La Paz County Arizona approves 'sanctuary' resolution

[Doheny]

Things are happening in AZ. Last week Yavapai, this week La Paz!

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/more-arizona-counties-approve-sanctuary-resolutions-on-gun-rights

The City of Prescott is also considering a resolution this week:

Prescott to review 'Second Amendment Sanctuary City' resolution

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/topic?share_fid=17954&share_tid=1588149&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecalguns%2Enet%2Fcalgunforum%2Fshowthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D1588149&share_type=t&link_source=app

[sigstroker]

There's some BS going on here:

Under the measures, the supervisors vowed to defend state and federal constitutional rights, including the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

The measure also said the supervisors won't spend public money or use other government resources to enforce laws that unconstitutionally infringe on gun rights.

Okay, sounds good so far.

Another supporter, Chris Kuknyo allowed that “a resolution has no teeth” but said it “sends a message to our governor and other people that we won’t tolerate it, and we will fight against it.”

Prescott resident Ralph Hess, a retired Superior Court judge, questioned whether the resolution was needed and how county officials would decide what gun measure is unconstitutional.

“As you know, constitutionality of laws is determined by courts, not by boards of supervisors, not by county attorneys, not by county sheriffs and not by Second Amendment ‘sanctuary county’ advocates,” Hess said. “Until a court determines a law to be unconstitutional, your oaths bind you to authorize or appropriate the use of county resources for the purpose of enforcing that law.”

There's their out - the resolution disallows unConstitutional orders, but according to those guys, it would take a court ruling to be "unConstitutional".

Board Chairman Craig Brown agreed that the resolution was more about making a statement than it was about legal impacts.

“Practically, in a legal sense, not really, I don’t believe (the resolution would have an effect). According to our lawyer, the resolution is just that. It’s the board making a statement, and we will continue that statement," Brown said.

So these supervisors just passed it to appease pro-gunners. It sounds like if there's a red flag law and red flag complaint, they'll still send Sheriff deputies to take guns away from someone.

[Uncivil Engineer]

I'm not surprised seeing as they are trying to ban all semi auto rifles with a detachable magazine.

So yes they are coming for your 10/22 fudds.

https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/SB1625/id/2119093

[Doheny]

<snipped>

So these supervisors just passed it to appease pro-gunners. It sounds like if there's a red flag law and red flag complaint, they'll still send Sheriff deputies to take guns away from someone.

Well, the sheriff is directly elected and doesn't work for the BOS, so they don't tell him where to go or what to do. Plus, as in the case of the Yavapai, the sheriff spoke in favor of the measure at the BOS meeting and advised them he wouldn't have his people enforce laws he felt were unconstitutional.

Sure, such measures don't have the teeth that legislation does. However, they let the lawmakers know the political temperature and that folks don't want their 2A right messed with.