To the Board of Supervisors – I have been following the political battle in our state of Virginia. The current push for legislative actions against gun owners, constituents of yours, that are in imminent danger of losing our property, infringement of not only our rights to bear arms, but or private property and most importantly our freedom.

I am writing you to ask that you put on your agenda a discussion on becoming a 2nd Amendment sanctuary county, which would involve not supporting any law passed on state level that cannot be upheld when challenged against the Constitution.

There have been a few states that have implemented red flag laws and magazine capacity limits. I would like to bring to your attention that none of these laws, with a good lawyer, have made it to court. The cases have been dropped because the laws cannot be upheld.

These are only some of the reasons I ask to uphold the 2nd Amendment of our precious American Constitution, as well as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The erosion of rights and guarantee of our freedoms is a slippery slope that will only end in the end of the American dream and downfall of our society.

I request that you support a resolution for Loudoun County to become a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary County and send a clear message to the legislature in Richmond that Loudoun County stands for freedom and citizen rights.

Jonathan Erickson

Sterling

(46) comments

ace10

How many people have actually read SB16? How many people are aware that the Representative from the 4th District, Donald McEachin (D), suggested that Governor Coonman send in the National Guard to enforce the aforementioned SB16? JUST LET THAT SINK IN.... If you don't get it, then you have no business even speaking about this subject... from a historical context, nor the present day implications.

amerigirl

Maybe you should let that sink in. Think how sad it is when you have so many people who want to break laws that it could even possibly be considered. Exactly what is it you object to in the laws they are trying to pass? They aren't going to take away your guns, and they aren't going to turn your power off as the NRA suggested. The only thing they are trying to do is save lives. Do you think your obsession with guns is more important than other peoples rights to not get shot or protect life? Are you going to less of a man without your assault weapon?

ace10

There's a staggering amount of misinformation being posted here. Anyone who says that "Red Flag Laws" do no violate Due Process is totally and completely wrong. And they're either lying or don't have a clue about the subject. The intitial "hearing" typically is held ex parte. If there are subsequent hearings, there is no "right to counsel." DOES THAT SOUND LIKE DUE PROCESS? Additionally, there is no recourse against false accusers. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM? C'mon already. Stop with the lies.

ChickenChucker

Congressman SCHIFF of California has already established that only Democrats are to receive due process. Don't argue with the man who thinks he is god.

amerigirl

That would be Moscow Mitch. The one that will take an oath in the senate to be an impartial juror but coordinates with the defendant. His word is worth;less. Trump was asked if he wanted to appear or have a lawyer there and he declined. He was awarded due process. Of course he was not allowed in the investigative part, which all you righties complain about. Neither was anyone allowed when Kenneth Starr questioned people. Now mitch is saying that trump should not be treated different than clinton and there should be no witnesses. BS. Clinton gave every thing and let witnesses testify, trump didn't allow anyone to testify. Trump should be held in contempt and the people they wanted to testify should be forced to testify.

amerigirl

You are the one spreading the misinformation. Red flag laws are for emergency situations. If it wasn't an emergency then it would not have to be ex parte. But should you warn someone who is suicidal that you want their gun first? Don't you think they would hurry up the situation? They can get their gun back when they are well.

jke

52 counties with 20 more voting today!

amerigirl

Vic, it isn’t punishment, it is prevention and it is temporary. The due process is when they go to court to plead their case, before a judge, to be either be or not deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. I suppose vaccinations are madness too? What about the person whose family asks to have a gun removed from an abusive family member, are they suppose to wait until he has killed that family then punish him? As a felon he would never have the right to own a gun again, people would die. This way an abuser can get help, prove that he/she has done that and get their gun returned to them. Which makes more sense? Which is fairer?

ChickenChucker

There are procedures {due process} that have been around many, many moons to give the mentally ill due process in actions that may be taken against them including to protect themselves or someone else. No need for more layers on laws that already exist. Sounds a lot like arresting someone, then checking to see if any crimes were committed. Where have I seen that before? Maybe we all need protection from big brother.

jke

Volpe and Higgins last evening-Standing Tall!!

tolerantleft

I think we're up to 30 counties and more to come. Thank God for the VCDL.

RoundHillGuy

43 AS OF LAST NIGHT

amerigirl

So are you celebrating that they won't step in to stop mentally deranged and abusers from killing people?

tolerantleft

59!!! as of last night.

amerigirl

Do you even know what red flag laws are or are you following the NRA's fear tactic of "they're gonna take your guns"?

workhardgetahead

Boo hoo, Amerigirl is upset at Sanctuary counties for the 2nd amendment. It's called RESIST Amerigirl, are you familiar with the term?

tolerantleft

The question is, do you? Where's the Due Process?

Rocket

@amerigirl, Beto O’Rourke, once a presidential candidate, stated during a debate that his goal was to come and take peoples guns. He felt so strongly about it, he stated it on national television. It is no longer a fear tactic as I am sure Beto is not alone.

amerigirl

Rocket, Beto O’Rourke specified assault weapons. Half of the truth is as bad as a lie.

amerigirl

Tolerant, the due process is when the judge oversees the case. So yes, I do know. The due process is that it is a temporary action that will be reviewed for the protection of the person who is temporally losing their right to have a firearm. It’s easy if you just look at the facts.

