Voters in four Oregon counties will decide today whether or not their towns will join the swelling ranks of the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, in an election-year test of the resolutions and ordinances that have been approved by hundreds of cities and counties across the country over the past two years.
Clatsop, Coos, Columbia, and Umatilla counties are holding voter referendums that will decide the passage or defeat of a Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance that would, in the words of supporters, ” impose a directive ordering that the County government SHALL NOT use any county resources or employees to enforce state or federal regulations concerning firearms and firearm accessories.”
Any county agency or employee found guilty of violating the law would face a Class A violation, plus a $2000 fine for the employee, $4000 for the offending agency.
The SASO defends the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It employs the idea of “Shall not be infringed” by eliminating local enforcement of the many state and federal restrictions limiting the ability of individuals to protect themselves, their families, and others.
Rob Taylor, chairman of the Committee to Protect the Second Amendment, which has been pushing for the referendums, says that the ordinance up for a vote today has far more teeth to it than many of the Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions that have been adopted in states like Illinois, New Mexico, and Virginia.
The SASO is unique in the fact that it differentiates itself from the feckless resolutions other counties in other states have enacted. The ordinance would punish local government officials who have violated an individual’s Second Amendment rights, which would challenge the practice of “qualified immunity.” Politicians would have to pay for committing unconstitutional crimes and ignoring their Oaths of Office.
Currently, there is a growing trend of defunding the police, disarming the citizens, and discharging the criminals, which will only result in an exponential wave of crime and death unless the electorate is willing to act. A more ominously twisted aspect is that District Attorneys are now charging citizens with crimes for using firearms and other weapons to defend their lives, homes, and property from the mob.
We the people are the last line of defense against anarchy and lawlessness. We must be willing to defend our cities and counties from criminals, looters, rioters, and unethical politicians with the protections and values enumerated in the US Constitution.
The votes in Oregon will be a true test of grassroots support for the issue, with many local officials opposed to the language of the ordinance, which they say is unenforceable and would be subject to a court challenge if approved. Given the rural and conservative bent of the counties, I think the measures stand a good chance of winning over voters, and the referendums are likely to draw at least some support from non-gun owners who want to send a “leave me alone” message to politicians in the state capitol of Salem and Washington, D.C.
In Montana, meanwhile, voters across the state have the opportunity to protect the Second Amendment against local gun control laws by approving LR-130, which would further codify the state’s firearm preemption statutes. Everytown for Gun Safety has already dropped $100,000 trying to defeat the measure, but I suspect that it will be approved handily by voters in the Big Sky State.
For the first time in several election cycles there are no gun control initiatives on any statewide ballots, but I’m glad that voters in Oregon and Montana will have the chance to stand up for their right to keep and bear arms and strengthen legal protections for the Second Amendment. We’ll have results on all these issues as the votes come in, though we may not learn the final results until a few days from now.