Letter: Fog along edges of county’s resolution on gun bill
Although a little fog remains along the edges, I am glad to see the county clarify (Post Independent, April 10) its resolution regarding the red flag gun bill (House Bill 19-1177). Such clarification, however, may not have been necessary with a little more investigative reporting on the part of the Post. I do not know which party, the county or the Post, introduced the characterization of Garfield County being a sanctuary county in regard to HB 19-1177, but the implication here is clearly that the county would choose not to honor the law if ultimately passed.
The consequences of a county decision to willfully disregard established state law are so dire that a newspaper of record might want to probe a little deeper. Will the county instruct the sheriff to disregard a judge’s order to confiscate a gun? Is the sheriff going to decide which laws to enforce? What are the sheriff’s “enforcement decisions” that the county supported? Is the Board of County Commissioners trying to influence the behavior of our judges? The Post leaves its readers hanging on these questions when going to primary sources might clarify what actions, if any, our regulators and law enforcement establishment intend in regard to HB19-1177 if passed.
And regarding the fog along the edges: What are the consequences of being a “2nd Amendment preservation county”? And exactly what funds does the BOCC deem would infringe on the 2nd Amendment? And, finally, when did the BOCC become arbiters of the 2nd Amendment?
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.