Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns Expatriates
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns Expatriates For members who have left California but remain Calgunners

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-10-2020, 4:09 AM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 13,817
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default Prescott to review 'Second Amendment Sanctuary City' resolution

From the Daily Courier:

The Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms will once again take center stage in the community this week when the Prescott City Council considers declaring “Sanctuary City” status for Prescott.

The meeting will take place at 3 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 11, at Prescott City Hall, 201 S. Cortez St.

A city memo on the agenda item states that Council members Phil Goode and Cathey Rusing requested that the matter be placed on the agenda for consideration.

Prior to the possible vote during the regular 3 p.m. meeting, the council will consider the matter in closed-door executive session at 1 p.m. Tuesday.

The proposed resolution points out that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1791 as a part of the Bill of Rights, and protects “the fundamental and individual right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

It adds that the council members would “commit to stand and defend their rights and liberties as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona.”

In addition, the resolution states that the city would “not authorize or appropriate government funds, resources, employees, agencies, contractors, buildings, detention centers or officers for the purpose of enforcing laws that, after complete judicial review, are held to unconstitutionally infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.”

This past week, the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors approved a similar resolution, declaring the entire Yavapai County as a “Second Amendment Sanctuary County.”

The city’s resolution largely echoes Yavapai County’s resolution, although the city added the words “after complete judicial review” to the resolution’s last paragraph that refers to laws that unconstitutionally infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms
__________________
Sent from Free America
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-10-2020, 4:16 AM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 13,817
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Even if you don’t live in the city proper this is worth showing your support for. The more cities and counties that pass such resolutions the more it will impress upon the state legislature that the residents of Arizona don’t their 2A rights messed with.
__________________
Sent from Free America
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-11-2020, 5:52 PM
EBR Works's Avatar
EBR Works EBR Works is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 10,399
iTrader: 120 / 100%
Default

Anyone know what happened?
__________________


Check out our e-commerce site here:

www.ebrworks.com

Serving you from Prescott, AZ
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-11-2020, 6:48 PM
audiophil2 audiophil2 is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surprise
Posts: 8,736
iTrader: 244 / 100%
Default

Tabled. Not happening.
__________________



Private 10 acre range rentals
[/URL]
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-11-2020, 6:48 PM
audiophil2 audiophil2 is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surprise
Posts: 8,736
iTrader: 244 / 100%
Default

Guess who is getting blamed?
__________________



Private 10 acre range rentals
[/URL]
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-11-2020, 7:14 PM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 13,817
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophil2 View Post
Guess who is getting blamed?

Who?



Sent from free America
__________________
Sent from Free America
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-11-2020, 8:45 PM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 13,817
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default Prescott to review 'Second Amendment Sanctuary City' resolution

More: (click to open thread)

https://twitter.com/mattgalkafox10/s...873684480?s=21


Sent from free America
__________________
Sent from Free America
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-12-2020, 6:03 AM
audiophil2 audiophil2 is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surprise
Posts: 8,736
iTrader: 244 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
Who?



Sent from free America
You know. You know.
__________________



Private 10 acre range rentals
[/URL]
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-12-2020, 7:52 AM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 13,817
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

That’s helpful.


Sent from free America
__________________
Sent from Free America
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-12-2020, 8:18 AM
audiophil2 audiophil2 is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surprise
Posts: 8,736
iTrader: 244 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
That’s helpful.


Sent from free America
Seriously? The scapegoat is always Californians. Did I really need to tell you that?
Everyone is complaining about Californians turning Prescott into Flag and Tuscon.
__________________



Private 10 acre range rentals
[/URL]
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-12-2020, 8:35 AM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prescott, in the pines
Posts: 13,817
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

From the Daily Courier:

Prescott's Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution tabled

Prescott will not join Yavapai County and three other Arizona counties in declaring a “Second Amendment Sanctuary” designation— at least not for now.

In a 6-1 vote Tuesday, Feb. 11, the Prescott City Council voted to table the resolution that would have pronounced the City of Prescott a Second Amendment Sanctuary City.

Prior to the vote, several of the council members said they disliked the word “sanctuary” and would rather find another way of affirming the city’s support for the right to bear arms.

After the meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Billie Orr, who made the motion to table, said she would prefer a proclamation or another action that would affirm the city’s support for the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

In addition, several council members appeared to support instructing the city’s lobbyist at the State Legislature to lobby against “red-flag laws,” which are defined as laws that permit police or family members to petition the courts to temporarily remove firearms from people who are deemed a danger.

