Deadline Detroit | Selweski: Macomb officials declare their ‘sanctuary county’ immune from gun laws
Macomb County officials have stated that they will not obey gun laws that they believe depart from the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and that the sheriff and prosecutor must follow suit.
Macomb joins a national movement to create Sanctuary Counties of the Second Amendment and is the first district in Metro Detroit to oppose enforcement of future gun restrictions.
With this neglected move, the County Board of Commissioners is demonstrating a baffling desire to play sheriff, prosecutor, and Supreme Court judge.
With 7-6 votes down the party lines last week, the new Republican majority – the first in board history – voted to make Macomb a Sanctuary County, meaning they could choose not to enforce gun regulations such as universal background checks, bans on military-style weapons, restrictions on high-capacity magazines, and red flag laws.
This vote of the committee still has to be finally approved at the meeting of the full board on June 24th. But the result can be little more than a formality, as the same 13 members will make that decision.
“(This is) to say, ‘We as the board of directors, our position is, we don’t care what the courts or the legislature or the federal government have said, we think they are all unconstitutional,'” said a skeptical Commissioner Veronica Klinefelt, an Eastpointe Democrat who voted against sanctuary status.
Sheriff tells the board that they “have no control over me”
The resolutions of the second amendment are largely a symbolic step. Counties do not have the legal authority to ignore state or federal laws. But attempts by county officials to curtail local law enforcement action have sparked tension among local sheriffs, including Macomb County Sheriff Anthony Wickersham.
Just before the committee’s vote on June 2, Wickersham said his department and the district attorney had full authority over their policies and procedures. Apart from budgetary supervision, he said, the council of commissioners has has “no control over me and this resolution has no authority.”
In contrast, the unilateral resolution stipulates that no county resources – staff, government, prison, or other buildings – may be used to enforce state or federal laws that commissioners deem unconstitutional.
What we are seeing here are the big lies about the second amendment.
The pro-weapons groups have spent decades claiming that the Second Amendment prohibits any violation of weapons storage facilities and that all restrictions are an attempt to “grab your weapons.” With their blinkers on numerous laws and judgments of the Supreme Court, they ignore the decades-long federal ban on machine guns. They put aside the various constitutional challenges to the federal ban on military rifles from 1994 to 2004, which were routinely rejected by the courts.
These bellicose pro-gun enthusiasts seem ignorant of the landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia vs. Heller, which affirmed many limits on gun ownership.
The court ruled for the first time that Americans have the right to self-defense by owning small arms. But the late judge Antonin Scalia, perhaps the most conservative judge of recent times, wrote in his majority opinion in the Heller case that the court ruling is “no right to keep and carry a weapon in any way or for whatever purpose”.
The verdict upheld the legitimacy of “long bans on the possession of firearms by the felons and the mentally ill, or laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms in sensitive locations such as schools and government buildings, or laws that impose conditions and qualifications for commercial sale.” of weapons. “
District resolution based on oxymoron
Essentially, the Second Amendment does not determine whether there is a need for background checks or a wait for gun sales, or the legal age for gun ownership, or a ban on “bump-stick” devices that allow for fast shooting such as automatic guns, or gun bans in Government buildings or schools or the prohibition of military assault rifles.
The Macomb County resolution that a “constitutional “Sanctuary County is a contradiction in terms.
At the county committee meeting, the only Republican who commented on the resolution was: Don VanSyckel of Sterling Heights, a rookie commissioner. He said the resolution only advocates the US Constitution and its amendments.
“We have all heard of certain cases in other parts of the country where politicians have told their law enforcement agencies or whatever not to resign and do this or that,” he said, “to make laws from the bank . if you want.”
He was apparently referring to the original local refugee movements across the country to protect illegal immigrants from detention and deportation. But he does not understand that refuges for immigrants are an entirely different matter.
As the constitution states Local governments are not required to enforce federal immigration policies unless state or federal law so provides.
“Nothing is unconstitutional until the courts, the third tier of government, declare it unconstitutional,” said District Commissioner Julie Matuszak, a Clinton Township Democrat who speaks out against sanctuary status. “Nowhere in any sane society, especially American society, do we give the sheriff and prosecutor a choice of which laws to enforce or not to enforce.
“… That is just absurd.”