Co. Attorney comes out Guns Blazing at mention of 2nd Amendment Sanctuary County

Several have asked about the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary County declaration that was placed on the agenda of the Benton County Board of Supervisor's meeting for this week. The proposed declaration is below. If you'd like to watch the discussion live, it is at the beginning of this recording. To watch click here.

The Benton County Sheriff handed out his paperwork to the supervisors at the beginning of the meeting at 9:00 a.m. including this.

PDF not working? Click the 3 dots and choose Download This File 🠟

Then at their appointed time of 9:05 the Sheriff began his presentation to the Supervisors. They discussed the usual jail business, shortages of workers, wages, and the proposed copy of a resolution to declare Benton County a Second Amendment Sanctuary County.

Rick Primmer summed it up with the explanation that it basically states that the county supports the second amendment.

During this time, County Attorney David Thompson, who was on the agenda for a later time joined the meeting and was handed a copy of the resolution.

Gary Biesrchenck made a motion to accept it, not realizing that this item was just a discussion item.

Thompson jumped in. "Really? Without any discussion? Are you kidding me?"

Bierschenk replied, "I read it." (which you can see him doing as soon as it was handed to him. at the beginning of the meeting.)

Thompson: "You did? It was just handed to you. I was watching you too." (Thompson arrived 7 and a half minutes after Beirschenk read the resolution.)

Bierschenk, "I read it."

Thompson, "Tell me what it says. Without looking at it, tell me what it says."

Bierschenk, "It's a resolution to allow..."

Thompson interrupted, "That's funny. You do your job when you want to. But that is ridiculous. Have you run it by anyone else. Have talked to the County Attorney's office. Have you talked to Heartland Insurance? Have you thought about how it might impact other county policies and other county resolutions? So moved? That's a joke, sir." Pointing at Bierschenk he added, "And a bad one at that!"

"I HAVE read this," stated Bierschenk again.

Primmer stepped in and said, "In all fairness to Gary, when the gentlemen came in they handed..."

Thompson again jumped in and said, "Have you talked to Heartland? I'm sorry. Have you talked to the county attorney's office? Have you considered what other county policies or resolutions it might affect?"

"I'll tell you what," began Bierschenk.

Thompson interrupted again, "You're going to tell me no?"

Bierschenk continued, "you can not allow the carry of firearms..." (meaning they can't be banned)

Thompson, "You don't know because you haven't talked to Heartland, right? You haven't talked to my office, right? And you haven't answered this whether or not you have considered what other county policies or resolutions it may affect. That's okay, you've made a motion, perhaps it will be seconded. It will be voted on her today without considering anything else."

Primmer said, "In light that it was just handed to the county attorney, I recommend he looks it over."

Thompson interjected again, "The county attorney hasn't read it..." referring to himself in the third person.

Primmer continued, "I would also state that I can email a copy of this to Heartland and have them look at it as per the county attorney's recommendation. Now, this is adopted from what other county?"

"Hardin," replied Tippett. "That was brought to the board just to look at and then we would need to do our homework on it."

Thompson, "No offense, but why wouldn't we do our homework on it first before we bring it into the board room? Don't just hand it out and have an automatic motion to approve it. is that how we're doing business these days?'

Tracy Seeman pointed out that it was just on the agenda as a discussion topic and not an action item.

Thompson, "And while we're at it, we've got a whole lot of other rights out there, we gonna adopt some resolutions to support those too? About religious freedom, gonna have a resolution for that next week? Free speech? The right to vote? Got all kinds of them out there."

Primmer asked, "Do you want to look it over?" "Yes I will," replied Thompson, "I'd like a little bit of time to look it over.

Gary, you look like you've got something to say, I'd love to hear it," said Thompson.

Primmer asked if there were any other counties that had adopted it, and Tippett answered that there were 11 so far in some form.

Bierschenk asked Thompson, "Are you advocating that we do not allow firearms?"

Thompson, "Well, what a, I'm sorry that is a crazy question. What authority do you have as a board member to go against a constitutional amendment, the second amendment? And so, therefore, are you going to go ahead and start doing resolutions every week supporting other laws and constitutional rights that are already on the books? Or just this one. Because you read it. Given any thought as to how it affects your resolution concerning firearms in county buildings? No. Yeah. I'll look at it.

My objection, by the way, isn't to this per se, it's to how we're proceeding on stuff like this," Thompson concluded

To date the following Iowa counties have adopted the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary declaration:

Adams

Buchanan

Carroll

Cedar

Chickasaw

Clarke

Hardin

Humbolt

Jasper

Kossuth

Madison

Mills

Pocahontas

Washington

Wayne

Webster

As of June this year, 61% of counties in the United States have adopted the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary County status.

Comments

Submit a Comment

BK September 22, 2021, 1:49 pm I've find this kind of argument both interesting and a waste of time. I understand the base fear - this administration seems intent on criminalizing specific types of "weapons of war" . . . ie . . . the AR platform rifles. In fact, the recently dismissed candidate to head the ATF expanded his desired weapon ban to include any semiautomatic rifle with a removable magazine larger than a .22 caliber rifle. This simply would insure that county resources would not be used to enforce those types of laws. Fine. It remains that such a decision is simply "above their pay grade" - whether the federal, state or local government - to ban the ownership or use of a specific type of firearm. Provided that the citizen is a law-abiding individual, their right to "keep and bear arms" is a natural right, not one given to us by any government. The deciding factor is if a citizen would willing comply to such a change in law. The best and only answer to such a law is simply . . . "No, I will not comply." Period. All the rest of the positioning, bloviating, speechifying is simply political posturing. So my bottom line is considering it or don't, ponder on it or don't, pass it or don't . . . it changes nothing. The natural right to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the final word on the entire subject.

DL September 26, 2021, 10:11 pm Bill Keller- The right to keep and bear arms is not an unalienable right. It's a Constitutional right that has been ruled upon numerous times, since it's inception, 232 years ago. Our Supreme Court has made it clear that there is a limit to what types of firearms can be legally owned, in our country. In his majority opinion, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, in Heller v The District of Columbia 2008, made it very clear that the ruling in Heller did not effect the fact that the 2nd Amendment IS NOT unlimited in the types of firearms that can be legally owned on our land. The United States Congress has the sole right to make the distinction between what is legal and illegal. A federal law preempts any state, county or local law.

As far as this "sanctuary declaration". Several counties across our country have adopted very similar declarations since 2013. They've been ruled as simply ceremonial. They mean less than the paper they're written on.

BK September 28, 2021, 9:18 am Darrin Lindsey – You’re simply wrong . . . the 2nd Amendment IS an inalienable right and is the reason it’s included in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is NOT a “living document” that can be molded into the beliefs of a current generation – it is a bulwark against a government that infringes on the rights and freedoms of our nation’s citizens. It is what keeps our government subservient to us rather than making it our ruler. Though we have obviously lost sight of much of the founder’s thoughts and desires this may well be our largest failing as a country – forgetting that our President and Congress SERVE us and NOT rule us.

To the 2nd Amendment specifically – the founders had a great deal of experience with the ruling monarchs of the time. George III was pretty much at the end of a 200 year rein of the Hapsburgs and their rule of Europe. They had little patience with the populace and no resistance to the use of military force to enforce their will. The reason the British army were enroute to Lexington and Concord was to seize the local magazines to confiscate “weapons of war” – the communities’ muskets, powder, shot, cannons as well as local and growing militia leaders. The Founders new exactly the need and use of “weapons of war” and the need for a local militia – which they ultimately preferred because of their profound reluctance to standing armies simply because they didn’t trust “leaders” to not grow into dictators and tyrants that would use standing armies against the people. In point of fact, that is where the beginning phrase of the 2nd Amendment comes from . . .

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . .”

The “Militia” was comprised of all able-bodied males age 16 to 45 (some say 60) that were to train as local units and to be prepared to defend the citizens against all threats – including an over zealous national government. You were expected to own and train with “weapons of war” as part of the failsafe to ensure the citizens of the nation remained free and did not become subjects of the government. This was their final “line” to insure a “free State”. The final phrase of the 2nd Amendment set the limits on the GOVERNMENT and NOT the people . . .

“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Pretty darn clear to me . . . SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED . . .

SCOTUS has had a fondness over history to have a desire that the Constitution be a “living document” to be shaped and molded by the desires and attitudes of the current generation. The reason is simple – it gives them more power. Heck RGB even wanted to rewrite the Constitution because she was fond of bits and pieces of various European countries. That was NOT the desire of the founders and is simply not an attribute of the Constitution – Period.

The Constitution has insured that our nation has remained the ONLY successful Representative Constitutional Republic in world history . . . the only one. It has allowed us to be the most successful country in the world. It is what enabled “The 5,000 Year Leap” (a book I would recommend to you). And changing the very foundation of our founding will do nothing to make sure we will continue to exist.

I’ve taken an oath 6 times over 21 years of service to protect and defend the Constitution – as have millions of others over the years. I am aware of what I signed up to do and what the document means. And just because we have a federal government that is hungry for power . . . and I mean HUNGRY!!! . . . just look at their actions over the past nearly 2 years – I will not bend in my intent to keep each and every one of my inalienable rights – including the ability do defend my life, the lives of my family and friends from an aggressive and over-reaching government.

I DO NOT need a “by your leave” from a local, state or the federal government to defend my self . . . period. Here’s a link that might give you a different perspective on the subject . . .

The Second Amendment and the Inalienable Right to Self-Defense | The Heritage Foundation

Government : Co. Attorney comes out Guns Blazing at mention of 2nd Amendment Sanctuary County

Comments