Category Archives: Second Amendment

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

See more here:
Bridgton selectman wants reconsideration of Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution - pressherald.com

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.

See more here:
Boulder: Is it Time to End the Second Amendment? - Common Dreams

Caribou City Council narrowly voted in favor of becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary city on March 22. The resolution sends the message that the city is opposed to any unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms for its residents.

CARIBOU, Maine Caribou City Council narrowly voted in favor of becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary city on March 22. The resolution sends the message that the city is opposed to any unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms for its residents.

Caribou is now the third municipality in Aroostook County and the fourth in Maine to become a Second Amendment sanctuary city. Fort Fairfield was the first in The County, making the declaration on Jan. 20, and Van Buren did the same on March 2. Paris passed its resolution in 2019. And while the other two Aroostook towns passed the resolution unanimously, Caribous city council was split on the matter.

The topic was first brought to the council on March 8. Mayor Jody Smith said Deputy Mayor Thomas Ayer suggested putting the item on the agenda for councils consideration, and that he supported the resolution.

Four of the seven councilors expressed support for the resolution during the first read. Ayer and councilor Doug Morrell in particular explained their position during this meeting.

What were saying is, when it comes to the grand scheme of things, coming in and taking our firearms, any sort of magazine restriction were saying you cant do it, Ayer said in early March.

Morrell, during this meeting, said he was 150 percent behind the resolution, adding that stopping gun crimes is just as futile as the war on drugs.

Its not going to stop the criminals, he said, never has and never was. And what would I put up against that as proof? Look at the drug battle. We spent billions with a B and havent made a dent in it. The road to Hells paved in good intentions, but taking away somebodys right? I cant see that happening. I think thats one of the catalysts for the whole country to go in a very rough spot if they attempt to do that.

The remaining three councilors Joan Therieault, Lou Willey and Courtney Boma asked for more time to look into the matter before making a formal vote.

And when the matter was taken up again on March 22, Theriault, Willey, and Boma expressed opposition while the other councilors voted in favor but did not make any additional comments on the matter.

Theriault said that while she has no problem with the Second Amendment, she opposed the resolution.

This is a big declaration, and for seven people to make that decision for 7,000-plus in the community, I dont think we should be doing this, she said.

Theriault said the decision should be made by the will of the people, one way or the other.

I think its sending the wrong message, perhaps, that if you dont like a specific law that mightve been passed or whatever, that youre going to deem it unconstitutional and youre not going to obey those laws, Theriault said. And actually its the [U.S.] Supreme Court that can decide whats unconstitutional.

Councilor Doug Morrell, who voted in favor of the motion, suggested that the council at a future meeting make Caribou a sanctuary city for the whole constitution.

Willey agreed with Morrells sentiment, but said it may be a superfluous gesture as councilors already swear to uphold the constitution. She added that she was opposed to the Second Amendment sanctuary resolution as it would likely not have any real impact.

Its probably not worth the paper youre signing it on, she said. When the government and state decide to change laws, theyre not going to say Oh, everyone but Caribou. Theyre going to change the laws and were going to have to abide by them like everyone else.

Willey said shes discussed this resolution with residents and that it has left many feeling angry, frightened and disappointed.

One person told her that the city might as well advertise bringing guns into Caribou on their welcome sign, and another woman in her 90s told Willey the resolution scared her.

I know you guys wont agree, but I just feel this degrades our city, she said. Caribou has always been, I cant say polished, but weve always been a proud community, and this is like bringing us down a level.

Boma said she has also received several messages and emails from community members who are opposed to the resolution.

I think Doug might have a good point if we look at this as more of a constitutional declaration, that might be one thing, but I think really honing in on this as a gun sanctuary is just not a good idea for our community, Boma said. I think this does send the wrong message to people who might be considering coming to this community, not just to the people who already live here, so I dont support it either.

Councilors Theriault, Willey, and Boma were opposed to the motion while Thomas Ayer, Morrell, and Mark Goughan voted in favor. Mayor Jody Smith broke the tie by voting in favor of the resolution.

See the original post:
Caribou narrowly becomes Aroostook's third Second Amendment sanctuary city - The County

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

Westmoreland County commissioners will approve a resolution to support gun rights this week.

Republican commissioners Sean Kertes and Doug Chew, along with Democrat Gina Cerilli Thrasher, said they will declare Westmoreland a Second Amendment County, a move they concede has no teeth but shows support for gun owners.

There are bills seeking to take away our Second Amendment rights in the Legislature, and we want to work with our local law enforcement agencies, our sheriff, to protect our Second Amendment rights, Kertes said We want to protect our ability to own rifles and high-capacity magazines.

Commissioners did not disclose the text of the resolution they will consider at their meeting Thursday but said it is based on a similar resolution approved this month in Washington County. That resolution, according to Washington County commissioners, would enable nonenforcement of gun control laws prohibiting ownership of certain weapons if officials believe the law to be unconstitutional.

