratic Party.

Boebert has seats on the House Budget and Natural Resources Committees. On those committees, she has advocated for allowing for increasing multiple-use access on public lands, varying approaches to energy production, reducing the national debt and other issues, according to 5280.

Her approach to non-gun issues will most likely impact her re-election chances. Though she won her 2020 race by over 26,500 votes, representing just over 6 percent of the overall vote, a Democratic lawyer named Colin Wilhelm has already decided to challenge her in 2022.

Wilhelm told the Denver publication that he decided to run because of the January 6 insurrection. He added that he has heard from numerous Republicans who dislike Boebert's rhetoric. Unless Boebert adds more legislative accomplishments to her notoriety, Wilhelm and other opponents may use her focus on guns to make her more of a vulnerable political target.

Newsweek contacted Boebert's office for comment.

Go here to see the original:
Voters Praise Lauren Boebert for Giving Them a Voice on Second Amendment Rights - Newsweek

GRANGEVILLE - An effort is underway in Idaho County to add the entire county to the growing list of areas to declare itself a "Second Amendment Sanctuary" zone in Idaho.

The Idaho County 2A Coalition is leading the effort and is planning events to gather support and ask residents to sign petitions. Gatherings are planned on the next three Fridays (3/12, 3/19, 3/26) at the Idaho County Veterans Center at 318 E. Main Street in Grangeville.

A Second Amendment Sanctuary is typically a city or county that has adopted laws or resolutions that oppose the enforcement of certain gun control measures.

Once collected, the group plans to present the signatures to Idaho County Commissioners. "With a large number of citizens behind this action, we can raise the bar on our desire for Idaho County Commissioners and Idaho County Sheriff to declare Idaho County a Second Amendment Sanctuary with protections from outside governments that would infringe on these rights as described in the Constitution of the United States," says the group's website.

Read more:
Effort Underway to Make all of Idaho County a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Zone - bigcountrynewsconnection.com