Just say no to gun law sanctuaries
Just say no to gun law sanctuaries
I’m writing because of grave concerns regarding the Second Amendment Sanctuary plan for Yamhill County.
This is yet another example of the new direction of our board of commissioners — to waste taxpayer money on proposals and actions that cater to a narrow segment of the population, and to prioritize imaginary concerns over real issues. In my opinion, this is a disappointing and discouraging trend.
Second Amendment Sanctuary proposals are built on the false premise that firearm regulations enacted by state and federal government are unconstitutional. They cater to fearmongering by the National Rifle Association and other gun apologists about “liberals coming to take your guns.”
They sow confusion among county employees, including our county law enforcement officials, about whether to follow federal, state or local laws. They create discord among community members who are forced, once again, to take sides.
They reduce safety by blocking protections put in place for safe and responsible gun ownership. And they can potentially lead to injuries and deaths by empowering those who would use firearms to inflict harm on others, or whose irresponsibility leads to firearms getting into the hands of those not equipped for safe handling.
The primary role of elected officials is to ensure the safety and well-being of citizens. Part of that job includes making and enforcing regulations to ensure that safety.
It is not to cater to a small group of loud voices with an “anything goes” mentality. It is not to drape themselves in our American flag while undermining our laws, not unlike the Jan. 6 insurrectionists who misused our flag in the abuse of our democracy.
The U.S. Constitution was written at a time when the founders could not even imagine the lethality of some of the firearms we have today. Any rational person understands the purpose of the “right to bear arms” was not for every American to have easy access to a war machine that can massacre a large number of people in the matter of seconds.
Sanctuary proposals like this ignore the reality that Americans can and do purchase firearms easily. They seek to disregard the limited protections put in place by elected officials at higher levels of government.
I don’t believe the role of a county commissioner — especially ones voted in by a very small number of county residents — should be able to disregard such protections. Where does this abuse of power end?
My family includes multiple generations of responsible gun owners. We do not have a problem with any recent or currently proposed state legislation regarding firearms.
Creating a so-called “sanctuary” is moving to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Responsible gun owners support responsible gun regulations.
What would Jesus do? I’m absolutely positive Jesus would argue that life and safety are far more important than the slight inconveniences and fees associated with background checks.
And as a law-abiding resident of our county, I hope local government and law enforcement officials don’t choose to disregard laws put in place to protect our lives.
Valerie Blaha is a McMinnville resident who comes from a long line of gun owners.
Comments
Vet24
So if a person with a abusive ex who is legally carrying concealed, gets pulled over and parks in a gun free zone unknowingly. Your ok with them being charged with a class 4 felony. These are the kind of laws our legislature is considering. The closer we keep our politicians making the rules the better the chance of keeping them on track. Our commissioners are involving the local district attorney and sheriff which sounds very responsible to me. You are attributing things like background checks that are not part of this proposed ordinance.
tagup
Background checks most certainly ARE included in the sanctuary designation ordinance....they would not be enforced....