Category Archives: Second Amendment

Followed by a round of applause by residents,the Crawford County Quorum Court passed an ordinance Tuesday securing the Second Amendment rights of the county by a 12-0 vote.

A piece of the ordinance says the county will treat any act of the Arkansas Legislature that abrogates the Second Amendment as void and unenforceable in Crawford County.

Crawford County is now the third county in Arkansas to become a "Second Amendment County." Scott County approved a similar ordinance in 2020 followed by Independence County that same year.Thesame ordinance failed when voted on in Sebastian County in June of last year.

During the February Crawford County Quorum Court meeting, a group of residentsrequested court draft a Second Amendment sanctuary ordinance. Justice Jayson Peppas chose to sponsor the measure.

The ordinance was brought to the table during the March 15 meeting.

Ordinance 2021-19 states, "Crawford County residents have a long-standing belief in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Rights in the Arkansas Constitution."

According to the ordinance, there is a community perception that individual liberty rights, particularly the right to bear arms, are under attack.

During the February meeting, county resident Steve Whitlock referenced President Joe Bidens's call on Congress to enact stricter gun laws. These proposed laws include comprehensive background checks on all gun sales, banning some weaponsand high-capacity magazines.

"I am thrilled that the vote was unanimous and not vetoed," Peppas said. "The community initiated this and then provided great support."

There are seven sections within the ordinance that lay the groundwork for the county's position moving forward.

The first is that Crawford County is now declared a "Second Amendment County."Second, the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution, and county officials shall uphold each and every provision of the Bill of Rights. Third, unconstitutional laws are void.

The county will treat any act of the Arkansas Legislature that abrogates the Second Amendment as void and unenforceable in Crawford County.

Fourth, the ordinance states that liberty rightsbelong to the people.

The ordinance states, "Crawford County officials and employees shall neither interpret nor construe any legislation in any manner that would deny or disparage the Bill of Rights."

The fifth section details that liberty rights shall forever remain inviolate. The section states that individual liberty rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the Arkansas Declaration of rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, are excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

The sixth, says that Crawford County officials and employees shall use the county's state political subdivision police power as is necessary and constitutionally justified, and complies with the requirements of due process.

In the event that a person feels that their right to keep and bears arms has been violated, the seventh section states that they may seek redress through the civil process.

More:
Crawford County becomes third county in Arkansas to pass a Second Amendment rights ordinance - Van Buren Press Argus-Courier

Mar. 20MORGANTOWN The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill Friday morning aimed at protecting the state from federal gun control overreach, but law enforcement expressed worries that the bill could hamper task force efforts to fight crime.

HB 2694 is called the Second Amendment Preservation Act. It says no state agency, political subdivision or an employee of either of those acting in an official capacity may "knowingly and willingly participate in any way in the enforcement of any federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation regarding a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition if the act, law, order, rule, or regulation does not exist under the laws of this state."

It also bars use of public funds for the purposes mentioned.

A committee substitute removed criminal penalties described in the introduced version and included exceptions for multi-agency task force investigations of drug crimes and for violations of federal law detected during unrelated law enforcement activity.

The bill requires the attorney general to publish model policies for guidance.

Delegates peppered committee counsel with various hypothetical "what if " questions. They learned that if the FBI arrested someone participating in a US Capitol insurrection who carried a gun, the bill could prohibit the suspect from being housed in a state jail. It could also limit cooperation in extradition cases where the suspect flees to West Virginia.

Problems begin to arise, they learned, because state firearms laws do not mirror in every respect federal laws and most firearms cases in West Virginia involve federal law.

Adam Crawford, a Kanawha County deputy and detective, spoke for the Fraternal Order of Police about their issues, "We understand the concerns and fears of potential federal overreach, " he said. The problem is that federal firearms law are often used to put criminals away. There's frequent "bleedover " between drugs, guns, money and violent crimes, he said.

Story continues

"It's hard to limit and restrict how police work functions, " he said. The bill might let violent criminals walk because police can't assist in federal firearms violations.

"It's just unclear to us why this is getting mixed in. With all these other issues we have, " he said.

Many federal crimes carry stiffer penalties that state crimes, Crawford said, and task forces will often use them to put the criminals away longer.

West Virginia police, he said, often make use of the National Integrated Ballistics Network to investigate local shootings where there are difficulties, such as lack of witness cooperation, and submit information to NIBN and find that the gun was used in a different shooting. The bill could hamper such use of federal databases. "The biggest fear I have is it's going to cease a lot of the cooperation we have."

Pressed by bill supporters about whether the added exception offered reassurance on his concerns, Crawford said his questions remain.

Crawford's doubt weren't sufficient to sway the supporters and the bill passed in a voice vote. It heads to the House floor.

Tweet David Beard @dbeardtdp Email dbeard @dominionpost.com

Read the original here:
House Judiciary OKs 2nd Amendment bill; law enforcement worries it may hamper cooperation with feds - Yahoo News

1. Senate declares Oklahoma a Second Amendment Sanctuary state  KOKH FOX25
2. Senate approves measure declaring Oklahoma as 'Second Amendment Sanctuary' state  KOCO Oklahoma City
3. Oklahoma State Senate passes bill declaring Oklahoma Second Amendment Sanctuary State  KFOR Oklahoma City
4. Second Amendment Sanctuary State Act passes in Senate  Journal Record
5. State Senate advances bills that would make Oklahoma a 'Second Amendment Sanctuary State' and would expand gun rights in bars, in vehicles and while at work  KPVI News 6
6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Originally posted here:
Senate declares Oklahoma a Second Amendment Sanctuary state - KOKH FOX25

A new ordinance regarding the preservation of the second amendment was passed in Stark County last week.

