iTuesday evening in Redding, hundreds of concerned, curious citizens arrived early to the Shasta County Board of Supervisors vestibule outside the board chambers. The expectant crowd crammed together to secure seats inside for a politically polarizing popular agenda item: R4, a Second-Amendment resolution sponsored by Redding gun-seller/Shasta County Supervisor chair Patrick Jones.

Soon after Tuesdays board agenda became public, agenda item R4 became the shorthand nickname for Jones proposed resolution.

Citizens gathered outside the Shasta County Board chambers in anticipation of the meeting to decide the fate of agenda item R4.

There seemed little gray area; people were either passionately for R4 or vehemently against it.

(Click here to read journalist R.V. Scheides story about the Second Amendment, what happened with Jones resolution and the meetings outcome.)

The audience contained the usual cast of such now-familiar ultra-conservative local personalities as the Plumbs (if the 1rst Amendment doesnt work, weve got the 2nd Amendment), the Rapozas (the time has come for 51 State of Jefferson devotees) and the Gallardos (citizen journalists/identical twins), who came bearing party balloons.

Richard Gallardo untangles patriotic party balloons as KCNR radio host Win Carpenter joins others waiting to enter the board chambers.

The list goes on. There was Lori Bridgeford, the anti-vax citizen journalist; Kathy Stainbrook, cheerleader for the lie-based recall of former Dist. 2 Supervisor Leonard Moty; Woody Clenenden, Cottonwood Militia leader; Lani Bangay, Patriot State of Mind co-host; Mark Kent and Win Carpenter, KCNR radio co-hosts: Bob Holsinger, failed Shasta County Clerk candidate, and many more.

However, this meeting was unique for its considerable number of relatively rare faces, many of whom carried anti-R4 signs, some of whom were last seen inside the chambers protesting Shasta County Health Officer Karen Ramstroms baseless 2022 firing.

Citizens attended a spring 2022 Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting with signs that protested her dismissal.

A folding table outside the board chambers held anti-R4 petitions signed by people, some of whom were unable to stay for the meeting as there were no more available seats.

Judging by the comments and the crowd, there seemed about a 50/50 split between those who were in favor of R4 and those who were not.

Before the board proceeded any further regarding the resolution, Jones asked for Shasta County Counsel Rubin Cruses input on whether those whod accused Jones of having a disqualifying financial conflict of interest he sells guns were correct.

Cruse put Jones mind at rest. Cruse said that in order for there to be a disqualifying financial conflict of interest, the boards decision must have a material financial effect on Jones that is distinguishable from its effect on the general public.

Some might dispute Cruse on that point, and argue that a board-approved Second Amendment resolution would absolutely financially benefit Jones, starting with the fact that fundamentally, Jones Second Amendment resolution is about guns. Jones sells guns in his family-owned Jones Fort, one of the best-known North State gun stores, a firearms community staple thats been in business for more than 50 years.

Jones Fort gun shop

A recent Google search of Shasta County gun store put Jones Fort in second place. Jones Fort receives free publicity every time a news story mentions Jones occupation as a gun salesman at his family-owned gun store (A News Cafe is guilty as charged). Jones couldnt buy better advertising than what he gains at no charge as a board chair with a lifelong gun-store affiliation. The more guns he sells, the more money he makes.

Also, Cruse mentioned the general public in his disqualifying-financial-conflict-of-interest litmus test. But how many people out of more than 182,000 Shasta County residents sell guns from namesake businesses?

Maybe this is an apples-and-oranges comparison, but Rickert leaves the board chambers and recuses herself from voting on anything remotely related to her ranching business.

Alas, that theoretical debate is moot. Cruse provided the final word as Shasta County Counsel: No, Jones Second Amendment resolution does notpresent a disqualifying financial conflict of interest for Jones.

From left: Shasta County Dist. 1 Supervisor Kevin Crye, Dist. 5 Supervisor Chris Keltstrom, Dist. 2 Supervisor Tim Garman and Dist. 3 Supervisor Mary Rickert.

Eventually, Jones addressed the meetings main event: his long-awaited Second Amendment resolution, which Jones said was two-and-a-half years in the making.

Perhaps youve already heard that by the meetings end, Jones Second Amendment resolution wasnt approved. However, the resolution wasnt completely rejected, either. Rather, the resolution is now in limbo, thanks to a decision made by Crye, something so unexpected that it caught approximately 99.999 percent of the spectators by surprise.

Nope. Didnt see that one coming.

Todays post wont get into the weeds of Jones resolution, since A News Cafe journalist R.V. Scheide already covered the big picture.

A standing-room-only crowd awaited the Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting that would vote on the controversial 2nd Amendment resolution sponsored by Supervisor Patrick Jones. Photos by Doni Chamberlain

More than 30 citizens commented on R4. Some people brought signs that detailed their opinions.

Although roughly two-thirds of the commenters said they were in favor of Jones resolution, the majority of them seemed ignorant of the Jones intentions for the resolutions. Some speakers waxed poetic about the virtues of guns. A few offered well-worn phrases proclaiming guns dont kill people; people kill people. Others addressed mass shootings. Yet others went off on tangents about arming teachers.