Earlier this month, the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors approved a “Second Amendment Sanctuary” resolution similar to the one the Prescott City Council considered this week. In addition, the counties of Mohave, La Paz and Apache have also approved similar designations.

Councilman Phil Goode, who asked that the resolution be on Tuesday’s council agenda, was the only member to vote against the motion to table the matter.

Goode said the Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution was intended “to send a clear message to our Arizona State Legislature and elected leadership” that city officials would faithfully perform their sworn duties.

In his support of the resolution, Goode mentioned a number of the arguments he had heard against the resolution. For instance, he said he had heard that the resolution is unnecessary because the right to bear arms is already protected in the U.S. Constitution.

But, Goode said, “There are at least three bills filed in the current Arizona legislative session that would allow confiscation of legally possessed firearms likely mitigating Second Amendment protections.”

Orr responded that when she took her oath of office, she agreed to protect not only the U.S. Constitution, but all of the amendments to the Constitution, including the right to bear arms, as well as to “always do what I felt was best for Prescott.”

In doing that, Orr said, “I feel we can reaffirm our commitment to the Constitution in a way that we do not have to become a sanctuary. I really am opposed to the word ‘sanctuary.’” Orr added that the matter is more a state and federal issue than a city issue. “I will tell you that I think this fight needs to go to the Legislature,” she said. “Our job here in the city does not involve the red-flag laws. I think we should consider tabling this until there ever is a red-flag law (in Arizona).”

Councilwoman Cathey Rusing, who earlier had joined Goode in asking that the matter be on the council agenda for discussion, pointed out that the council and the community had only four days to consider the matter.

She suggested that the sanctuary city designation would be best left to the voters. “I would like to propose to my fellow council members that we put this on the ballot so the citizens of Prescott can have a say,” Rusing said.

And Councilwoman Alexa Scholl said that adopting the resolution “would make a statement that we as a city will pick and choose which laws we direct our police department to enforce.” She added, “This resolution doesn’t change anything; it is simply a political statement. I don’t think the city should be in the business of making political statements on state and federal issues. It’s beyond the scope of city business.”

Councilman Steve Sischka emphasized that while he “totally supports the Second Amendment,” he said he has a problem with the word “sanctuary,” which he said is misunderstood. “I would be willing to revisit this at some point, but I think that sanctuary takes away from the good intent of what you’re trying to do here today,” Sischka said.

The council’s comments and vote came after more than an hour of comments — both for and against —from more than 30 members of the audience.

A number of the opponents of the resolution maintained that the action was not needed and would only serve to divide the community. “This is not necessary. We do not need to bring up the ire of this kind of discussion,” local resident Barbara Jacobsen told the council.

On the other hand, a number of the speakers told the council that the resolution would send a message that Prescott was serious about its commitment to the Second Amendment.

Williamson Valley resident Myrna Lieberman said resolutions such as the one the city was considering were “preemptive strikes against red-flag laws.”

###


Sent from free America
__________________
Sent from Free America
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-12-2020, 2:59 PM
JCHavasu's Avatar
JCHavasu JCHavasu is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: That's classified...
Posts: 670
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
...the purpose of enforcing laws that, after complete judicial review, are held to unconstitutionally infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.”
Sounds like feel good, do nothing type of stuff to me. So they will enforce anything no matter how obviously unconstitutional until a complete judicial review is done. But then if it's found unconstitutional they won't anymore. Am I not reading this BS right?
__________________
"You fickers are all cray cray in my opinion. Non of you have an iQ over 80." - SandyCrotchSurfer aka SandyEggoSurf

"News stories and the truth are a bit like fraternal twins. They are related but only vaguely resemble each other."

"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich quick theory of life." - Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-24-2020, 6:36 AM
AnthonyD1978's Avatar
AnthonyD1978 AnthonyD1978 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 648
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCHavasu View Post
Sounds like feel good, do nothing type of stuff to me. So they will enforce anything no matter how obviously unconstitutional until a complete judicial review is done. But then if it's found unconstitutional they won't anymore. Am I not reading this BS right?
Most of these 2a sanctuary resolutions are just "feel good". How does the Yavapai 2a resolution determine what is unconstitutional? Since it passed, can I now build my own suppressor without the county coming after me or assisting the feds? I bet the county would assist the ATF in coming after me for that.
__________________
Principles over agenda
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-24-2020, 9:12 AM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,340
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Move to Montana for that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:16 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy