The Daily Caller.

An Oregon judge ruled Wednesday that local governments can not declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, further saying that the sheriffs that implemented a Second Amendment ordinance were embracing “racist and white nationalist ideologies.”

Chief Judge Jim Egan of the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the sheriffs did not have the authority to create sanctuaries that “create a ‘patchwork quilt’ of firearms laws in Oregon,” further saying that the sheriffs‘ arguments go in the “dustbin,” according to the ruling. Sheriffs in Oregon began to introduce Second Amendment sanctuaries after Oregon passed Ballot Measure 114, which requires background checks, firearm training, fingerprint collection and a permit to purchase any firearm.

“The arguments propounding unfettered access to guns, ammunitions, and implements of destruction give rise to waging of war on government because the proponents believe that our government is infected by those they hate,” Egan wrote. “As a judge, sworn to uphold the Oregon Constitution and the United States Constitution, I cannot stand by without identifying the origins of that argument, and the origins of the Ordinance. The history of white supremacist ideology in this country is older than the United States Constitution.”

Egan accused the Sheriffs’ counsel of alluding to conspiracy theories about the United Nations (UN), saying that their belief that the UN will impose mandates that will require the state and local government to disarm the American public in violation of the Second Amendment is false, according to the ruling.

“In other words, Intervenors came before this court and referenced UN mandates, which, as explained below, is a well-documented trope meant to invoke white supremacist, antisemitic fear of a takeover of our country by outsiders and minorities who are manipulated by an elite class of supervillains,” Egan wrote.

Gun Owners of America (GOA), who backed the sanctuaries, “forcefully” denied the characterization of their argument, according to Fox News.

Fox News remarks that “The Court of Appeals ruling marks the first major legal defeat for the Second Amendment sanctuary movement.”

Oh goodness, I think this is being over-dramatized a wee bit, don’t you?  Nobody who advocated 2A sanctuary counties ever believed that this would all go peacefully into the night and go down without a fight.

Read the opinion of judge J. Egan, whomever that is and for what it’s worth.  It reads like a freshman paper for sociology 101 at a local yokel community college.  It really isn’t worthy of the time to fisk it.

Here is what you do with rulings like this.  You don’t respond because that gives the ruling publicity it doesn’t deserve.  You ignore it.  If pressed, you ask the judiciary where they’re going to get law enforcement to enforce their ruling?

The Sheriffs are elected.  They are elected to keep the peace, leave peaceable men alone to their pursuits, and honor the oaths they swore to obey the constitution and laws of God.  They don’t have to enforce any laws that break that covenant.

The judge can go pound sand.  He’s just a carnival barker.

SanctuaryCounties.com.

Be it enacted by the Newton County Missouri Commission as follows: All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations passed by the Federal Government and specifically any Presidential Administration whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in the county, shall not be recognized by this county, and specifically rejected by this county, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this county.

(1) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include but are not limited to:

(a) Any tax levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(b) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(c) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(d) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens;

(e) And finally, any act whether past, present, or future passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by the Federal Government and specifically any Presidential Administration which infringes on the people’s right to keep and bear arms in Newton County Missouri shall be considered null and void in the county, and not recognized by this county. Current House bills include but are not limited to: H.R. 30, H.R. 38, H.R. 121, H.R. 137, and H.R. 167 those bills if past are null and void, and not recognized by Newton County Missouri, any past, present, or future bill passed by the United States Congress will be null and void, and not recognized by Newton County Missouri;

(2) Newton County Missouri declares that it must be the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms and that no person, including a public officer or county employee of this county or any political subdivision of this county, can have authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal laws, orders, or rules infringing on the right to keep and bear arms;

(3) Newton County Missouri declares that any person while acting as an official, agent, employee, or deputy of the United States Government who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements identified in this ordinance or gives material aid and support to the efforts of others who enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringements identified in this ordinance may be permanently ineligible to be hired as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers in the county or exceeds the authority of the Newton County Missouri Commission;

(a) There will be an exception made for Newton County Missouri local deputies and sheriffs, they shall and will not be held liable to this ordinance when assisting any and all federal agents in the arrests of suspected criminals;

(4) Any and all federal agents trying to enforce the regulations listed in Section (1) shall be subject to arrest by the Newton County Missouri Sheriff’s Department;

(a) The Newton County Missouri Sheriffs Department shall be given the full authority to make an arrest of any and all federal agents that violate state laws and enforce the regulations listed in Section (1);

(5) This ordinance will be known and cited as the “Second Amendment Preservation Act of Newton County Missouri”.

