A group seeking to have Columbus and Bartholomew County government declare the county a Second Amendment Sanctuary failed on a second try Monday.
City and county officials wrote a clearly worded statement in January saying neither the county nor the city would consider any Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution.
“The proposal appears to be an attempt to usurp or supersede the authority of the courts,” according to the statement last month from the Bartholomew County commissioners and Columbus Mayor Jim Lienhoop in January. “We are not in favor of doing anything,” commissioners chairman Carl Lienhoop said.
A group calling itself Bartholomew County Indiana 2A United Sanctuary had asked the two unit of local government 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, group spokesman Chris Imel said.
[sc:text-divider text-divider-title=”Story continues below gallery” ]
On Monday, a very similar proposal was sent to both governmental entities from a group calling itself “The 2A Project.”
While this new proposal was not attributed to Imel’s group, Imel said he wrote most of the accompanying emails that were sent to city and county officials.
While most of the language referred to constitutional rights, Item #3 of the proposed resolution asked the county commissioners and Sheriff Matt Myers to “declare their intent to withhold any expenditure or use of county resources to enforce any law or regulation based upon a good faith believe that such law or regulation is unconstitutional.”
Although Imel said the January resolution likely contained language (local leaders) objected to, the new draft tried to meet city and county leaders in the middle,” Imel said.
However, portion’s of Imel’s wording did not sit well with Commissioner Rick Flohr as he read it.
“Your lack of caring about the Second Amendment was evident by the way none of you responded to the original request a few weeks ago,” Imel wrote in the email that was read aloud by Flohr. “Hiding behind a generic joint statement is not going to work forever. That was a slap in the face to gun owners of Bartholomew County. The people of Bartholomew County want leadership that stands by our Constitution. Please show them your leadership.”
Flohr and the remaining two commissioners emphasized they all own guns, and strongly voiced their support for Second Amendment gun rights. Flohr and Kleinhenz also said there are certain values they share with Imel’s group, adding the organization serves an important role as a public watchdog.
“But to say we’re going to be ‘for’ or ‘against’ something that’s out there in the future — and we don’t know what it is — I don’t see how they can ask us to do that,” Flohr said.
In a philosophy he attributed to George Washington, Commissioner Larry Kleinhenz said that if Americans don’t support the courts in making the final decision on the constitutionality of a law, “then we are subject to being overthrown by a coup,” Kleinhenz said. “The courts keep us from falling into a state of anarchy, disarray and disorganization.”
While again stating his strong support for Second Amendment rights, Kleinhenz expressed concern that if he signed the proposed resolution, he was concerned about finding himself swept into a political corner in the future.
“I know there’s a purpose down the road where someone can come back and say ‘Yeah, Kleinhenz, but you signed this’,” the commissioner said.
Imel said he expected the commissioners would not change their minds, but he was hoping the new proposal would prompt the commissioners to hold an open conversation on the topic.
“If they would have put this on their agenda, we would have had a representative there,” Imel said. “They have to realize there’s a lot of people who want them to have an open conversation on this topic.”
But audience member Mike Lovelace said if Imel’s group wants to make their case, they should just show up at a commissioners meeting.
“I’ve never been to a meeting where the commissioners didn’t address the crowd if they had any questions,” Lovelace said.
During the discussion, three Republicans who will running for county commissioner in May also expressed their views.
“I think it’s extremely dangerous when people who aren’t in law enforcement try to get law enforcement not to enforce laws,” Tony London said. “I think the forefathers were very clear in framing in our Constitution who would be the final arbiter on what is and isn’t constitutional. That’s the courts.”
Candidate Dan Arnholt agreed with London and Kleinhenz, saying there a process that legislatures make the laws and only courts interpret them. But for those who disagree with the courts, there’s another process that includes voting and building support for your cause.
During the meeting, a third candidate for commissioner, JoAnne Flohr, simply emphasized her support for Second Amendment rights. But after the meeting adjourned, Flohr agreed with Kleinhenz that groups like the 2A Project may have hidden political objectives.
All three Republican candidates are seeking the seat being vacated by Flohr, who is not seeking re-election.
At the end of the discussion, commissioner Carl Lienhoop brought up the fact that, at the very least, the topic had been discussed during a public meeting — something that did not happen in January, he said.
[sc:pullout-title pullout-title=”What is a Second Amendment sanctuary?” ][sc:pullout-text-begin]
Second Amendment sanctuary, also known as a gun sanctuary, refers to states, counties, or localities that have adopted laws or resolutions to prohibit or impede the enforcement of certain gun control measures perceived as violating any part of the Second Amendment. This might include universal gun background checks, high capacity magazine bans, assault weapon bans and red flag laws.
[sc:pullout-text-end][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]
