It was déjà vu all over again when the Shasta County, California Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution Tuesday by a vote of 4-0 to “use all lawful means at its disposal to support and defend the Second Amendment,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
The vote was reminiscent of the “Second Amendment Sanctuary” movement from a couple of years ago.
The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) credited the hard work of its local affiliate, Gun Owners of Shasta County, for working “relentlessly” over the past two years to change the board members and then pushing to have the resolution re-considered following a two-year hiatus. The original resolution had been rejected by the former board.
The four-page resolution, which may be read here, resolves “that to the extent allowed by law, the Board of Supervisors may use all lawful means to prohibit, by resolution or ordinance, any Shasta County Department, Officer, or Employee acting in their official capacity, from applying for grants, spending county public funds, using County public resources or County public employees, that directly or indirectly support any past, present, or future, state or federal infringement on the Second Amendment.”
“This is a huge victory and a large signal for gun owners throughout the state that the power of the people can still shape local government policy,” CRPA said in a prepared statement.
According to the Redding Record Searchlight, the resolution was “put together with help” from CRPA. The newspaper said members of the board wanted to send a message that the county “isn’t going to back down” to pressure from the legislature or anti-gun Gov. Gavin Newsom.
California in recent years has adopted some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Those restrictions, however, have not prevented people from committing violent crimes.
There is some strong language in the resolution. Among provisions in the resolution is this statement: “… the Board of Supervisors believes there have been many problems with reports and studies claiming that gun laws work and that those reports and studies cherry-pick the data used and do not give an accurate picture of the effectiveness of these laws.”
The resolution immediately adds, “the Board of Supervisors believes the State of California continues to
release violent criminals onto the streets and into our communities through acts such as Proposition 47, and Assembly Bill 109, all the while refusing to address mental health issues and criminal activity in our State that lead to most of these tragedies.”
A few paragraphs later, the resolution states, “the Board of Supervisors believes that the California Legislature has passed laws that will be determined to be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, and continues to pass laws that will be determined to infringe, unconstitutionally, upon people’s rights under the Second Amendment.”
While the measure is largely symbolic, it does reinforce the notion that Northern California is a much different region than central and southern California, specifically San Francisco, Sacramento and Los Angeles.
Voting to approve the resolution were Supervisors Patrick Jones, Kevin Crye, Chris Kelstrom and Tm Garman. Supervisor Mary Rickert reportedly had left after becoming ill, and was not present for the vote.
The LA Times quoted UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, who noted that “Second Amendment Sanctuaries” had seen strong support in rural communities. Indeed, when Virginia’s Assembly was taken over by Democrats three years ago, they adopted several gun control measures and nearly every county in the Commonwealth took up sanctuary measures. The movement spread across the country.
Winkler told the Times that a county “cannot just decide on its own that they’re not going to obey state law.”
Whether a county might push that envelope, what happened this week in Shasta County clearly signals that in Northern California, gun control is a non-starter.