Regular readers know that I’ve long said that a prohibition on the participation of local law enforcement in confiscatory policies isn’t enough.  For it to be effective, any resolution MUST ensure that any agent of the federal government attempting to do the same be subject to immediate arrest.

It sounds pretty good, right up until the last part.

It shall be the duty of the Sheriff of Anderson County to determine whether or any federal or state regulation of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition violates section (a) herein; provided, however, that nothing contained herein prevents the Anderson County Sheriff from enforcing any federal or state law found to be constitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction.

You see, there’s the rub.  The .gov will always be able to find a corrupt judge who will say just about anything is constitutional and righteous when it is neither.

Therefore, the resolution is toothless.  The good people of Anderson County should remedy this situation by [1] throwing the bums out, and [2] crafting a resolution that is not obviously written by the county attorney.

News from Lumberton, N.C.

LUMBERTON — A resolution in support of the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment right to bear arms was approved by the Robeson County Board Commissioners Monday by a vote of 6-1 after hearing from state Sen. Danny Britt Jr. and Rep. Brenden Jones.

“The Second Amendment right to bear arms is under attack,” said Britt, a Republican from Lumberton. “Illegal use of guns is not a reason to take away the legitimate constitutional rights of citizens to bear arms.

“I have heard from many folks in Robeson County on this issue. We ask that you oppose any efforts to restrict those rights and to reject any law that adds a burden on the Second Amendment.”

Rep. Jones, a Republican from Tabor City, said pending legislation in Virginia to ban assault weapons and require background checks on all gun purchases is a part of the “war” on the Constitution. He said Robeson will be the first county in Southeastern North Carolina to adopt the so-called gun sanctuary resolution, and Columbus and Bladen counties are poised to follow.

“Once a right is lost, we can never get it back,” Jones said. “We are one election, one court decision away from losing those rights.”

Presented with four options, the commissioners selected the first. It includes language to support the denial of access to a gun by court order, County Attorney Rob Davis said.

Commissioner Jerry Stephens was the lone dissenting vote. He said the commissioners already have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the state of North Carolina, and this resolution makes it seem like the commissioners don’t uphold the Constitution.

“Why did you come without public in support of this resolution?” Stephens asked Sen. Britt. “How may folks contacted you, two or three or 20?

“I have not gotten the first call. You called it a war, but I haven’t heard about any war.”

Commissioner Pauline Campbell asked why there is a “rush” to adopt the resolution.

“You should not feel rushed if you support the Second Amendment,” Britt said.

Campbell replied, “I fully support the Constitution and the laws of North Carolina and swore an oath affirming that.”

The resolution is a symbolic one, as Davis noted that if North Carolina passes a law on gun ownership, Robeson County has no option but to enforce it.

“This board is not a judicial body that can reject a law on constitutional grounds,” Davis said.

“All this means is we are going to support the Constitution,” Commissioner Raymond Cummings said.

What a weak-kneed, panty-waist statement by a bunch of quisling cowards.

“Symbolic.”  Backpedaling as he goes.

“This board is not a judicial body that can reject a law on constitutional grounds.”  Or in other words, “We’re not the almighty’s judiciary high priesthood in black robes and we can’t reject something our betters and superiors did.  Excuses not to do it.

“All this means is we are going to support the Constitution” (more watering down), so finally they found the gumption to pass a watered down resolution that, listen closely, “includes language to support the denial of access to a gun by court order.”

So in other words, their very 2A resolution includes support for “red flag orders,” the most unconstitutional of all gun control laws.

As I’ve said, these resolutions hold all of the power that the commissioners, Sheriffs and various county and local militias vest in them and are willing to back up with force, not one iota more, not one iota less.

In one case, a county may restrict their own budgets from being used for enforcement of these laws, combined with intent, determination, training, organization and willingness to prevent agents of the state and FedGov from enforcing those same laws.  This is the strongest example.  It’s for real men, those with spine, spirit and character.

The next is a mealy-mouthed statement of support combined with directions not to use county funds to enforce said laws.  This is the next strongest resolution, a weak one at best.  This is for the weak and terrified among us.

The third case is a statement of support, combined with an acquiescence to red flag laws right out of the gate, with an understanding that the whole thing is merely symbolic.  This is for communists.

