In a 9 to 6 vote, the Sawyer County Board of Supervisors on Thursday, July 16, approved a non-binding resolution to reaffirm a commitment to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and the right to bear arms under the Wisconsin Constitution.

During public comments and supervisor discussion, support for the resolution centered on the importance of the Second Amendment as critical to the existence of all other constitutional amendments, along with the importance of a public affirmation and concern over legislative efforts to diminish Second Amendment rights.

Those opposed to the resolution said the Second Amendment is enshrined in both the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions and the resolution was unnecessary and could provoke unnecessary consequences, such as placing local law enforcement in a position to interpret constitutional law, a role set aside for the courts.

In late 2019 a citizen approached the Public Safety Committee during public comments about creating Second Amendment sanctuary status for the county. Several Wisconsin counties have established Second Amendment Sanctuary status to offer law enforcement discretion whether to enforce laws county supervisors might consider an infringement to Second Amendment rights.

In Wisconsin, the sanctuary movement gained momentum after Gov. Tony Evers (D-Madison) took office in 2019 and proposed legislation requiring that all gun sales, including gun shows, conduct a background check. Evers also proposed red flag laws, which would allow law enforcement or a family member to appeal to a court for the removal of firearms based on a concern that a person is a threat to himself or others.

The resolution passed July 16, however, does not create sanctuary status. It does cite concerns about legislation from the state that would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

According to the countys minutes and agendas, the first official mention of the resolution appeared on the agenda under Future Agenda Items, for the March 5 Public Safety Committee as Second Amendment Protection, but it wasnt openly discussed until the July 2 meeting under Second Amendment Resolution. At that meeting, after an 18-minute discussion, the committee adopted a resolution to be forwarded to the full Sawyer County Board on July 16.

The adopted resolution re-affirms, in part 1, all constitutional obligations, including the Second Amendment, and also notes, in part 2, its support of the sheriffs office.

In part 3 of the resolution, it notes the county will not support any actions that could infringe constitutional rights for the citizens of Sawyer County and in part 4 states opposition to any state or federal legislation that would infringe upon the constitutional rights of the citizens of Sawyer County.

Public comments

During public comments, five spoke in favor of the resolution and four spoke in opposition.

Harold Miller documented the historical and constitutional importance of the Second Amendment and discussed the importance of citizens being armed in light of recent civil unrest and personal safety, but he did not directly address the resolution.

Fred Briggs, who said he first proposed the sanctuary status, said he represented a Facebook group of 1,200 people, including 850 county residents, who supported the resolution.

Briggs said he had presented a petition to the county with 650 signatures in support of the resolution, including 48 businesses, which were gathered in just over four weeks.

We want our officials to basically uphold their oath, Briggs said. If you look at the resolution, there is nothing in there new.

Jim Miller, representing the Republican Party for the 7th Congressional District, said his party had similar planks and supported the resolution.

Jeremy Stewart, founder of Change for Sawyer County, a new group representing young activists, supported the resolution. He said his support comes after seeing the civic unrest that led to destruction in Minneapolis after the death of George Floyd on May 25. He said the best antidote to social upheaval is peacefully coming together as a community, but he also noted the importance of being armed if unrest does happen.

Bill Schleusner, who initiated the resolution, said he believes there have been efforts to remove Second Amendment protections, and he said he believes the Second Amendment helps secure other constitutional rights.

In the past year or two, we have gotten lot of people in this country who think there are other ways that (are) much better to live and one of the things they are trying to do is take away the right to own a firearm to protect yourself, he said.

He contended more are killed each year by other means than a gun, and he also noted a fear of socialist countries.

I do not want you or my family or anyone else to live like they live, Schleusner said of socialist countries. Im proud of what we have here and a lot of military people have given their lives for our freedom and we need to maintain that.

Lastly, he called the resolution an additional lawyer of documentation to support the Second Amendment, which also supports the First Amendment.

The four who spoke in opposition to the resolution also noted their support of the Second Amendment.

I dont believe this resolution is necessary because the right to keep and bear arms is already well established in the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions, said Thomas Vitcenda of Exeland. This resolution is an unnecessary symbolic gesture that would do nothing to improve the safety and security of Sawyer County residents and visitors. Instead, a statement like this is likely to stoke fear, mistrust and division.

He also feared the resolution would result in discretionary power for law enforcement.

Mary Vicenda, Thomass sister, also from Exeland, also spoke in opposition and called the resolution largely symbolic, but noted it elevates gun rights over other amendments, such as the First Amendment, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to choose ones religion and more.

