Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Bonner County Sues Sandpoint Over Second Amendment

The law suit is dated September 18, 2019

Bonner County Sues Sandpoint Over Second Amendment

Bonner County Sues Sandpoint Over Second Amendment

by Shari Dovale

The Bonner County Board of Commissioners and Sheriff Daryl Wheeler have carried through on the promise to file a lawsuit against the City of Sandpoint. The suit is dated Wednesday, September 18, 2019

The Festival at Sandpoint leased War Memorial Field from the City of Sandpoint for their annual event. On August 9th they refused entrance to residents Scott Herndon and Jeff Avery solely because the residents were carrying firearms.

The Sandpoint police were standing by, seemingly to charge the residents with Criminal Trespass if they refused to remove their firearms or leave the premises quietly. However, if that had happened, the Bonner County Sheriffs Office would had had to assist with their resources. Additionally, the County prosecutor would have been responsible for prosecuting the offenders. Both the county Sheriff, Daryl Wheeler, and the county prosecutor, Louis Marshall, have indicated they believe the City to be violating the rights of the citizens in this case.

The following video shows the event in its entirety.

Within the lawsuit, it states:

The primary issue […] is whether the City of Sandpoint may by lease grant regulatory power over the lawful possession of firearms to the Festival at Sandpoint, Inc., an Idaho non-profit corporation that hosts a public festival on public property⸺War Memorial Park Field.

The lawsuit is based on the Idaho Constitution.

The Idaho constitution expressly prohibits any law imposing “licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition,” and any law permitting “the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.”

The policy of the state of Idaho is that the people of Idaho have reserved for themselves the right to keep and bear arms while granting the Legislature the authority to regulate the constitutional and statutory right to carry weapons concealed

The Legislature has expressly preempted the entire field of firearms regulation by enacting Idaho Code section 18-3302J14 and stating that the “legislature finds that uniform laws regulating firearms are necessary to protect the individual citizen’s right to bear arms guaranteed by…section 11, article I of the constitution of the state of Idaho. It is the legislature’s intent to wholly occupy the field of firearms regulation within this state.”

So the question becomes whether or not the City is allowed to change the State law when it suits them? Bonner County does not believe that to be the case.

This would be an interesting case to have the courts weigh in their opinion, however, this case is going to be a double-jeopardy scenario for the taxpayers as they are paying for both sides.

The Idaho Second Amendment Alliance (ISAA) has also promised a separate lawsuit against the City of Sandpoint, and has hired gun rights attorney Alex Kincaid to represent them.

Will the City of Sandpoint settle these issues for the taxpayers before the costs overrun them?

 

The views, opinions, or positions expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions of Redoubt News. Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our content to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews

3 Comments on Bonner County Sues Sandpoint Over Second Amendment

  1. “It is the legislature’s intent to wholly occupy the field of firearms regulation within this state.”

    How similar this state effort to retain control of gun laws is to the Federal second amendment, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land…superceding all state/local law, which says that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

    Nonetheless we have massive gun control laws at every level of government. ALL are totally illegal and are the essence of tyranny. Why? Because we ignore the supremacy clause and the simple facts of the 2nd amendment since the gang of 9 says so. How absolutely ridiculous.

    It is still good to see some government standing up for “rights”, however it is so ironic that they’re not standing up for the real 2nd amendment rights…only for the State of Idaho’s ‘right’ to regulate guns. That is found nowhere in the Constitution and does not exist except in illegal gang of 9 rulings.

    Gotta love how upside down everything is these days.

  2. Something for all to consider…
    Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992: “Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don’t have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.”

    Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them;…”

    Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5: “The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”

    18 U.S. Code § 241: Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
    If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping (the term “kidnapping” means an offense that has as its elements the abduction, restraining, confining, or carrying away of another person by force or threat of force) or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)

    18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
    Summary: Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under Color of any Law to willfully deprive a person of a Right or Privilege PROTECTED by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
    For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
    The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any. (caps are mine)

    Publius Huldah: “No State may lawfully make any law which contradicts its State Constitution or which interferes with Congress’ power to “organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia”.
    Accordingly, any State Statute which purports to require a permit before one may carry a gun is probably unconstitutional under that State’s Constitution; and is certainly unconstitutional under the federal Constitution because Congress may lawfully require able-bodied male Citizens to acquire firearms and ammo and report to their local Militia Unit for training!”

    How can those who serve within the state government take away the supreme requirement of Militia of the several states whereby when needed the Militia, armed and trained as the Congress requires the military to be trained to be used for the purposes of executing the Laws of the Union, suppressing Insurrections and repelling Invasions (instead of governmental law enforcement or military) as found within the Militia Clauses
    Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16: [The Congress shall have Power To…] Clause 15: [ ] “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

    Clause 16: [ ] “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

    What type of evil plan has been concocted to destroy our constitutional republic from within by those who serve within our governments?

    The supreme LAW of our land, plus as the supreme contract for ALL who serves within our governments does NOT allow this.

    2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Richard Henry Lee: “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them;”

    Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822): “For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.”

    Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846): ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”

    Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859): “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

    Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878): “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm … is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

  3. It is only double jeopardy for the taxpayers of Sandpoint, when they lose. The city will have to pay the wiinner’s costs.

Comments are closed.