Doing Second Amendment Sanctuary The Wrong Way
BY Herschel Smith
3 years, 7 months ago
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — The first court test of whether local governments can ban police from enforcing certain gun laws is playing out in a rural Oregon county, one of a wave of U.S. counties declaring itself a Second Amendment sanctuary.
The measure that voters in the logging area of Columbia County narrowly approved last year forbids local officials from enforcing most federal and state gun laws and could impose thousands of dollars in fines on those who try.
Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions have been adopted by some 1,200 local governments in states around the U.S., including Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Illinois and Florida, according to Shawn Fields, an assistant professor of law at Campbell University who tracks them. Many are symbolic, but some, like in Columbia County, carry legal force.
[ … ]
The movement hasn’t yet faced a major legal challenge. The Oregon case was filed by Columbia County under an unusual provision in state law that allows a judge to examine a measure before it goes into effect. No timeline has been set for a court hearing.
“This will allow the court to tell us whether the county can actually decline to enforce certain state laws, and it will tell us how to abide by the will of the voters to the extent that we can,” said Sarah Hanson, who serves as counsel in the conservative-leaning county in deep-blue Oregon.
Prediction: they will lose. Second observation: they have absolutely no concept of what it means to have been declared a second amendment sanctuary.
There will never be a single court ruling in favor of refusal to enforce federal or state gun control laws, and especially not the concept of legal penalties for those who do said enforcement.
That’s not the idea behind second amendment sanctuaries. The idea is that the power of the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO, usually the county Sheriff along with his deputies) and if necessary, aided by the unorganized militia, to enforce by power of arms the will of the people as it pertains to gun control laws.
That is, you don’t ask permission of the courts. Court rulings are irrelevant in this schema. The mere asking of the court proves that the county officials aren’t taking this seriously, and the fact that the request has been made proves that there is no understanding of what has taken place.
This entire episode completely turns things on its head.
On May 18, 2021 at 10:10 pm, Jim Wiseman said:
My NC county commissioners declared my county a 2A Sanctuary, after the Sheriff stressed that it wouldn’t change anything. The crowd in attendance cheered anyway. I rolled my eyes. The NoGuns stickers are still on the doors of the county offices.
On May 19, 2021 at 6:59 am, Matt said:
“ The idea is that the power of the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO, usually the county Sheriff along with his deputies) and if necessary, aided by the unorganized militia, to enforce by power of arms the will of the people as it pertains to gun control laws.
That is, you don’t ask permission of the courts. Court rulings are irrelevant in this schema.”
Ah, how refreshing, someone (else) who actually gets it. Freedom and Liberty are not privileges granted by govt. and subject to permission. People need to understand, or as you like to say GROK this concept and start applying it to many more areas we’ve allowed intrusion.
I read a blog piece on another NC based blog site with the name renegade in its title about getting a couple of quarters back as change and the clerk noticed a pre 1964 silver quarter and thought it was counterfeit. The blogger then tied this concept to that if in 57 years people have forgotten what true money is that it’s understandable that they’ve forgotten what liberty means in 233 years.
On May 22, 2021 at 2:45 pm, Hudson H Luce said:
Law enforcement – at least local – is under the control of some elected body – or, in the case of sheriffs – are elected themselves. In the North Carolina case, it looks like they need to elect themselves a new sheriff. If county commissioners make such a declaration and the sheriff indicates that he will not abide by it, that’s insubordination, and that officer should be removed from office for cause. As for the “no guns” stickers, that’s more open insubordination, and perhaps a Hatch Act violation.
On May 22, 2021 at 3:06 pm, Hudson H Luce said:
And that Oregon ordinance is fake ab initio, it is a request for a declarative opinion by a court, and courts will generally toss that sort of thing, since there is no injury in fact or imminent, no injured party or imminently injured party, and no remedy that a court can order. If the county wishes to order its law enforcement to set priorities in a certain way, it’s within the power of the county to do so – law enforcement’s sole legal duty is to protect and serve the government, only secondarily individual citizens or groups of citizens. They might be better off by abolishing most police, since by law the responsibility for self-defense against crime is the responsibility of the citizens – that’s the Public Duty Doctrine – and let the sheriff assume his historical role as officer of the court in serving process, holding accused and convicted persons in custody, and delivering them to the court for adjudication.