Kertes said Westmorelands proposed resolution will carry no specific policy directives.

Our powers are limited, but we want the public to know we are standing with them, Kertes said.

Thrasher called the resolution silly but said she will vote for its passage.

I am pro-Second Amendment, but I dont really understand the purpose of this resolution. We dont have any jurisdiction over the United States Constitution and the Second Amendment, Thrasher said.

In addition to Washington, commissioners in Greene and Fayette counties approved similar resolutions, and Westmorelands leaders said Thursdays vote is part of an effort to unify the region in support of gun rights.

Josh Fleitman, the Western Pennsylvania manager for the gun-control advocacy group Ceasefire PA, said resolutions such as the one under consideration in Westmoreland are unenforceable.

It does nothing to make the county safer and, in fact, makes counties less safe and creates confusion about how and when gun laws will be enforced, Fleitman said. Its kind a solution in search of a problem.

Chew said he will support the Second Amendment resolution, which he described as no different than other proclamations on key issues.

We are limited in jurisdiction, but governments all over pass resolutions in favor of key issues, Chew said. The County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania sends out resolutions they suggest we adopt annually. This isnt one sent by CCAP, but its the same: our support for the full Second Amendment rights granted in both the commonwealth and federal constitutions.

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293, rcholodofsky@triblive.com or via Twitter .

Categories:Local | Top Stories | Westmoreland

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More Westmoreland Stories

See original here:
Commissioners to declare Westmoreland a 'Second Amendment County' in favor of gun rights - TribLIVE

The Ellsworth City Council voted 6-1 Monday night against a resolution that would have declared the city a Second Amendment sanctuary.

The rejection in Ellsworth follows the recent approval of similar resolutions in a handful of small Maine towns taking stances against federal gun control measures that have yet to pass Congress.

The councils vote against the measure, submitted by Councilor Michelle Kaplan, came after Glenn Moshier, the city manager and police chief, expressed concern for how the resolution might create ambiguity or confusion for the citys police officers, who take an oath to uphold the state and U.S. constitutions.

Kaplan argued in favor of the resolution, though she ended up voting not to support it. Gene Lyons was the only councilor who voted in favor of the resolution.

Kaplan, who described herself as a law-abiding gun owner, said residents asked her to propose the resolution, which would help send a message to Congress to not enact additional restrictions on gun ownership that she claimed would be a blatant violation of our constitutional rights. Among the possible restrictions would be expanded background checks, limits on ammunition, increased taxes on gun sales and other barriers to entry, Kaplan said.

City Council Chair Dale Hamilton, who described himself as a supporter of the Second Amendment, said he had concerns about any city declaring itself a sanctuary from federal law, whether the law pertains to immigration or the right to carry firearms.

It sets a dangerous precedent, Hamilton said. You cant decide when you want to be a sanctuary city and when you dont.

Other municipalities in Maine that have considered and approved similar resolutions against proposals that they say would violate the Second Amendment include Paris, Fort Fairfield and Van Buren.

Approximately 40 people weighed in on the debate during Monday nights meeting, either in person or by emailing comments to Hamilton that he read aloud, with sentiment on the resolution more or less evenly split.

John Linnehan told members of the council that each of them swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, while Gwen Clark said she wouldnt feel safe living in a city that didnt support the Second Amendment.

Todd Little-Siebold countered that drafting the city budget and managing the citys handling of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic are two far greater priorities for the council than trying to intervene in federal politics.

It is unnecessary and purely symbolic, Little-Siebold said. Keep your focus on local issues. Dont play into the gun lobby scare tactics.

Councilor Heather Grindle said she shares many of the concerns of people who do not want additional restrictions on gun ownership, but that she is hesitant to pick and choose which federal laws Ellsworth should single out for support. She also said she wanted to learn more about how the resolution might affect local law enforcement.

Im listening and I share your frustration, but Im not quite there yet, Grindle said.

Members of the council agreed that, whatever their vote was Monday on Kaplans proposal, they would be able to consider a similar declaration of support for gun ownership rights at a future meeting, if another proposal were submitted.

Read more here:
Ellsworth rejects bid to declare itself a Second Amendment sanctuary - Bangor Daily News

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

I have spent a lot of my lawyering years practicing and teaching civil rights. The Second Amendment is something I know a great deal about. That the Westmoreland County commissioners, or any county commissioners, should pass a resolution in support of the Second Amendment strikes me as a rather meretricious vote-fishing endeavor (Commissioners to declare Westmoreland a Second Amendment County in favor of gun rights, March 16, TribLIVE).

