LTE – Joanne Utphall – 5-19-2021
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
A Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution is being proposed to the townships in Dunn County. The resolution is based on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which 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.” Definition of resolution is a formal statement of a decision or expression of opinion put before or adopted by an assembly. It is neither a law nor an ordinance so the main purpose is to send a message to the local politicians. Basically becoming a sanctuary township sends a message that the local citizens are standing firmly to prevent the government from confiscating firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are legally owned. Another message sent to politicians would be to prohibit state public funds and state employees from assisting in the confiscation of legally owned Second Amendment protected firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition. Automatic weapons cannot be legally owned so this resolution does not include them.
Definition of militia is a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to be called only in an emergency. One example of militia can be shown this way. Japan dropped bombs on Pearl Harbor in 1941 but did not invade the west coast of the U.S even though a large portion of the US’s Navy was destroyed or needed repair. After the WWII was over Japanese Generals were asked why they did not invade the US after bombing Pearl Harbor. They knew that they couldn’t win; that they would be outnumbered by the civilian militia (hunters, shooting range activists and the homeowners). Just shows the power of the civilian militia. Being it is just a resolution, these municipalities cannot become sanctuary havens for criminal “militia” groups.
Some people think that it could never happen in the US; that the guns could never be taken away from US citizens. They thought that in Nazi Germany, Venezuela and Cuba before the government took their guns away. Currently guns are not allowed or are strictly controlled in Australia, UK, New Zealand, China, Japan (only hunters), Russia (since the Bolshevik Revolution), Poland (since 2015), and others.
The following eight countries have gun bans or strict gun laws that have the highest crime rates in the world: Russia, Turkey, Papua New Guinea, Brazil, Jamaica, South Africa, El Salvador, and Venezuela. To own a gun in El Salvador and Venezuela, and Hungary, you need to get permission from the police; pass theoretical, mental and psychological test and have a strong justification to own guns, such as membership in a hunting or rifle club. It is almost impossible for a private citizen to own a gun in Mexico. But the laws do not stop the drug cartels from possessing all the guns that they want and they kill dozens of people a week. Some of the highest crime rates in the US are in places that have the strictest gun laws. Chicago is a prime example.
If you took all the guns away, evil people would still find a means to harm others – vehicles, bombs, poison, knives, etc. Stricter gun laws won’t make any difference when current gun laws are not being followed. Criminals (including mentally ill criminals) don’t abide by the law. Stricter laws only punish the law-biding citizens.
JoAnn Utphall
Boyceville