So Robeson County declared itself to be a 2A sanctuary, but we know it’s a lie, so the good thing about this is that the good people of that county now know who to throw to the curb, and how to do it.

One of the great things about this whole process is that the communists have a chance to self-identify.  They can hide their intentions, but in this case they’ve made no attempt whatsoever at hiding the fact that they are quislings and traitors.

When a state senator and representative speak in such stark and honest terms and a board of local nitwits can’t even bring themselves to show backbone, it’s time to tell them to get lost.

Do I have readers in this AO?

Haywood County, North Carolina, is considering a second amendment sanctuary resolution.  Collectivists are everywhere, even in the mountains of North Carolina.

Sometimes when the topic of gun rights comes up, people pick a side and put blinders on. In general there seems to be no room for compromise, let alone any listening with an open mind to what someone from the opposite side has to say.

But like in so many other ways, Haywood County is a special place where people find ways to overcome obstacles and work through issues.

That was on full display Tuesday evening when the county commissioner meeting room in the Historic Courthouse was jam-packed with people — most of whom were speaking up during a public comment session to ask that Haywood become a gun sanctuary county.

This is when a state or local government body passes a resolution indicating their support for the Second Amendment. Some resolutions resolve to not enforce gun control measures county leaders perceive as violating Second Amendment rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

There were about three dozen speakers, with the vast majority urging the commissioners to become a gun sanctuary county.

But there was a moment in the meeting when views seemed to soften just a bit. All in the room gave Haywood native Natalie Henry Howell a standing ovation when she asked for consideration of two gun control measures that may have saved the life of her son, Riley, who died during a school shooting at UNC-Charlotte after tackling the shooter and saving who knows how many other lives.

Riley was shot with rounds 13 through 18 from an extended magazine by a person with diminished mental capacity who should never have been able to own a gun, Howell told the crowd.

“I just want us to give some careful thought on whether or not that’s something we want out there,” Howell said. “The other thing I’d like to give careful thought to is tighter background checks, because I’m not real sure I understand why someone who says they want responsible gun ownership wouldn’t be for background checks that are thorough.”

The Howell family has long made it clear that Riley enjoyed target practice and that their stance is not to undermine the Second Amendment.

“We are not saying no to guns. There are just some things we can and need to do better,” Howell said in an earlier interview. “I hear people say ‘This won’t help’ or ‘That won’t help’ and I say ‘Well, OK, no single measure will end this gun violence epidemic, but it’s a start and will save lives.’”

Ironically, many of the Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions adopted by state or local government bodies advocate not enforcing laws viewed as limiting gun rights in any way. The wording raises questions.

Many speaking at the commissioner meeting said the resolution simply sends a message of support for Second Amendment rights, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that — or with expanding that message to include all the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. But as always, the devil is in the details.

[ … ]

Would a sanctuary resolution raise questions about laws passed by duly elected state and federal governing bodies, but not adjudicated through the court? What about laws upheld by our court system such as prohibiting felons from owning a gun or background checks?

Messages can be sent in multiple ways. There are risks to adopting a resolution worded in a way that could put locally elected officials in a position of picking and choosing what laws to enforce, which should be downright scary to those who believe in our form of government here in the United States. Additionally, withholding county resources from enforcing certain laws, as some of the gun sanctuary resolutions suggest, could set the county up for a lawsuit.

The commissioners all voiced support for gun rights, and all of them indicated they are gun users. They also indicated they are willing to adopt something, but want to be careful of how it is worded.

Well now, this is rich in detail, yes?  I think we all needed to know these things and I see her commentary as profoundly helpful.

The Howell family’s argument is an appeal to emotion, an attempt to garner sympathy from their tragic loss, and (the way I look at it) an inappropriate appeal to the life of their son.  Riley was “shot with rounds 13 through 18 from an extended magazine by a person with diminished mental capacity who should never have been able to own a gun.”

So we might point out that Riley could have been killed with a single round, and thus there is no difference between a single shot rifle and any other.  Furthermore, it would have been better for Riley, despite his heroic actions, to have been armed.  Rather than lobbying for limitations on magazine capacity, she should have been arguing against “gun-free” zones, which are never really free of guns, just free of gun-carrying law abiding citizens.

