CHAMBERSBURG – With four states already on board as Second Amendment sanctuaries, questions have come up as to whether Franklin County could become a Second Amendment municipality.
For reference: a Second Amendment sanctuary is a state, county or locality in the United States that has adopted laws or resolutions to oppose, or possibly prohibit or impede, certain gun control measures. Proponents of these sanctuary resolutions say that various gun laws, like universal background checks, high-capacity magazine bans, assault weapon bans and red flag laws are a violation of the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
These Second Amendment sanctuary places have basically said since we live in a federalist society that allows states and municipalities to make rules separate from the federal government, we will make our own rules about gun control.
It’s a growing movement across the country. Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming and Kansas have officially made themselves sanctuary states for the Second Amendment.
Other municipalities in states that will likely never become a sanctuary state have also done this.
County Commissioner John Flannery talked with Pat Ryan and Michele Jansen on First News about this issue and was asked whether he had received calls from citizens in Franklin County asking the municipality becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary.
“Yes I have,” Flannery said. “I did bring that up to the other commissioners and for one reason or another, I do support it, but I will not get the support to do that.”
The reason given for that was since most of our local municipalities would not infringe on our Second Amendment rights anyway, there really isn’t a need for a proclamation to do so.
“I’m a little dumbfounded by that response,” Jansen said. “If they’re so sure they won’t do it anyway, why NOT make a proclamation? That’s a ridiculous response.”
If Franklin County made such a proclamation it would only apply to the municipal police – the state police would not have to recognize it because they are under the jurisdiction, obviously, of the state. Local law enforcement, such as sheriffs, would.
“It’s just an idea that a municipality is saying we’re not going to have our local law enforcement support this because we are worried that these federal laws are infringing on constitutional rights,” Jansen said. “And it’s a resolution. I really don’t see a problem with it if the constituents want it.”
“I can insist that we bring it on the agenda for a vote,” Flannery said. “But I can tell you that I will lose that vote.”
“Maybe a lot more constituents need to be calling the other commissioners and letting them know their desires if this is what the constituents would like,” Jansen suggested.
