ANDERSON: Sanctuary Idea About Guns, Freedom


Sanctuary Idea About

Guns, Our Freedoms

To the Editor:

In a recent opinion piece by Julie Sorenson of the League of Women Voters, she urged the Otsego County Board of Representatives to vote against making the county a “Second Amendment
Sanctuary” and stated the adoption of such a resolution was problematic because it was intended to subvert New York State gun laws.

She then goes on with the usual rhetoric about gun control.

What Ms. Sorenson fails to realize is the movement is about far more than the Second Amendment; the movement is about the fundamental rights of Americans as guaranteed in the Constitution as laid out in the Bill of Rights.

As an American citizen, I expect to have the God-given rights as specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution of the United States. As a citizen I have the God-given right of
self-protection, according to our founding documents.

Arguably the most important amendments in the Bill of Rights are the first and second.

As our government has become more secular, there is a natural tendency to ignore God and elevate man’s authority, which has led many to believe our founding documents are no longer as important or relevant as had been previously thought.

This is a grievous error and has led to a general disregard for our founding documents. The principles set out in the founding documents supersede state laws and thus the problematic issue that Ms. Sorensen refers to in her opinion piece is null and void.

Ms. Sorensen’s contention that the resolution’s passage would violate state law is simply not true. The resolution is a position statement and does not have the force of law.

It is simply a statement by the people of Otsego County that we support the idea of becoming a sanctuary county in which our legal representative will uphold their oath of office to support the constitution of the United States.

Further, the SAFE Act is still very much in litigation and, with a recent ruling in California, further doubt has been cast on its Constitutionality. The court system is slow to make changes and many of those changes have been contrary to Constitutional principles and resolution will not be complete for some time. Overall, Ms. Sorensen’s argument constitutes little more than progressive sophistry and avoids fundamental issues regarding our founding documents, which is the real issue.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Prove you're not a robot: *