Bartholomew County and Columbus officials said they will not consider any proposals for either to become a Second Amendment sanctuary.
The statement, from the Bartholomew County commissioners and Columbus Mayor Jim Lienhoop, was issued Thursday afternoon. “We are not in favor of doing anything,” commissioners chairman Carl Lienhoop said.
The joint statement is in response to a group calling itself the Bartholomew County Indiana 2A United Sanctuary. The group had sent a draft of a proposed ordinance to the city and the county, as well as Bartholomew County Sheriff Matt Myers.
One of the leaders of the group is spokesman Chris Imel, a former Bartholomew County deputy coroner now living in Ladoga near Crawfordsville.
[sc:text-divider text-divider-title=”Story continues below gallery” ]
If the city or county had decided to act on the proposal, it would have allowed officials to “refuse to cooperate with state and federal firearm laws” perceived to violate the Second Amendment, including any future proposed restrictions on clip capacity, silencers, bump stocks, bayonet mounts, among other items, Imel said earlier.
Other concerns brought up by Imel include emergency protection orders and enforcement of gun background checks. He also expressed concern about Red Flag laws, which essentially allow officers to seize guns from those deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.
Thursday’s joint statement, however, said neither the county nor the city was interested in the proposal.
“The proposal appears to be an attempt to usurp or supersede the authority of the courts,” the statement said.
The Second Amendment, as well as other court decisions that recognize an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, were cited by city and county officials as reasons why sanctuary status is not needed locally.
In addition, the statement said the proposed ordinance doesn’t reflect the role or responsibility of city and county government.
Commissioner Carl Lienhoop stressed he and other local elected officials had all taken oaths to support and defend the Constitution — which includes upholding and enforcing laws.
And there’s another reality to consider, Carl Llienhoop said.
“If the federal government really wants to play hardball, they can say ‘OK … you guys want to become a sanctuary territory? We’ll just cut your federal funding off,” Carl Lienhoop said. “All of it.”
That applies to city, county and state governments who set up either illegal immigrant or firearms sanctuaries, he said.
On Thursday morning, a staff member for the commissioners said the office had received a number of phone calls from residents critical of an out-of-county resident submitting proposed ordinances to Bartholomew County.
Besides the mayor and commissioners, city attorney Alan Whitted and county attorney Grant Tucker assisted the elected officials in the drafting the joint statement, Carl Lienhoop said.
Imel said he was “disappointed” that the city and county officials who issued the statement did not engage with him about what he was hoping to accomplish with the ordinance. “We will continue to pursue this,” Imel said. “We will get other individuals in involved. There are some county officials and city officials that are for this.”
Imel also said, “It’s very disheartening that those officials who released the statement do not believe in our Second Amendment rights.”
[sc:pullout-title pullout-title=”The statement” ][sc:pullout-text-begin]
January 23, 2020
In response to questions to the Commissioners’ and Mayors’ offices from The Republic concerning the so called “Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance,” our position is as follows:
Bartholomew County and the City of Columbus intend to take no action concerning such ordinance. Our reason is that any such action is unnecessary.
The Constitution is intended to be followed by the people, businesses and organizations including units of Government. The question of whether the Constitution has been followed is within the sole province of the Courts to determine.
It appears that the intent and purpose of this proposed Ordinance is to attempt to usurp or supersede the authority of the Courts.
The proposed Ordinance, in subsections B, C, and D of Sections 2, as cited in pertinent part here, explain why we feel no need to take any action.
“B. The Second Amendment of the Constitution States, …the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
“C. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is further protected from infringement by state and local governments under the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.”
“D. The Supreme Court of the United States of America in District of Columbus v. Heller recognized the individual’s right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment …”
We recognize that constitutional rights are of critical importance. Part of the oath of office of public officials is to “support and defend the Constitution.”
We do not see that this ordinance is in furtherance of our role or responsibility as representatives of local Government within Bartholomew County and the City of Columbus.
[sc:pullout-text-end]
