On December 3, the Goochland County Board of
Supervisors unanimously approved this powerful document supporting the second
amendment of the United States Constitution and the rights of law-abiding Goochland
citizens to own and bear arms.
The action was taken in response to draconian gun
control legislation prefiled in the Virginia General Assembly by the repressive
radicals elected last month who will take control of both houses in Richmond
next month.
 |
| Second Amendment supporters swelled the attendance for the supervisors' public hearings on Dec. 3 |
Resolution of
the Goochland County Board of Supervisors
PREAMBLE
The Goochland County Board of Supervisors has received
significant input from citizens expressing serious concerns about potential Gun
Control legislation that may be enacted by the 2020 General Assembly session.
This statement is intended to respond to those citizen concerns.
In Goochland County we believe in the rule of law and
support the US Constitution including the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment.
Each member of the Goochland County Board of Supervisors has taken an oath to
“support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Virginia”. The Goochland County Board takes the oath of office
seriously and actively works to protect all rights guaranteed by both constitutions
including the right for law-abiding citizens to bear arms.
The Goochland County Board of Supervisors writes laws for
the county to the extent authority has been granted by the General Assembly. We
have limited authority to pass laws, but we fully use our authority to protect
and defend the rights of our citizens.
The Board of Supervisors is neither a law enforcement
entity, nor responsible for prosecutions. Law enforcement in the county is
entrusted to the Sheriff, who is separately elected by the citizens of this
county. Prosecutions are handled by the Commonwealth’s Attorney, who is also
separately elected by the citizens. Finally, the Board of Supervisors has no
judicial authority. Interpretation and determination of the constitutionality
of laws is performed by the court system.
This resolution affirms our support for the Second
Amendment and sends a clear message to our legislators and all elected
officials that we respect our citizens’ rights, all their rights, and that we
stand with other Virginia localities that have similarly voted to affirm their
support for citizens’ Second Amendment rights.
RESOLUTION
Whereas, the Second Amendment of the United
States Constitution reads “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed”: and
Whereas, the United States Supreme Court in
District of Columbia. Heller, 554 U. S.570 (2008), affirmed an individual’s
right to possess firearms unconnected with service in a militia, for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home: and
Whereas, Article 1, Section 1, of the
Virginia Constitution reads “That all men are by nature equally free and
independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into
the state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their
posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of
acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and
safety”; and
Whereas, Article 1, Section 2 of the
Virginia Constitution reads that “all power is vested in, and consequently derived
from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all
times amenable to them”; and
Whereas, Article 1, Section 13, of the
Virginia Constitution provides “that a well-regulated militia, composed of the
body of the people, trained to arms , is
the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the
right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed”; and
Whereas, certain legislation that has or
may be introduced in the Virginia General Assembly, and certain legislation
which has or may be introduced in the United States Congress could have the
effect of infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear
arms, as guaranteed by the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the
Virginia Constitution: and
Whereas, the Goochland County Board of
Supervisors is concerned about the passage of any bill containing language
which infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens of Goochland to keep and
bear arms; and
Whereas, the Goochland County Board of
Supervisors wishes to express its deep commitment to the rights of all
law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms; and
Whereas, the Goochland Board of Supervisors
wishes to express its opposition to any federal or state law that
unconstitutionally restricts the rights of the law-abiding citizens of Goochland
County to keep and bear arms; and
Whereas, the Goochland County Board of Supervisors
wishes to express its intent to support and defend the Second Amendment rights,
and to oppose, within the limits of the Constitutions of the United States and
the Commonwealth of Virginia, any efforts to unconstitutionally restrict such
rights, and to use such legal means at
its disposal to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens of Goochland County
to keep and bear arms.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this 3rd
day of December 2019, by the Board of Supervisors of Goochland County,
Virginia:
That the Goochland County Board of Supervisors urges our Delegates,
Senators, and the Governor, to oppose the passage of any state laws that
infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth under the
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and under Article 1, Section
13 of the Virginia Constitution, and
That the Goochland County Board of Supervisor hereby
expresses its intend to uphold the Second Amendment Rights of law-abiding
citizens of Goochland County, Virginia, and
That the Goochland County Board of Supervisors hereby
declares its intent to oppose any infringement on the right of law-abiding
citizens to keep and bear arms using such legal means as may be expedient.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Goochland
County Board of Supervisors request that a copy of this resolution be provided
to the General Assembly members representing Goochland County and to the
Governor of Virginia.
The vote followed more than an hour of passionate
public comment and a thoughtful discussion among board members. Speakers urged—some
demanded—that the supervisors make Goochland a second amendment sanctuary county
to follow the lead of other Virginia jurisdictions. The supervisors chose
instead to frame their beliefs about the protection of Constitutional rights in
their own words.
Senate Bill 16, to be addressed in the 2020 Virginia
General Assembly session, sparked the outcry. (See https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+SB16
for details. Take a good look at the impact statement, and its discussion of
the number of incarcerations that could be generated.) As written, the bill, if
passed, could make felons out of a great many Goochland citizens.
