OTC board talks open forum, 2nd Amendment sanctuary not discussed – Southernminn.com

Disappointment was in the air Tuesday following the public portion of theOtter Tail County Board of Commissioners meeting.

The majority of 50-odd people who packed the board room had hopes of establishing a dialogue with the board on the issue of making Otter Tail County a Second Amendment sanctuary.

A Second Amendment sanctuary is a term adopted by some states, counties or localities that have adopted resolutions to prohibit the enforcement of gun control measures such as universal gun background checks, high-capacity magazinebans, assault weapon bans and red flag laws.

A county press release issued last Thursday made it clear that Tuesdays meeting of the board would not include a Second Amendment sanctuary discussion and would not accept public comment - despite social media posts suggesting otherwise.

According to county public information officer, Shannon Terry the only commitment to a discussion being added to the Feb. 25 agenda was a verbal one. It was not published and was quickly rescinded when it was discovered the issue was still before a subcommittee.

A county constituent requested at the Jan. 7 board meeting that the commissioners consider a resolution declaring Otter Tail County a Second Amendment sanctuary.

According to a county news release, the board gave strong support to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution at that meeting and referred the request to staff for further research.

At the boards Jan. 28 meeting outgoing county administrator, John Dinsmore turned over an updated request to the boards internal services committee.

Guided by Otter Tail County Attorney Michelle Eldien and Sheriff Barry Fitzgibbons, Dinsmore recommended the board delay immediate action. The recommendation was based on four points - one pertaining to the legality of such a resolution and another to actions which the state of Minnesota and other local units of state government are considering. The recommendation was accepted by the committee.

At Tuesdays meeting county administrator, Nicole Hansen brought up the idea of holding an open forum before board meetings.

In addressing the board Hansen referred to Minnesotas Open Meeting Law which in general establishes the publics right to attend meetings but does not guarantee it a right to speak.

An open forum is a dedicated time for the public to address the board regarding county business.

Hansen outlined the role of the county board under state statute along with its obligations.

As part of that we talked about ,should we be adding an open forum discussion to our regular agenda so any citizen can ask to submit a request to come in and be given however many minutes the board wants to designate to talk about whatever issue that might be talked about? Something they want the board to hear about.

Hansen suggested a possible course of action for open forum comments - that requests for open forum time be made by noon on the Monday before a board meeting along with the name of the person making the request and topic. They would also have to adhere to the amount of time they were given to speak.

Commissioners Wayne Johnson, Betty Murphy and Lee Rogness had questions for Hansen that pertained to the open forum issue.

Johnson asked Hansen if staff could have a proposed style for an open forum resolution ready for discussion and a vote ready by March 3.

I would suggest that we have already done a lot of work on this and by March 10 we might be able to have the information online, Hansen said.

Rogness asked for a consensus from the board to which Johnson replied: I move that staff establish and implement a dedicated time for the public to address the board regarding county business as recommended by MCIT (Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust).

The motion was seconded by Commissioner John Lindquist and the proposal was approved unanimously by the board.

John Rehborg was one constituent that was definitely not pleased with the proceedings Tuesday morning.

They (expletive) us all, he said. Right along with when they did their refugee vote which nobody cared about and I think every one of them should be voted out of office.

A short time later Rehborg ran into an old classmate who shared some of his feelings.

I would like them to make some type of resolution, said Steve Huddleston, who also looked for some action on the Second Amendment sanctuary question. I think Otter Tail County needs to stand up and say Hey red flag laws and total background checks ...what that means is that if John and I are out deer hunting I cant even legally hand him my rifle while I gut out a deer without an FFL (Federal Firearms License) because wed both become felons.

The Minnesota Constitution does not contain a provision regarding a right to bear arms and the state Supreme Court has ruled that even if such a right existed it would not be absolute.

The Minnesota State is going against the Constitution, Rehborg said.

The Minnesota Legislature has also not voted on a red flag law which authorize courts to issue a special type of protection order, allowing the police to temporarily confiscate firearms from people who are deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves or to others.

Following the meeting one onlooker pointed out his belief that 80% of the people in attendance were there because of the Second Amendment sanctuary proposal and expressed regret that the board allowed no one to address it, even during a short period of general discussion.

Continue reading here:
OTC board talks open forum, 2nd Amendment sanctuary not discussed - Southernminn.com