St. Croix County Board sends second amendment resolution back to committee
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.
By LeAnn R. Ralph
HUDSON — The St. Croix County Board has sent back to the Public Protection and Judiciary Committee a resolution supporting the second amendment to the United States Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
After several attempts to amend the resolution, the county board approved sending it back to committee at the December 6 meeting.
During the public comments portion of the meeting, a number of people addressed the county board about the resolution titled, “Resolution to Support the U.S. Constitution and Rights Explicitly Provided Therein.”
The one-page resolution contained two where-as clauses pertaining to the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.
Bob Long, chair of the St. Croix County Board, allowed each speaker two minutes to make his or her point and allowed 30 minutes all together for public comment.
Adoption of a resolution that gives partial support to the U.S. Constitution is not necessary, said one woman.
The St. Croix County Board has already taken an oath of office to support the U.S. Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution. If the second amendment is specifically mentioned in one resolution, then what about other parts of the constitution, she asked, noting that she comes from a family of hunters and gun owners who already have plenty of gun freedom right now.
Another woman said she was concerned about the speed at which the resolution had advanced to the county board and pointed out the United States Supreme Court’s 2008 “Heller Decision” concerning individual weapon ownership.
The woman said she did not see an assault on the right to keep and bear arms and was concerned about how the resolution was presented and that it represented only partial support for the constitution.
What if there was a resolution about the government establishing a religion but that did not address the freedom to practice religion? she asked.
Redundant
Another woman called the proposed resolution redundant and unnecessary.
The St. Croix County Board already took the oath of office supporting the United States and Wisconsin constitutions, and the proposed resolution is based on a lie that gun rights are in peril, said yet another woman.
The resolution is disguised as a second amendment sanctuary resolution, and the county board should hesitate to approve a resolution that encourages guns when there are already so many people in mental health crisis, she said.
One man, who said he is a firearms instructor, said he was concerned about a resolution in Milwaukee about a ban on assault rifles and was concerned St. Croix County also would support a ban on assault rifles.
The government’s job is to secure rights for citizens, and the county board swore an oath before God, said another person.
It is wrong to pass a resolution on only one part of the constitution. The proposed resolution should be set aside permanently, said another person.
Belts and suspenders
The proposed resolution is like a “belts and suspenders” insurance policy to provide “extra extra” protection, said another woman, adding that the resolution is a waste of the St. Croix County Board’s time.
The proposed resolution is based on “dystopian and paranoid conspiracy theories” and perceived threats by local residents, she said.
Another woman also noted that the St. Croix County Board had already taken an oath to uphold the federal and state constitutions and said it was wrong to interpret the second amendment in a limited way.
The woman said she had been impacted by gun violence when a dear friend was killed by her husband, who then killed himself.
The proposed resolution was rushed through and is a hasty and ill-conceived resolution, she said.
One man said he was a supporter of the second amendment and that it is important for people to be able to own firearms but that he could not support making St. Croix County a second amendment sanctuary.
Another man said that he, too, is a supporter of the second amendment but that the county board should vote against the proposed resolution because it is based on a conspiracy theory about taking away guns and would promote militia groups.
Some versions of second amendment sanctuary resolutions say the county sheriff has the authority to decide what is constitutional and can decide which gun laws to enforce or not enforce.
Attack
One woman said the second amendment is under attack by state and federal laws and that while she did not have time to talk about all of the examples of the second amendment being under attack, the resolution states that the St. Croix County Board would do what board members have said they will do.
Creating more crime justifies law enforcement asking for more money, said another woman.
Taxpayers are already spending more money on law enforcement but are less safe, she said, adding that her children are tired of doing safety drills in school and keep asking “Are we going to be shot?”
The St. Croix County Board is required to follow the law and do its best to uphold the law, said another man.
Why should the St. Croix County Board do something so controversial that the board has no reason to be involved with? he asked.
Freedom
Another man, who said he had objected to the mask mandates that were meant to protect people from the COVID-19 pandemic, said the government it taking away too much freedom.
The proposed resolution has nothing to do with guns but has everything to do with freedom, he said.
Another man said he was an avid hunter and gun owner who is committed to upholding the constitution but that he objected to the proposed resolution.
Why should a small minority decide what is infringement and add fuel to an already dangerous fire? he asked.
“Let’s not solve a problem we don’t have and thereby create a new one,” he said.
If the proposed resolution is unnecessary and redundant, then why is there opposition to it? asked another person.
Invasion
Lisa Lind, county board supervisor from Hudson, said the constitution is under attack and mentioned the “invasion” of Mar-a-Lago by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mar-a-Lago is a resort in Palm Beach, Florida, owned by former president Donald Trump.
While the resort is not technically a residence, Trump uses it as his residence.
The FBI executed a search warrant seeking classified and top secret government documents that would be illegal for a private citizen to have in his or her possession.
The second amendment is necessary so people can protect themselves and protect their homes from being invaded. The county board must approve the proposed resolution to protect St. Croix County, Lind said.
People would think differently if it was their home being invaded, she said.
Law enforcement agencies carry out search warrants after the warrant has been approved by a judge.
Mark Carlson, county board supervisor from Hammond, said people are expressing fear that their rights are under attack, but the St. Croix County Board took an oath to uphold the constitution.
Greg Tellijohn, county board supervisor from New Richmond, noted that he is a gun owner and that his constituents are opposed to the resolution, so he would be in favor of tabling the resolution.
Bob Feidler, county board supervisor from Hudson, noted that there are many other parts of the constitution as well, such as those sections pertaining to freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and the right to vote.
Postpone indefinitely
A motion to postpone the resolution indefinitely failed on a tie vote of nine yes to nine no.
St. Croix County Board members took an oath this spring to uphold the constitution, all of the constitution and not just part of it, said Cathy Leaf, county board supervisor from Hudson.
The constitution is under attack. The mask mandates for COVID were against the constitution and an individual’s right to live or die, Lind said.
The resolution must be passed to protect St. Croix County, she said.
The constitution is about equal protection for rights, including the second amendment and all other amendments, Feidler said.
The resolution is redundant because no one on the county board will “unswear” to uphold the constitution, he said.
Reaffirm support
Leaf offered an amendment to the resolution removing the references to the second amendment so that the resolution reaffirmed support for the entire United States and Wisconsin constitutions.
Paul Berning, county board supervisor from Hudson, said Leaf’s proposal was not so much an amendment as an entirely separate resolution.
Leaf withdrew her proposed amendment and suggested removing the two where-as paragraphs that referred to the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.
The vote to remove the two paragraphs also failed on a tie vote.
1791
Lind suggested an amendment that added a specific date in 1791 (December 15, 1791) regarding the United States Constitution and 1998 for the Wisconsin Constitution.
Several county board members expressed confusion about the reason for including dates.
If either constitution is amended, and the dates are included to point to a specific version of the constitution from a specific year, then the St. Croix County Board resolution would not recognize a legally-changed constitution, Carlson said.
In response to a question, St. Croix County Corporation Counsel Heather Amos said she would need time to research the dates and pointed out that county board members were voting on Lind’s motion to include the dates and not on the relevance of the dates.
The amendment to add the dates failed with Lind and Mike Barcalow, county board supervisor from Hudson, voting in favor.
Committee
Three or four amendments have been offered, so it is clear the St. Croix County Board does not agree on the resolution, Berning said.
After several nine-nine votes, the county board will never get out of the meeting if the board continues to vote nine-nine all day, he said.
Berning offered a motion to send the resolution back to the public protection committee for further consideration.
The St. Croix County Board approved the motion to send the resolution back to the committee with Long and Feidler voting against the motion.