The board room and overflow space were filled with a
cross section of the good people of Goochland. Speakers included a home-schooling
mother, often alone during the day with her children, who invoked her right to
protect her family; hunters; sport shooters; gun owners; and people who support
the Constitution.
Tina Ramirez and Del. John McGuire, both seeking the Republican
nomination to oppose Abigail Spanberger in next year’s 7th District congressional
race weighed in.
Ramirez said
that gun rights are very personal to her because she has seen first-hand,
during her work in war torn countries, what happens when people lose their
right to bear arms falsely believing that their government would protect them.
McGuire said that as a Navy SEAL he swore an oath to
protect the Constitution. “Evil does exist,” he said. “Once you lose a right
it’s hard to get it back.”
One gentleman said that he lives in western Goochland
and hears gunfire all the time. “No one has been shot and no one has bullet
holes in their homes” he said. He took issue with people in the General assembly
who believe they know what is best for us and interfere with our constitutional
rights.
Some were angry that the board declined to include the
word sanctuary. “We elected you, you do what we tell you,” one man shouted. (Actually,
that’s not how it works. America is a republic. We elect people who we trust to
act in our stead. To the people who grumbled that we need a change in the board
of supervisors—there was an election to do just that four weeks ago. If you pay
so little attention to government at all levels, you deserve what you get.)
One speaker urged the supervisors to send a message
that cannot be misunderstood. They did.
“This
legislation would make Hitler proud,” contended one speaker referring to SB16,
“and make me a felon overnight.” Another gentleman said he intends to be a good
felon because he has no intention of obeying SB 16. He said that legislation to
confiscate weapons would put deputies in harm’s way.
A speaker observed that “244 years later we are still
fighting the same battle,” referring to the American Revolution. “I don’t care
how much you owe Michael Bloomberg for your election, Virginia gun rights are
not for sale,” another declared.
Board Chair Manuel Alvarez, Jr. District 2, presiding
at his last meeting as a supervisor, recalled when his grandfather’s guns were
confiscated by soldiers in Castro’s in Cuba. “There were tears in his eyes, not
because they were taking his guns, which he rarely used but enjoyed cleaning,
but because of what happened to Cuba,”. The memory brought tears to Alvarez’
eyes.
“This resolution takes our message to the governor and
General Assembly without the word sanctuary,” Alvarez contended.
John Lumpkins, District 3, said that he too will be a
good felon if SB16 passes. He acknowledged that the supervisors cannot compel
the sheriff to ignore a law and only have so much power. He too contended that the
unanimous adoption of the resolution sends a clear message to the state house.
Lumpkins said that the supervisors are with those who
support gun rights. He also urged everyone there to go to the state capital on January
20 to reinforce the message. His remarks generated shouts of approval and support.
Board vice chair, Susan Lascolette, District 1, said that
she too is a gun owner and supports protection of Second Amendment rights. “We
want our rights protected; we don’t want our guns taken away.” She said that
regardless of the use of the word “sanctuary” the board cannot give gun owners
a level of protection. “We’re standing with everyone else in this endeavor, pushing
back and saying we don’t want our guns taken away.”
District 4 Supervisor, Bob Minnick, a retired U. S. Army
Lt. Col, who also retires at the end of the year, said that to him, the word “sanctuary”
was a trigger word as it has been used by those who seek to circumvent the Constitution.
“Having taken the oath (to uphold and protect the Constitution)
five times myself over a 21 year military career and given it over 100 times to
others of like mind. I come from the same place as many in the audience. First
gun at 10, first NRA class at 11; 21 years military service with a fair amount
of weapons training. I’ve got my log cabin story about what I did with my weapons
and what I like to do now with my weapons. No one is going to take my weapon
from me ever. My approach was to make this resolution very concise.” He said he
viewed the term “sanctuary” as part of lawlessness, which he cannot support. “I
believe that this is as strong or stronger than anything from other jurisdictions
in Virginia or other states that I have reviewed.”
Ken Peterson, District 5, a West Point graduate and
former paratrooper, said “it does the heart good to see so many patriotic
Americans in the room.” He too took the oath to support and defend the Constitution
from all enemies foreign and domestic and defend the Second Amendment with his
life.
He reminded the assemblage that the supervisors so
strongly support Second Amendment rights that they repealed the concealed carry
permit fee a few years ago, believing that no one should have to pay for the privilege
of owning a gun.
Peterson said that the recent development of jurisdictions
picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution they will uphold and which
they will ignore is troubling and undermines the rule of law upon which our form
of government is based.
To see the entire discussion, go to the county website
http://www.goochlandva.us/ and click
on recorded meetings. Select the December 3 supervisor’s meeting. The Second Amendment
discussion begins at the 2:42 mark.
