In an act of Second Amendment solidarity, The McDonald County Commission enacted the Second Amendment Preservation Act on March 24, designating McDonald County as a "sanctuary county."
The act acknowledges the County Commission and the Sheriff's shared support of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and of the Missouri Constitution, which protects individual, inalienable rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
It goes on to resolve that, by the authority granted the Commission by the laws of the state and the people of the county, the aforementioned elected officials affirm support of the citizen's rights to stand and defend their rights and liberties; promote the responsible ownership, transfer, use, possession of storage of firearms, ammunition and accessories; and condemns the use of arms in criminal or unlawful activities.
The McDonald County Commission and the McDonald County Sheriff firmly resolve to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Missouri against every aggression, foreign or domestic, and is duty-bound to oppose every violation of those principles that constitute the bases of the union of the states, because only a faithful observance of those principles can secure the union's existence and the public happiness.
Be it further resolved that the Commission and the Sheriff, and its officials, agents and employees shall not enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes or ordinances that infringe on law-abiding people's rights to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the Missouri Constitution, or to use county funds or county assets in an effort to enforce such acts.
McDonald County, the McDonald County Commission and the McDonald County Sheriff, and its officials, agents and employees will not knowingly deprive a citizen of the rights and privileges described in the Second Amendment and the Missouri Constitution while acting under the color of any state or federal law.
Text highlights Article 1, Section 23, of the Constitution of Missouri, provides that "the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his/her home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in the aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned."
"The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall, under no circumstances, decline to protect against their infringement."
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as a result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity."
It goes on to add that the resolution is not intended to prohibit the investigation or prosecution of any crime for which the ownership, transfer, use or possession of a firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition is an aggravating factor, enhancement, or violation relating to an otherwise independent crime.
The Second Amendment Preservation Act cites three Supreme Court cases that support the resolution. The first, a 2008 Supreme Court case, the District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, in which the decision affirmed an individual's right to possess firearms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The second, a 2010 Supreme Court case, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, in which the decision affirmed that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.
And the third, a 1997 Supreme Court case Printz vs. United States 521 U.S. 898, in which the Court held that "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program."
The anti-commandeering principles recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Printz v. United States are predicated upon the advice of James Madison, who in Federalist No. 46 advised "a refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union" in response to either unconstitutional federal measures or constitutional but unpopular federal measures.
The Act goes on to reference the Tenth Amendment which provides that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."