Ken Zander, Stark County Commissioner, said, As you know theres a lot of politics involved in gun rights, gun ownership. The Second Amendment is constantly on the national news. People, not only in Stark County, but across this country that are gun enthusiasts, or not, or are hunters or just enjoy having a firearm are feeling threatened.

He feels that this ordinance will ease the mind of those feeling threatened.

The ordinance was introduced by Dickinson business owner Andrew Kordonowy, known as Kord.

He said, I had a person in the community find this legislation that passed in Newton County, MO.I thought it would be something similar that we should have done in Stark County being as we are such a guns rights county.

This ordinance will exempt Stark County from Second Amendment infringements including any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

Stark County Sheriff Corey Lee says its just a part of the job.

As a sheriff, your duties are to protect life, liberty and property, and so obviously the Second Amendment, all of the constitution falls under liberty and thats all a part of what we do, Lee said.

Not everyone agrees with the legislation, though.

Former U.S. Attorney Tim Purdon disagrees and says it is not only illegal but a slap in the face to federal law enforcement.

Theres no question in my mind that if this illegal ordinance stays on the books, federal agents will not be assisting local law enforcement in the investigation of organized crime, Purdon said.

He goes on to cite Article VI of the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution Article VI, the supremacy clause, says acts of Congress are the law of the land, he said.

When asked about gun control acts passed by Congress, Kordonowy said this: Government is instilled to preserve our rights, not to regulate them.

Commissioner Zander says he believes that federal funding will not be cut off after passing this ordinance, but they are willing to make necessary changes to come to an agreement.

See the article here:
Stark County passes ordinance protecting Second Amendment rights - KX NEWS

ROCK SPRINGS Sweetwater County Sheriff John Grossnickle said he wholeheartedly supports the Second Amendment Preservations goal to prevent Wyoming peace officers from confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens at the whim of the far-left in Washington, D.C. However, he is worried about problematic wording that he thinks could have unintended consequences that hinder law enforcement.

State lawmakers have expressed concerns that leadership and policy changes at the federal level could lead to guns being taken away from Wyoming residents. In response, versions of the act have been filed in the State House and State Senate. Sheriff Grossnickle said he would not enforce a federal mandate to take firearms from law-abiding residents.

My obligation is to enforce state law. As peace officers, our oath of office also mandates that we support, obey and defend the United States and Wyoming constitutions. In doing our job and defending both of these revered documents, I hold as absolute the right of law-abiding Wyoming citizens to keep and bear arms. I believe any attempt by the federal government to use Wyoming peace officers to infringe upon this inalienable right under the guise of federal law is treasonous and unconstitutional, Grossnickle said.

However, he is also seriously troubled by some of the ambiguous language contained in the legislation as proposed and introduced in both the state House and Senate.

Both bills declare that no person, including Wyoming peace officers, shall have the authority to enforce any federal law that infringes upon a persons right to keep and bear arms, the sheriff said. These bills also demand that anyone who knowingly violates this by depriving a Wyoming resident of their Second Amendment rights shall be held personally liable and made permanently ineligible to serve as a peace officer in Wyoming.

He said he believes the implications of these provisions as written are problematic at best.

In practice, it is commonplace for a peace officer to temporarily seize a firearm as potential evidence in a suspected crime. Under this legislation, if the gun owner is ultimately not formally charged with a crime or acquitted in court, then the person remains by definition a law-abiding citizen and the investigating deputy who seized the firearm has violated the law, he said.

As it stood on Friday, the sheriff noted that the law protects peace officers from being held personally liable for unknowingly violating someones rights or while acting in good faith in the performance of their official duties.

This legislation strips our officers of that protection. So, even if an officer is acting in good faith, or even has probable cause to arrest someone, if for whatever reason, the suspect is not ultimately convicted of a crime and a firearm was seized through the course of investigation, that officer would now lose their job, be held personally liable in court and be ineligible to ever again serve as a peace officer in the state of Wyoming, he said.

The sheriff said he knows without doubt that this was not the intent of this legislations authors to stranglehold Wyoming law enforcement, but this is what would happen if the bill is passed as written.

I believe these are the potential unintended consequences of a poorly worded bill uninformed by the expertise of our states law enforcement and criminal justice professionals, he said. The reality is that this legislation as written actually inhibits law enforcement from doing our job and paints our states peace officers into a proverbial corner by making them reluctant to ever seize a firearm under any circumstance or in any case or investigation out fear of making a career-ending decision and risking their entire livelihoods.

The sheriff said he has been in touch with a number of state legislators, including several co-sponsors of these bills, and expressed his concerns about this proposed legislation as currently written.

I intend to continue those meaningful discussions in an effort to ensure that this important piece of legislation represents a collective effort to stymie overreach by the federal government while continuing to protect the constitutional responsibilities and liberties of Wyoming law enforcement and the citizens we serve, he said.

Asked about the likelihood of the federal government passing laws that lead to firearms being confiscated by federal entities, the sheriff said he wasnt sure.

Honestly, these days the batteries in my crystal ball are dead, and your guess is as good as mine, although I expect given the partisan makeup of the U.S. Congress that the House of Representatives will continue to have its way with its progressive social justice agenda while the Senate will continue to act as gatekeeper to their unabatedly outlandish encroachments on our civil liberties as American citizens, he said.

Go here to read the rest:
Sweetwater County sheriff says problematic Second Amendment bill could limit officers - Wyoming Tribune

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