But more to the point, this isn’t in the least related to the resolution before the County Commissioners.  It’s a misdirect.  The task before them is to adopt the second amendment sanctuary resolution or reject it.  To that issue, I’d like to make some observations (and send this to each member of the county board of commissioners).  The board is made up of Kevin Ensley, Brandon C. Rogers, J. W. “Kirk” Kirkpatrick III, Tommy Long, and Mark Pless.

This is no small matter you’re taking up.  If you’re scared of lawsuits and things not being adjudicated through the courts, you need a gut check and review of your world and life view rather than a vote on this resolution.    Passing this resolution with the thought that you’re making some sort of “symbolic statement” is not just dishonest, but dangerous.

These sorts of resolutions have been passed before in various places, only to later learn that the county wasn’t serious about them and had no intention of using assets to enforce them, with the result that county residents who believed them were taken before federal courts for violating laws governing things like ownership of suppressors without having submitted approval to the ATF.

It is the worst sort of thing you can do, to set up your constituency for failure because they believed you, when you were actually making “statements,” or worse, telling lies for the sake of convenience or reelection.  You see, this resolution is before you because your constituency knows that the second amendment is under attack.  Adjudication through the courts has helped to get us where we are today rather than stopping or slowing it.

When the second amendment resolution passed in Lincoln County, the chairman of the board of commissioners said “If the state or even the federal government comes down with additional regulations, it’s gonna say that Lincoln County is not gonna come forth with that and it’s gonna be hard to take guns in Lincoln County.”  And said this: “If it comes to pass that they want to infringe upon the people’s rights to carry guns, it’s going to be a bad day for somebody.”

It sounds to me like she’s serious and knows what she believes.  Sheriff Mack, founder and president of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, had this to say about things.

“A lot of those sanctuary cities and counties across the country don’t go far enough,” said Mack. “What do you do if they still come in and try to take law abiding citizens’ guns? [The sheriffs] need to actually intervene and interpose and not let it happen.”

You see, people like this are committed.  They know that the board of county commissioners must be on the side of liberty.  They know that the Sheriff and his deputies must be in agreement, and they know that the county attorney must also be on board.  Otherwise, it’s like the opinion pages of the Greensboro News & Record, saying, “To a large degree, these resolutions are harmless. They break no laws, nor do they change any laws. If they provide some degree of comfort to local residents, more power to them. Gun violence is regularly in the news these days, and we could all use a little comforting.”

If you see yourself as passing “harmless resolutions that comfort people,” then you should stand down now.  But if you see yourselves as an essential cog in the liberty machinery of America, and are seriously committed to the fight, I commend this resolution to you.

Either way, as long as you’re being honest about things, my readers in your county will know where you stand.

UPDATE: Gaston County, N.C., is also considering a 2A resolution soon.  I just penned a letter to them, encouraging their acceptance of the resolution, but with the same stipulations of seriousness.

UPDATE #2:  Mr. Tracy Philbeck, Chairman of the Gaston County Board of Commissioners, sends this article in response.

From Wiki page.

Lots of reference URLs at the link.

Now.  The trick here isn’t just to get the resolutions passed.  The picture above is just a map, nothing more, nothing less.  That’s only the first step.  Those counties and states have the framework of the law within which to work.  The next steps are harder and will require work.

You must get the county commissioners on your side.  You must get the Sheriff and his Deputies on your side.  And you must get the county commissioners on your side.

You must make sure they see their resolutions this way.

Mack is founder and president of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, and gained prominence in the 1990s. He was a plaintiff in a successful lawsuit resisting requirements that law enforcement perform background checks on gun buyers as originally intended by the Clinton-era Brady Bill. He says he’s in touch with some of the sheriffs supporting Second Amendment sanctuaries today.

“A lot of those sanctuary cities and counties across the country don’t go far enough,” said Mack. “What do you do if they still come in and try to take law abiding citizens’ guns? [The sheriffs] need to actually intervene and interpose and not let it happen.”

That, combined with determined, trained, physically fit and well-armed and well-equipped militia determined and committed to the fight, should do the trick.

When agents of the state cross county lines to arrest people for state firearms violations, they are promptly arrested by militia, turned over to the county Sheriff, and thrown in jail for several months along with the drunks, abusers, thieves and murderers.  Weapons will be confiscated and split between militia and Sheriff’s department, vehicles and other equipment will be confiscated, and a permanent record of felonious criminal activity will be put on file for the state agents.

If there is a battle to be waged, let it be won.