No government entity wants to take away anyones rights under the Second Amendment. What is at issue is the Second Amendments true and intended scope and reach. Its language is not absolute and never has been. Like all other amendments, it is subject to reasonable restrictions, and even Justice Antonin Scalia, considered by many to be the patron saint of gun lovers, acknowledged that such weapons as assault rifles could be lawfully banned.

Such silly resolutions as proposed by the county commissioners only serve to embolden the misguided who think that no one can constitutionally take away any of their beloved killing machines. Perhaps the commissioners would do well to think of how such meaningless resolutions only lather up the gun lovers mistaken Second Amendment notions rather than promote respect for the law and its real meanings.

David Millstein

Naples, Fla.

The writer is a Greensburg native.

Categories:Letters to the Editor | Opinion

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More Letters to the Editor Stories

More:
Letter to the editor: Commissioners misguided on gun-rights resolution - TribLIVE

CHEYENNE A Senate committee gave unanimous approval Wednesday to a bill aiming to protect Wyoming residents against potential federal overreach on gun regulations, despite some concerns from law enforcement officials regarding potential unintended effects of the legislation.

Titled the Second Amendment Preservation Act, Senate File 81 would deem invalid any federal laws or orders, including any gun taxes, confiscations, transfers or other regulations, that infringe on Wyoming residents ability to bear arms.

The bills primary sponsor, Sen. Anthony Bouchard, R-Cheyenne, explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee during its meeting Wednesday that his proposal was, in part, a response to the Biden administration taking over the countrys executive branch.

What were looking at here is the whole idea that we have a shift in Washington, and they actually want to use everything they can to go after our guns, Bouchard said.

The bill would also hold any law enforcement officer who knowingly deprives a Wyoming resident of their Second Amendment rights legally liable for such a violation, and it would remove qualified immunity, or protections that shield police and other government officials from lawsuits, under such violations included in the bill. That aspect of the bill drew significant concern from several law enforcement officials during the meeting Wednesday.

Law enforcement officials opposing the bill repeatedly emphasized their support for the Second Amendment and gun freedoms, but specific aspects of the bill gave them pause. Prior to the meeting, all 23 of Wyomings sheriffs had signed onto a letter raising concerns about the bill stripping qualified immunity under specific circumstances.

Sweetwater County Sheriff John Grossnickle told lawmakers that the qualified immunity portion of the bill would put Wyoming down the same path as those states of Washington and Oregon, in reference to states that have adopted tighter restrictions on law enforcement. The sheriff added that former President Donald Trump, who he described as one of the greatest supporters of law enforcement, would be opposed to such a measure.

The second half of this bill, which addresses law enforcement, contradicts everything that the former president stood for in regard to law enforcement, Grossnickle said. With that, I see that the hypocrisy of this bill actually knows no bounds, and, quite frankly, its a sad, sad day for law enforcement in the state of Wyoming if this bill proceeds the way it is.

Sheridan County Sheriff Allen Thompson recounted a recent case in a neighboring county in which some firearms were seized from fugitives, and the case was then turned over to federal entities for prosecution. Those instances are often beneficial to local law enforcement officials, Thompson said, as federal officials can take on cases that otherwise might be cost-prohibitive for local officials on their own.

What this bill does is really give a chilling effect to local law enforcement working at all with federal law enforcement, and, frankly, (it) would scare most officers and deputies into not seizing a firearm for any reason whatsoever, and sure as heck not talking to federal law enforcement about investigations, Thompson said.

Others questioned whether SF 81, which is similar to proposals enacted or being mulled in several other states, would be constitutional if enacted into law. Wyoming resident and attorney Linda Burt, who was a previous executive director of the ACLU of Wyoming, said the bill was absolutely unconstitutional, with substantial case law reaffirming that federal law takes precedence over state laws under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

During the meeting, Bouchard said he was opposed to broader efforts to repeal qualified immunity for law enforcement officials, calls that have grown among progressives following the wave of protests against police brutality that occurred last summer in the wake of the killing of George Floyd.

The Laramie County senator said he plans to introduce amendments to the bill that would shift the liability burden from individual officers to agencies for violations included in his bill, adding he would like to work with law enforcement officials to address their concerns. Bill co-sponsor Rep. Dan Laursen, R-Powell, said it was frustrating that the bill sponsors had reached out to sheriffs asking for amendments and received no response.

The bill was then advanced by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 5-0 vote. Senate File 81 will now head to the Senate floor for further consideration and debate.

Tom Coulter is the Wyoming Tribune Eagles state government reporter. He can be reached at tcoulter@wyomingnews.com or 307-633-3124. Follow him on Twitter at @tomcoulter_.

Go here to read the rest:
Second Amendment Preservation Act proposal advanced by legislative committee - Wyoming Tribune

SHAWANO, WI- The Shawano County Board will welcome in the community and take a vote on becoming a sanctuary county for the 2nd Amendment, or the Right to Bear Arms.

The issue has been a topic of discussion since last year when other counties in the state did the same. The resolution was brought before the Public Safety Committee last year, and has been on hold due to COVID-19.

It has been a whole year now, so it is time to make a move, County Board Chairman Tom Kautza said. It did pass through a committee and was moved to the full board so I always felt it deserves its day in front of the board.

The issue sparked some public comment at the committee meeting with people speaking on both sides of the issue. Kautza says it really just asks a question.

It would just confirm that we support the Second Amendment and the Constitution.

Shawano County Sheriff Adam Bieber has been asking for this vote to take place and says it is important not only that it passes, but who votes yes.

It reaffirms their commitment to uphold the Constitution and the oath that they took.

Bieber says to him, it does not stop with the 2nd Amendment.

I would like to see all of them vote yes on it and I would love another vote that would show support for the rest of the Bill of Rights. Nobody really knows where our representatives stand until they have to vote on something.

The vote will take place at the County Board meeting next Wednesday at 3:00pm. The meeting will take place at the County Board Room and the public is welcome to attend.

See the rest here:
2nd Amendment To Be Voted on In Shawano County - tchdailynews.com

Remove gun sanctuary resolution

Good morning, Tivertonians.

Many may not be aware that the prior Town Council majority members Robert Coulter, Justin Katz, Nancy Driggs and Donna Cook, jammed through a resolution giving gun owners and gun users even more rights beyond the Second Amendment.Did you know they made Tiverton a gun sanctuary town?Those four people declared on behalf of the entire town, in the name of your family and every family in town, that Tiverton declares its support of the Second Amendment and opposition to the infringement of the rights to bear arms. The protection of the Constitution already exists,what additional protection did they seek?That anyone at any time is able to carry loaded guns and ammunition in our schools or anywhere in town,and that they be ableto carry as many rounds of ammunition as they please to feed those assault rifles?

The current town resolution limits funding on police department ability to confiscate weapons, while insisting Tiverton Police exercise discretion in the enforcement of laws impacting the constitutional rights of citizens under the Second Amendment.Gun users are already protected by the Second Amendment.What about the protection of the rest of us?I urge the Tiverton Town Council to make Tiverton a sanctuary for all of us, not just gun users, and remove this disgraceful designation.

Susan Scanlon,Tiverton

Read the original:
OPINION/LETTER: Remove Tiverton gun sanctuary resolution - newportri.com

BAD AXE Last month, the Huron County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution acknowledging its support of the Second Amendment.

While more of a symbolic action affirming the citizens of Huron County have the right to bear arms, the resolution also cautions against any future legislation at both the state and federal levels that may potentially infringe on that right.

At this months meeting, the board heard from one resident that would like to see the county take further action by specifically addressing the countys position on what are known as red flag laws.

Red flag laws are laws allowing courts to prevent people who show signs of being a danger to themselves or to others from having access to firearms (as by ordering the seizure of weapons).

Today we have legislation disguised as laws that would make our land a safer place, they call these red flag laws, said Bad Axe resident Wendy Smith, reading from a letter she sent to each Huron County Commissioner for review. These laws do absolutely nothing to address the real problem that exists, which is mental health.

In almost every case where a gun has been used to commit a homicide, the person was found to be mentally unstable, a felon committing another felony or some else that, under our current laws, has no legal way to obtain a firearm. And yet each of these still do obtain a firearm. Another law on top of the other useless laws will not make Michigan or Huron County a safer place to live.

Smith said she circulated a petition throughout the county over the last month and collected a total of 1,465 signatures from other Huron County residents that vow to protect the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is the only right that has been under attack for the last 20 years, the letter states. 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 give us.

Smith went on to ask that commissioners pass another resolution that will allow the right of the countys law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

Pass a resolution that clearly upholds the Second Amendment in its entirety, she said in the letter. And lastly pass a resolution that shows your solidarity with the people with whom you were elected to serve.

Smith also obtained a letter of support of her cause from Huron County Prosecuting Attorney Timothy J. Rutkowski, which she also read to commissioners.

I strongly support the U.S. Constitution and all the amendments, including the Second Amendment, Rutkowski said in his letter. We must be true to our oaths of office and stand up in support of these rights for the residents of Huron County, Michigan and the United States. We must have the stamina, the courage, the creativity even on a local level to do what it takes to resist these efforts to strip of our rights, including our rights to bear arms.

Following Smiths presentation, Chairman Sami Khoury said he received an additional six or seven pages of signatures in support of the initiative.

Commissioner John Bodis suggested the countys corporation council and Safety Commission review the resolution, prior to it being presented at the following commissioners meeting. It was then forwarded on to the Safety Commission for review.

Here is the original post:
Commissioners hear from citizen wanting further support of Second Amendment in county | Huron County View - Browncitybanner