Pugliese puts
 gun resolution before fellow Mesa commissioners

To Continue Reading, Please Log In


Forgot your password?

7-day subscribers of The Daily Sentinel have unlimited access to all digital content with their log-in. Guests must register for limited access -- 12 articles a month.

Already a 7-day subscriber? Start here to activate your online access.
Don't have a username and password? Register now

COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

My hope is the BOCC won’t enforce any rules that are unconstitutional.  Maybe the next resolution will be in defense of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and be critical of spy drones?  (PS SCOTUS has found that the 2nd amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms, but not what those ‘arms’ entail.  Thus it is ‘constitutional’ to restrict certain types of guns, certain types of ammo, etc.  At least according to Justice S others).

This is political grandstanding at its worst. The Supreme Court will tell you what to enforce - not County Commissioners. I’d like to see the commissioners address local problems, not the US constitution. There are many - diversifying our economy, improving air quality, transportation, etc, etc.

It’s gonna be a long next four years.

Sentinel readers are invited to read the entire text of Pugliese’s proposed Resolution—appended at the tail-end of Monday’s 161 page Agenda (accessible on-line from BOCC web page).

Mesa County Commissioner Rose Pugliese has created a timely opportunity to educate local citizens on the meaning of the Second Amendment and the implications of two “recent” Supreme Court decisions interpreting it.  (“Pugliese puts gun resolution before board”, February 10, 2013).

Of course, as Rose already knows, nothing in her oath of office requires her to “support” or enforce a “federal order” or state law that is actually “unlawful” or “unconstitutional”.  The meaningful question is:  who decides what is “lawful” and/or “constitutional”?

Because our County Commissioners are sworn to uphold “the Constitution of the United States and the State of Colorado”, they have also sworn to support and defend – not only the Second Amendment – but Article III of the U.S. Constitution and Article VI of the Colorado Constitution, as well.

Under those articles, the federal courts (and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court) and/or analogous Colorado courts (but not any locally elected Board of County Commissioners) – are the final arbiters of “what the law is”.

Thus, in District of Columbia v. Heller, our Supreme Court held that in-home possession of handguns (only) was indeed an individual right that could not be infringed by D.C. – a federal enclave.  However, Justice Scalia also wrote that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited”, and does not preclude federal regulation of “dangerous and unusual weapons” (originally, machine guns; by extension, “assault rifles”, etc.).

In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that in-home possession of handguns (only) was an individual right that could not be infringed by any State or municipality.  Justice Alito recognized, however, that extending the Second Amendment’s prohibition to the States also precluded them from regulating firearms less stringently than federal law requires.

Consequently, Pugliese’s Resolution’s misguided call for “nullification” is profoundly unpatriotic and antithetical to her oath of office.

                Bill Hugenberg

“Pugliese said she thought the resolution was necessary based on the level of political posturing…”

This would be comical if it were happening in a county where I’m not paying taxes.

The commissioner needs to get the training wheels off before she starts taking more actions that cost the county money.

Commissioner is an executive office, and Pugliese should focus on administrative matters. If she wants to posture and make proposals that have no chance of accomplishing anything, she should run for Jared Wright’s seat in the legislature.



TOP JOBS
  • Van Driver

    The Daily Sentinel is currently accepting applications in our transportation dep...

  • Part Time Delivery Driver

      ARAMARK is currently seeking  a .&nb...

  • Water Haulers

    WANT MORE HOURS? KnowlesEnterprises, LL...

  • Van Driver

    The Daily Sentinel is currently accepting applications in our transportation dep...

  • Nurse Practitioner

    DOCS ON CALL, an after-hours facility, a division of Primary Care Partners Inc.,...

  • Diesel Mechanic

     Wanted experienced diesel engine mechanic with engine elect...

Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy