Sanctuary resolution fails to make agenda for board meeting
Tue, 02/28/2023 - 1:45pm caleb
Commissioner and some citizens concerned about gun control legislation and Second Amendment rights
Caleb Casey | Managing Editor
A county commissioner’s second attempt to have the county board pass a “Constitutional Sanctuary Resolution” failed during a regular meeting on Thursday, February 23.
During recent meetings of the Crawford County Board of Commissioners, a few citizens have asked the board to “consider adopting a resolution like other counties” stating that Crawford County will be a “sanctuary” from “unconstitutional” laws as gun control bills enter the Michigan legislature. Local proponents of the sanctuary resolutions have said the bills violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
According to constitution.congress.gov, the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States 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.”
House Bill No. 6544 – “Introduced by Rep. (Jeffrey) Pepper and referred to the Committee on Military, Veterans and Homeland Security,” according to the Michigan Legislature website, http://www.legislature.mi.gov – is “a bill to ban the manufacture, possession, purchase, and sale of assault weapons; to provide certain powers and duties for certain state and local officials and agencies; to provide for the promulgation of rules; and to provide penalties.”
During the February 9 meeting of the Crawford County Board of Commissioners, Commissioner Dorothy A. Frederick (District #2) moved to approve a “Constitutional Sanctuary Resolution” for Crawford County. The motion received a second for purposes of “discussion.” The support was later withdrawn, and the motion failed due to lack of support.
During discussion, county officials said the “Constitutional Sanctuary Resolution” could not be passed by the board as presented because of some of the verbiage in it, specifically a section that says “this Board will not authorize the expenditure of one cent of taxpayer funds, nor will our Sheriff direct the use of any law enforcement officer under his command to enforce any unconstitutional law.”
During the February 9 meeting, county officials said they reaffirmed their commitment to constitutional rights of the people in February of 2020 with a “Resolution Declaring Crawford County’s Support Of The Constitution Of The United States.”
“Constitution of the United States of America along with the Bill of Rights is the foundation that this nation was constructed upon; and the United States Supreme Court’s sole purpose is to defend the Constitution of the United States and its twenty-seven accompanying amendments; and the United States Constitution is the benchmark of how a free society governs itself; and the Constitution for the State of Michigan also supports the rights of the citizens and ensures the freedoms to which this nation was founded. Therefore, be it resolved, that the Crawford County Board of Commissioners supports and defends the Constitution of the United States along with the Constitution for the State of Michigan in their entirety. Be it further resolved, that this Board affirms its support for the Crawford County Sheriff and the Crawford County Prosecuting Attorney in the exercise of their sound discretion to enforce the United States Constitution and the Constitution for the State of Michigan,” according to the 2020 resolution.
The 2020 resolution passed 7-0. Commissioner Frederick was not on the board at that time.
During a regular meeting of the Crawford County Board of Commissioners on Thursday, February 23, Frederick moved to add “sanctuary resolution” to the agenda under the “unfinished business” section. The motion failed due to lack of support.
Later, during the second of the meeting’s two public comment periods, Cam Jones of South Branch Township – one of those who has requested the sanctuary resolution during previous meetings – said he was “highly disappointed this board does not see fit to protect our rights.”