More, Faster

Roseau County becomes Minnesota’s first Second Amendment Sanctuary County:

The resolution, passed unanimously to applause from the dozen residents in attendance, reads that the board “wishes to express opposition to any law in the future, beyond existing laws to date, that would unconstitutionally restrict the rights of the citizens of Roseau County to keep and bear arms.”
The motion goes on to resolve that “public funds of the county not be used to restrict the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Roseau County, or to aid federal or state agencies in the restriction of said rights.”
Roseau County Sheriff Steve Gust said the resolution won’t change local law enforcement’s operations, since one of the resolution’s main intents is to oppose “red flag” gun laws, which allow courts to temporarily remove guns from people who are found to be a risk to themselves or others. Red flag laws have been proposed in Minnesota but not passed.

Look for more of this in Greater Minnesota in coming months.

While the measures are mostly symbolic – for now – they do show gun voters statewide the seriousness of the choices in this upcoming election. In 2020, if the DFL takes the Senate, this state will make Virginia look like Wyoming.

5 thoughts on “More, Faster

  1. I’m bummed that Sherburne County got beat to the goal line. On the other hand, congratulations and good job to Roseau County.

    I particularly like that they didn’t let the big city lawyers decide for them what is meet and proper. Like Sherburne (and Douglas) did. Because I’m sure that all the chin-stroking and hand-wringing for this sanctuary type was also just as important for the illegal immigration sanctuary types.

  2. I’m not sure the two issues could be more muddled than they are already. I am pleased that 2A Sanctuary efforts have exposed the Illegal Immigration Sanctuary efforts for what they are, an example of escalating lawlessness by the gentry liberal class.

    But perhaps I misunderstood your point?

  3. Modeling 2d Amd sanctuary cities after immigration sanctuaries blends them in low information voter’s minds as “people refusing to obey the law.” The difference – immigration refusal is good and gun refusal is bad – only justifies their acts in their minds.

    That’s the wrong analysis but it may be too subtle for them to appreciate.

    The real difference is their refusal is not good, it’s bad because there’s no constitutionally protected right to enter the country without permission, or to remain here after permission has been denied. Our refusal is not bad, it’s good because there is a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

    The challenge is explaining why their ‘good’ is really ‘bad’ while our ‘bad’ is really ‘good’ without requiring so much thought that they give up and watch Friends re-runs.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.