Even Siskiyou County resident Jess Harris, who introduced himself as affiliated with the Northern California Rifle and Pistol Association, missed the point of Jones resolution. Instead, he focused on the benefits of self-defense.

A lot of this has to do with protecting our way of life, Harris said. I know Sacramento doesnt get it, I know San Francisco doesnt get it. I dont care. I dont care what they think. They dont live here. We do. The Second Amendment is not up for interpretation tonight. (Hear his complete comments at 3:09:47.)

Numerous speakers emphasized that they were strongly in favor of the Second Amendment, but strongly opposed to Jones Second Amendment resolution.

Im not against the Second Amendment, said one woman. But I am against our county government being the interpreters of the Second Amendment.

Stainbrook received loud cheers of approval when she said Shasta County should play by Gov. Gavin Newsoms rules and make Shasta County a Second Amendment sanctuary region.

Chair Jones interrupted one womans comments when she mentioned her disappointment in the board majoritys recent vote to ditch the Dominion voting machines. Jones scolded her for being off topic. However, never was heard a discouraging word from Jones when Lori Bridgeford veered sharply off topic and referred to several key former county road block employees by name who either no longer work for the county or will soon leave. Likewise, it was radio silence from Jones when Bridgeford promoted the militia.

Were all part of the militia, Bridgeford said. So when this street jungle happens, when it hits the fan and the collapse happens and the shelves are empty and trains through town blow up whatever were on our own.

Conservative radio host Mark Kent saw another benefit for Jones Second Amendment resolution.

Mark Kent.

The state needs you unarmed and obedient how else are they gonna control you? Kent said. I think you guys need to get this thing in place for no other reason than just give the middle finger of defiance to all these people who are trying to take our rights away.

On and on it went.

Ultimately, as speaker Judy Salter reiterated, nobody in that room was against the Second Amendment. On that point, everyone agreed.

Watch the entire Feb. 21, 2023 Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting here.

More evidence of chair Jones selective, double-standard admonitions arose when speakers Missy McArthur and Salter each made references to feelings of discomfort to imagine guns inside the board chambers.

Jones piped up and schooled McArthur and Salter. He said the resolution discussion wasnt about firearms in the countys administrative building, and perhaps they were unaware that properly permitted people were carrying weapons at that very moment during the meeting.

Jones message garnered raucous, sustained applause and hoots of approval. But Jones wasnt finished.

So Im very happy to hear that youre in support of our Second Amendment resolution, Jones said, clearly enjoying the dig. Back in the audience Salter corrected Jones.

I do not support your resolution, Salter countered, as Jones talked over her thank you Judy and literally turned his head and attention to the next speaker.

Redding resident Ray Thomas, president of the Five Counties Central Labor Council, was one of several speakers who cautioned the supervisors that adopting Jones resolution could embroil the county in costly, inevitable litigation.

Ray Thomas.

Thomas began by reminding the supervisors of previous emails hed sent them that outlined potential labor-relations issues that would surely follow the adoption of Jones resolution. Thomas spelled out just one example.

You would not only be in violation of over 30 provisions of your nine labor agreements, you would be in violation of governmental code 35.04, Thomas said. (Hear his complete statement at 3:04:51 on the streaming video.)

Jeff Gorder.

Retired attorney and former Shasta County public defender Jeff Gorder delivered a lively impassioned speech steeped in legal explanations.

This strikes me as not about the Second Amendment, Gorder said of the R4 resolution.

Everybody agrees we all support the Second Amendment. We support the First Amendment, we support the Fourth Amendment. Lets have resolutions that everybody supports all the amendments. What this is about is Patrick Jones is trying to have it so that the board of supervisors will be the determinant of what is constitutional. Mr. Cruse is trying to save the board from legal jeopardy. I guarantee you that if the board votes against the redlined edition, it will be clearly unconstitutional because many of you dont seem to understand that we are a rule-of-law nation; that the legislature makes the laws, the executive enforces the laws, the judiciary interprets the laws. Not the board of supervisors; the judiciary. So, what youre trying to do is unconstitutional, Mr. Jones.

Gorder then directed his next comments to supervisors Crye and Garman, men he hoped were independent thinkers.

I would just caution you, dont go down the road of Mr. Jones and Mr. Kelstrom, Gorder said. Its only going to lead to bad things.

Some members of the crowd heckled Gorder, who responded with a chuckle.

Im just here to tell you that Ill come out of retirement and sue the county if this resolution is passed with the language as it stands, he said. Its going to cost you money, just as its going to cost you money with the Dominion voting machines.

Approximately half of the audience laughed, while the other half shouted and booed.

Out of left field, Jones rudely quipped, as Gorder left the lectern, There once was a lawyer I thought I liked, but I was wrong.

Approximately half of the audience clapped and cheered, while the other half shook their heads and half groaned.