3 comments:
Why was this so poorly advertised? Certainly those on VCDL (including me) and NRA mailing lists were well informed, but I don't recall seeing anything anywhere else that announced that this resolution was a topic for discussion. I wouldn't have known anything about it if not for the VCDL emails.
While I certainly support 2A, this seems silly to me. Yes, it's well-worded and intelligently constructed to stay within the law, but it strikes me as a toothless resolution, when there are so many other more important things to worry about. What next? Sanctuary cities where people can trespass on other people's private property protesting and carrying signs, claiming an exercise of their 1A right to freedom of speech, and insisting that they not be arrested for trespassing?
If the state govt bans large clips, (something I do agree with), they can be buried in the back yard, and when/if the conspiracy-theories of race wars and government attacks on its own citizens materialize, dig them up and do what you have to do. In the mean time, make them available to be stored and checked out at gun ranges. There are always compromises. The way our republic is supposed to work (thanks for pointing that out), is to petition our representatives to pass laws we want. As your article points out, it seems some people slept through all their Civics classes in school!
I understand that the intent of such resolutions is to send a political message, and that's fine; but the message it also sends is that we don't care one single bit about gun violence. I wonder if that would change if there was a mass shooting at GHS.... Let's hope that never happens.
The M1 Garand rifle that my father carried in the Korean War had an 8-round clip, a simple thin stamped metal device designed to hold ammo together as the assembly is inserted into the spring-loaded magazine of the M1. When the last round is fired, the clip is ejected from the M1’s magazine with an audible “ping.” Modern pistols and rifles, however, have a detachable magazine with an internal spring that feeds the next round into the chamber.
Precise language is extremely important whether we are talking about constitutional rights we want to protect or when the government is attempting to write laws describing exactly what they want to ban. It reminds me of when Joe Biden said “I believe in the Second Amendment, but nobody says you can have a round…a…a magazine with a hundred clips in it.” In another stunning display of ignorant gun control speak, Biden calls for banning "magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them". All magazines hold "multiple bullets," that's the point of a magazine.
Pat, you can go ahead and willingly turn in your large clips, if you actually own an older military rifle that uses them. For me, I will keep my magazines, regardless of size and be a good felon. I hope that those engaging in the coming debates will take more care and at least learn the proper gun terminology. It is up to all of us to inform and challenge those in the legislature that the second amendment is not about hunting, and that smaller magazines does not improve gun safety. Suppressors actually make shooting less dangerous to your hearing and your relationship with your neighbors. If you allow ignorant people to write gun laws you end up with ignorant gun laws. We have plenty of gun control, we need more crazy control.
Pardon me for using the wrong terminology. I stand corrected, and you are right - we need to use the correct terminology.
Personally, I prefer, bow, muzzle-loader and bolt action rifle for hunting, as I think this imposes a need for greater discipline and skill, and while there are families who still rely on harvesting a deer or two to get through the winter, it's a sport for most hunters. It strikes me as advertising one's lack of skill and/or self-confidence if one requires a large "magazine" for hunting!
I don't see the need for large "magazines" for self defense. I think most everyone agrees that the government has the right to provide some regulation of firearms, otherwise anyone could buy fully-automatic weapons, or RPGs, and so forth. Reducing magazine capacities gives people under attack an opportunity to fight or run while the "crazy" person reloads. I don't know any statistics for this, but I suspect that the number of times a large magazine has been required for self defense, vs the number of times a large magazine has been used to terrorize and massacre our fellow citizens, does not justify them. For home defense, a shotgun has always been the best solution in my view.
I think the real issue is society, not guns - they are just a symptom; but the act of imposing restrictions on weapons that our founders certainly never envisioned, is an acknowledgement that we agree there are societal issues we need to deal with. Failing to do anything, tells society that we've given up, and we accept that people are going to be massacred from time to time. Is limiting magazines going to end the violence? No, but it sends a message that we're concerned about it. The "crazies" see the lack of societal concern, and are empowered to be crazy and hostile. Insisting on the need for large magazines, in my view, is an advertisement of one's fear. You don't need large magazines unless you are afraid. What is our society so afraid of? Unfortunately, the answer is - each other. We're all Americans. Why are we so afraid of each other?
Some have suggested that the country has not been this polarized since the Civil War. Putting out resolutions that suggest laws passed by duly elected representatives should be ignored, is not good for our Republic, or the rule of law. The place to fight these battles is in the legislature, not with toothless resolutions in so-called sanctuary cities (and this applies to immigration laws). That simply adds to the polarization and division that is already damaging the country.
As for Biden - the poor guy grew up as a stutterer. He had to teach his brain to reach for other words, when he got stuck. Unfortunately what comes out of his mouth is often discombobulated! Whether this means that's how he really thinks is hard to say. The Dem party certainly seems intent on making him their candidate, just as they pushed Clinton last time. Why we can't get qualified candidates whose focus is on unification, rather than increased polarization, is the real issue. We live in a society where one can only win if the other loses. The days of cooperation and compromise have ended, and its endangering our Republic.
Post a Comment