Found this gem on Facebook this morning by Wayne Howard of the Lincoln Times. Copied and pasted for your enjoyment. Find it on Facebook if you feel like letting him know what you think.
My editorial published on the Lincoln Herald website has drawn many comments and almost universal criticism. I'm not surprised.
A Facebook group known as Lincoln County, NC 2A Support Group has attained they say over 3,000 members in less than two weeks. County Commissioners will almost certainly vote Monday night (Jan. 6th) a resolution declaring the county a Second Amendment Sanctuary county.
As I pointed out in the editorial, it's pointless from a practical standpoint--the Second Amendment (as well as all others) is part of the US Constitution, so it's the supreme law of the land and is not subject to reversal by any state or local laws. It's also political--2020 is an election year, after all--since it has overwhelming public support. It's about as important as saying 'we like apple pie,' except...
In Virginia, the newly elected Democrats who are becoming the majority in the state legislature, have decided to pass some new gun control laws. Just say the words 'gun control,' and no matter what you're suggesting, you can be assured you'll instantly be labeled as a bed-wetting Communist Libtard (one of their favorite expressions and while they don't know it, one stolen from the late radio host Don Imus, whose politics they would have despised had they known him).
I find it in one sense amusing and in another disappointing and reason for concern that most of those who have signed petitions favoring this resolution have not and will not explore the facts about what has been proposed or what might be proposed in Virginia, the state where the current brouhaha developed.
As usual, much of what has been said on the subject (posted and reposted on Facebook) is conjecture--based loosely on a few facts and often expanded far beyond what is really true. It's actually impossible to say what the 'new laws' the Virginia Dems might try to pass will be. They introduced some bills in the legislature last year--when the Republicans held the majority there, but new bills will have to be introduced and they may differ from what was filed in 2019.
Based on what was filed last year, here are (I know some will call it 'fake news,' as they do with anything that doesn't agree with their politics) but it's the truth as best I can tell based on careful search and interviews both with pro-gun and pro-gun control persons who are actually knowledgeable about the proposals and existing laws.
Current Virginia laws do not require a permit to purchase rifles, shotguns or handguns, do not require firearm registration or licensing, do not require any kind of permit to carry a rifle or shotgun.
Current laws also don't regulate the transfer or possession of higher-powered (.50-caliber) rifles or large capacity ammunition magazines. Virginia state law doesn't require any background check before transferring a firearm between individuals, imposes no waiting period before the sale of a firearm, doesn't require owners to report lost or stolen guns. Concealed carry does require a court-issued permit and gun dealers must contact state police for a background check before they make a sale.
There are some restrictions on so-called assault firearms, currently defined as being designed to accommodate a silencer or folding stock, and having a magazine that can hold over 20 rounds. Non-US citizens can’t buy, possess or transport one; and so-called "streetsweepers" (semi-automatic shotguns) are banned.
The proposed new laws would ban assault weapons, silencers and high-capacity magazines (under the proposals, more than 10 rounds for rifles, more than seven for shotguns), require universal background checks on all firearm transactions, limit the purchase of handguns to no more than one per month, allow local governments like counties, cities & towns to pass local ordinances banning firearms from libraries and other government buildings, require that all thefts of firearms be reported to police within 24 hours after the gun or guns went missing, prohibit possession of guns by a person under a court-issued protective order.
Now I know that those proposals may sound unreasonable to those who believe there should be NO restrictions on any kind of firearms, but to me--honestly--they make good sense.
There has long been an argument about what the 'founding fathers' intended the Second Amendment (and others for that matter) to mean, and whether it should be interpreted today in the exact same way. I have no doubt that they intended for every American to be able to own the same kind of weaponry as the US Army. They had, after all, just fought a war in which they overthrew the existing government and believed that might need to be done again. [Read the words of that Second Amendment carefully...I think you'll come to the same opinion.]
So does it make sense that you and I should be able to own bazookas and tanks and missiles? Not to me, but then I'm not in favor of a rigid interpretation. The real question seems to be: at what point do we draw the line? If you say everyone should be able to own any kind of weapon (including missiles, bombs, machine guns, etc.) then you favor a rigid interpretation and so be it. If you don't, then you--or more reasonably your elected representatives--need to decide just where the line should be drawn. To me, universal background checks make good sense as do the other aforementioned proposals. I don't see any good reason why you might need a rifle that can fire more than 10 rounds before inserting another clip--or a shotgun that can fire more than seven.
If you believe in that rigid interpretation, then you should have no problem with people owning machine guns, bazookas, bombs, missiles, tanks, etc. If you don't, then the question becomes: where do you draw the line?
The decision on that should be made by duly elected representatives. The place for debate on the issue is the legislature.
My problem with the "Second Amendment Sanctuary" movement that began in Virginia and has now spread to North Carolina is that some of those involved--local Commissioners and sheriffs--have decided that if they don't agree with a law...if they believe it may not be Constitutionally valid...they have the right not to uphold it. To me, that sets a dangerous precedent.
Decisions on the validity of laws (whether they are or are not in accord with the Constitution) should be made in the courts--not by a local law enforcement officer or politician.
This squabble over the Second Amendment isn't the first time that state laws, local laws and public opinion have run contrary to what was eventually declared as valid by the US Supreme Court. The civil rights movement and the laws related to school desegregation come to mind. There were other cases before that.
I don't believe it is the intent of the Lincoln County Commissioners to disobey state laws with which they might disagree--related to guns or otherwise. I believe that Sheriff Beam will (as he said he would in his oath of office) uphold the law, including those with which he might not agree, until such time as the courts decide they are not valid. I actually don't believe that North Carolina is likely to pass any laws similar to those proposed in Virginia. We do, after all, want to be able to keep our missiles, bazookas and machine guns.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