Rocket

@amerigirl, you are correct he did specify assault rifles. But your comment shows your failure to comprehend the big pictures and even your own comments. You are now arguing against yourself. I often agree with several points you make but when it comes to guns you are very misinformed and have used partial and incorrect information yourself.

workhardgetahead

Hey Leftist Lunatics, You want your Sanctuary cities so we got out Sanctuary counties for Gun rights. It works both ways.

We have the constitution on our side though, you don't.

amerigirl

You don't have the constitution on your side. There is no mention of everyone regardless of condition to be able to own weapons, (like felons can't) nor is there any place in ti that says which you can own any type of weapon.

Loudoun1965

There's no place in the Constitution that says what kind of free speech one can have either. When it was written, there was no way the Founders could have predicted the telephone, pager, cell phone, email, or internet and social media, yet First Amendment protections apply to those, so why do they not apply to the technological advancement of firearms as well? In other words, you tired old musket argument won't work anymore.

amerigirl

Loudoun, there are restriction already in place regarding free speech. You can’t yell things like “bomb” or “fire” that could cause a public panic. You cannot threaten someone True threats are not protected as free speech by the First Amendment. Laws adapt with the progress of the world.

4lan9

If you want your police budget cut because of violating this law move to some backward county. This is the county of educated intellectuals, and is becoming this way more and more. Loudoun will never be a sanctuary. I love shooting (especially AR15s) but this Joy is not worth living in a county full of mentally ill gun owners with the ability to wipe out a classroom, concert or movie theater in seconds

Lemmy Motorhead

The majority of our new board doesn't give two rips about 2nd Ammendment rights. It's up to the Constitutionally bound Sheriff to ignore unconstitutional laws...

DavisB

have no idea why you think the BOS should give any amount of rips about he 2nd Amendment - I want them focused on Loudoun

ChickenChucker

That's too much to ask of any liberal. They either have half track minds or no mind at all.

amerigirl

What is unconstitutional about temporally taking guns away from someone that is a danger to themselves or others? It's like people never learn.

Loudoun1965

This is what is unconstitutional: Under the Virginia dem's 2020 plan, I could go to a judge or magistrate and claim that amerigirl, my neighbor, has been acting strangely and threatened me in such a way that I feel unsafe. I know she owns a firearm, and I believe she is going to use it. Despite any argument you attempt to make, the police can now come and take your firearm, whether my claim is substantiated or not. I'm going simply based on what I claim I heard you say. You now have to hire an attorney and go to court to make an argument to regain legal possession of your firearm. At that time, you have to prove that you did not threaten me. In other words, you have been found guilty prior to being innocent until proven so. How exactly is that constitutional? Are there people out there who should not be legally allowed to own firearms? Absolutely; they are called convicted felons, who, by the way, commit most of the real crimes in this country. But the proposed laws coming in 2020 are also absolutely going to be abused. If you need a real-time example of that, watch CNN, MSNBC, or FOX in the next few days. These impeachment hearings are a pure example of exactly that.

Vic pownall

The punishment can never come before the crime. Red flag laws void due process. That is madness.

workhardgetahead

Amerigirl, what's unconstitutional about throwing illegal aliens out of the country?

tolerantleft

I find it ironic that folks are so happy about eliminating 2nd amendment civil rights yet are quite alright about eliminating the rights of the unborn. Hmmm.....

ChickenChucker

See above, there is already laws to deal with that situation and affords due process. I

have used those laws including getting a judge out of bed at 3 in the morning, when my ex was suicidal and a threat to others.

amerigirl

Seriously? It is the responsibility of the BOS to protect the citizens of Loudoun and their property. How may homes were hit by bullets in the last year in Loudoun? There was a woman who was grazed by a stray bullet and a man working in his garage had another bullet hit the garage.

ChickenChucker

We need a zoning ordinance that prevents erecting a garage within fifteen feet of a bullet's path

AFF

The crazy is strong with this fella. Don’t go all Ruby Ridge on us Johnny!

jke

You do your thing with the sheriff and I will follow my path, okay? I would like it if Whitbeck was to champion this resolution.

Chris McHale

I am not a fan of sanctuary anything. I would rather the Sheriff's office come out an acknowledge that they took an oath to uphold the Constitution and will not enforce any law that is in direct violation of that.

Loudoundad

Correct, and when the legislature starts taking away arms from our well regulated militia, the well regulated police should step in. But a "well regulated militia" doesn't mean everyone has a right to own a gun.

Loudoun1965

Incorrect. After the comma, the Amendment states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As has been pointed out by Heller, there are two parts to it: "District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes."

ace10

Wrong.

workhardgetahead

Gee, I certainly hope no one breaks into your home and try to rob you or harm your family. A well regulated militia wont step in to stop them and a well regulated police may be too late to arrive to stop anything from happening. The only chance you may have is a butter knife, flashlight or closing your eyes in the hope they go away.

amerigirl

True, a well regulated militia, according to law, is organized by the state and answerable to the president. Sounds like the National Guard to me.

amerigirl

Loudoun1965 , that has been under debate and each side can point out leal standings.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.