(Go to the 3:45:10 mark of the meetings recording for Gorders full statement.)

After more than an hour of public comments, Sheriff Michael Johnson approached the lectern. Before the meeting, there was much social-media speculation about how the sheriff would react to Jones Second Amendment resolution. Would he show up? Would he speak? Would he side with Jones? Would he reject or accept the resolution?

Johnson did speak, and when he did, he performed an artful verbal tightrope walk; as if balanced over a tank of sharks, trying with all his might to not fall in. Johnsons a confident speaker. Tuesday he was a one-man good-cop bad-cop who frequently tossed chum nuggets into both sides of the tank. His comments had something for nearly everyone.

He started with bold statements in which he described himself as a staunch Second Amendment advocate. He received instant applause when Johnson said he supported Shasta County being a Second Amendment sanctuary county. In fact, Johnson recalled that while he was Andersons police chief he tried to get the NRA to make Anderson a Second Amendment sanctuary city.

Johnson talked about his sworn oath to follow and enforce laws, but he did not talk about the fact that by its very definition, a Second Amendment sanctuary region does not recognize or obey restrictive gun control laws.

Johnson briefly made the pro-R4 folks happy when he said he was in favor of the Second Amendment resolution. However, their elation soon evaporated when Johnson clarified that because of the potential legal ramifications to the county, he was only for the Second Amendment resolution version with the redlined edits suggested by county counsel and staff. Almost as an aside, he reminded the group that California already does recognize citizens rights to bear arms albeit with proper permitting. Johnson said hes personally not afraid of CCW-permitted gun owners, because theyve been vetted by his office.

I know that they are responsible citizens that have gone through the process, and have firearms and will be my backup be your backup, Johnson said. God forbid we need them to.

Pro-R4 folks loved that line. Anti-R4 folks winced.

Johnson made a pitch for people to go through the training and obtain a CCW permit. He explained why permits were necessary, namely to ensure the safety of all citizens, and to prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands.

The pro-R4 folks werent thrilled to hear what Johnson had to say next about the issue of open carry, a topic especially popular during the 2022 election debates. Johnson said he would not allow open carry until it was deemed legal by the courts, but if the day arrived when open-carry was deemed constitutional, then hed welcome that ruling.

Johnsons closing statement was the first of two particularly stunning declarations made that evening.

But first, some context: Supervisors Kelstrom and Jones (unsure about Crye) have openly boasted their refusal to apply for a CCW permit. They say its their God-given right to carry guns without the governments permission.

With that fact in mind, the unpermitted supervisors had rude awakening with Johnsons next statement.

Make no mistake about it, the laws that are on the books are on the books, Johnson said. If you carry a gun loaded or unloaded, open or concealed without a permit currently, the Shasta County Sheriffs Department will enforce that law. You will be arrested. We will take your gun as evidence and you will be prosecuted. That is hard and fast right now.

Cue crickets. At least until Jones snapped out of it, put the sheriff on the spot and took him to task.

By now, anyone whos listened to Jones speak for any length of time knows that when Jones says, with all due respect that what follows next is probably anything but. Jones, who apparently considers himself a legal scholar, pushed back against the sheriff.

No constitutional right has to have a permit, Jones argued, to loud applause. Logic would say that concealed weapon permits are not a constitutional right. Its not a constitutional right. No permit.

Johnson waited until Jones was finished.

Thats your interpretation, Johnson said, which prompted Jones assertion that eight of the nine circuit courts agreed with Jones.

Johnson replied that he didnt see anywhere in the Constitution where it says people can open-carry or concealed-carry. So it went, back and forth, until Johnson said he wouldnt debate it; that theyd have to disagree.

When Jones asked if any of the other supervisors had further questions, only Crye spoke up. He told Johnson he appreciated him being there. Not exactly a question, but it would be one of Cryes last noncontroversial statements of the night.

You didnt have to come, Crye said to the sheriff, stating the obvious.

Moderate applause followed Johnson as he exited the board chambers, only for him to be quickly buttonholed in the hallway for several minutes by Terry Rapoza, who gave the sheriff a booming what-for about the Constitution.

Newly appointed Dist. 1 Supervisor said he struggled with the R4 agenda decision. Photo by Doni Chamberlain.

At last, after County Counsel Rubin Cruse had painstakingly combed over the redlined resolution chapter and verse, line by line, and patiently responded to all Jones queries, questions and lawyer-splaining, it was nearly time for the supervisors to decide upon Jones Second Amendment resolution.

Crye, whos already demonstrated his tendency to be consistently incongruent, offered yet more evidence that his words and claims often dont jibe with his actions. Likewise, Cryes frequent lofty descriptions of himself are sometimes diametrically opposed to his actual persona and track record.

Exhibit A: Cryes opening statement about the R4 decision.

Ive never cowered from a fight on a purpose I felt strongly about, Crye said.

See original here:

Gun-Selling Supervisor's 2nd Amendment Resolution Polarizes Citizens. (Will Unpermitted Weapon-Toting ... - A News Cafe