Tish Keahna, a lawyer who lives in Hayward, said she was asked by a county employee signing up those who wanted to make public comments, whether she was for or against the Second Amendment, a question, she said, that was disingenuous and framed the discussion as a political issue on the Second Amendment and not the countys resolution.

She also questioned why the county was devoting time to this issue when there were more pressing maters, and she added it was outside of the duty of law enforcement officers to interpret constitutional law because under it is the domain of the courts.

Joan Cervenka, a leader of Up North Engaged, a local grassroots political action group, questioned if part 3 of the resolution created an unintended financial obligation for the county to take an active role in ensuring all constitutional rights are observed, such as ensuring everything could be done to encourage access to voting.

Cervenka said the way to uplift constitutional rights in Sawyer County is to build the second courtroom and seat the second judge, and she also encouraged higher fees for public defenders so people are properly represented in court.

Board discussion

Supervisor James Schlender, chair of the Public Safety Committee, said there had been discussion of the resolution during the February and March committee meetings. However, there is no record of those discussions in county minutes.

The Record asked Schlender about those February and March discussions and he said there had been attempts to place the issue on the agenda but they had fallen through.

Schlender added that in May a draft resolution was brought forward that was amended as a reaffirmation of the Second Amendment and acknowledge law enforcement during a time of social upheaval.

Schlender asked for a motion to adopt the resolution, but Supervisor Troy Morgan proposed a motion to postpone pending a public hearing.

Theres a lot of passion on this from both sides, Morgan said, and I dont believe the public has had the proper notice to be able to discuss this. I would move that we would postpone this until a public hearing be held, so that we can hear from all relevant parties. I dont believe tonights public comment is sufficient for that, so that is my motion.

Supervisor Ron Kinsley seconded the motion. There was some confusion about the motion because some thought Schlender had made a motion, but Morgan pointed out that he had only called for a motion.

Schlender responded that Morgans motion seemed pre-planned to stop the resolution.

Supervisor Dale Schleeter said the resolution before the board had only been public for a matter of days and added he had received much feedback from those who had just heard about it and were not in favor but hadnt been able to attend a public meeting.

This is a big issue for Sawyer County, Schleeter said.

The vote to postpone the resolution pending a public hearing failed in a close 7 to 8 tally. Voting to postpone were Tom Duffy, Bruce Paulsen, Susie Taylor, Kinsley, Schleeter, Tweed Shuman and Morgan. Voting against postponing were Marc Helwig, Chuck Van Etten, Dale Olson, Dawn Petit, Ronald Buckholtz, Helen Dennis, Jesse Boettcher and Schlender.

After the motion failed, Olson recounted speaking to Schleusner that legally the resolution had no standing, but he would support the resolution because it supports the Second Amendment.

Morgan said he took an oath of office to support the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions, including the Second Amendment, and he also spoke of the resolution having unintended consequences.

Supervisor Helwig asked what those consequences might be.

Morgan said he was concerned law enforcement might not enforce some laws.

There is absolutely nothing in here I disagree with, Boettcher said.

Addressing Cervenkas concern over unintended obligations in part 3, he noted part 3 is a passive statement and did not require the county take an active role.

It doesnt say we are going to actively police and support anything, he said. It just says we are not going to support any infringement on any of those rights. Im not sure why that is so contentious. It seems pretty passive to me.

Supervisor Dennis noted that the resolution had been reviewed by the countys legal counsel, and she contended the resolution had been out in the public for some time.

Schlender said a reaffirming is an action of reassuring oneself. He used the practice of repeating the Pledge of Allegiance as one such reaffirmation.

This resolution is non-binding, Schlender said. It does not create any affirmative action other than that to say that we affirm our constitutional obligation to uphold our oath, and second one is we recognize the work and the sacrifices of the deputies and the sheriff.

Paulsen said as a gun owner he supported the Second Amendment but would not support the non-binding resolution. He said if the board wanted to show its support of the sheriff then it should offer a resolution specifically stating that.

In the final vote, nine supported the resolution and six were opposed.

The nine voting yes included Van Etten, Olson, Petit, Kinsley, Buckholtz, Dennis, Boettcher, Schlender and Helwig.

The six voting no included Duffy, Paulsen, Taylor, Schleeter, Shuman and Morgan.

Read the original here:

EXPANDED: County adopts resolution affirming Second Amendment | National News - KPVI News 6