Shasta County Supervisors, Sheriff, Face Off Over Constitutionality Of Proposed 2nd Amendment Resolution

Last night in front of a packed audience, County Supervisors debated whether or not to pass “a Resolution in support of the 2nd Amendment.” Public comment on the matter, which lasted more than two hours, centered largely on gun rights.

But what was really at stake is who has the authority to decide what laws are constitutional: the courts, or local officials and employees.

All five Supervisors expressed strong support for gun rights and the desire to pass a resolution in support of the 2nd Amendment’s declaration that citizens have the right to “keep and bear arms.”  Their views diverged over who should be allowed to decide the constitutionality of state and federal gun laws. 

That question is addressed in no uncertain terms by the California Constitution, County Attorney Rubin Cruse told the Board last night. The California Constitution separates power between the three branches of government, the legislative branch which makes the laws, the executive branch which enforces them, and the judicial branch, which interprets them.

How to interpret the Constitution has also already been decided by the California Supreme Court, Cruse continued, briefly explaining to the Board a 2004 Court ruling which clarified that officials are not allowed to interpret state laws according to their own constitutional views.

Cruse’s reasoning made sense to Supervisors Mary Rickert, Tim Garman and Kevin Crye, who all expressed support for a 2nd Amendment resolution which incorporated the revisions suggested by Cruse.

His revisions included changing the wording of the resolution to state that the courts, not local public officials, may determine what gun laws are Constitutional and must be followed. 

But Supervisors Patrick Jones and Chris Kelstrom strongly opposed those particular revisions, emphasizing their belief that Constitutional rights should not be determined by state courts.

Some public speakers also backed this idea, citing beliefs that California’s courts are corrupt and untrustworthy.

Kelstrom worried what would happen if new “unconstitutional” gun laws are passed by the State. Did that mean, he asked County attorney Cruse, that Shasta County would have to enforce those “unconstitutional” laws?

Cruse responded that no law can be “unconstitutional” until it is declared so by the courts, which are the Constitution’s own prescribed mechanism for interpreting the legality of law.

“But what if we know a law is unconstitutional,” Kelstrom responded, “What if we feel it is? You’re saying we have to uphold that and enforce it?” 

“It’s not me (saying that),” Cruse responded, “It’s the California Constitution.”

Cruse’s explanation was enough for Supervisor Mary Rickert. Describing herself as a gun permit holder with “three cabinets full of guns,” Rickert said she strongly supports the 2nd Amendment, but would not support the version of the resolution brought to the Board by Jones and drafted by the California Rifle and Pistol Association because its wording places power in the wrong hands.

“I have no interest in supporting a resolution that’s not under the purview of the Board. We don’t have the jurisdiction (to pass the draft wording of the resolution), we can’t supersede what the courts have said.“

Tim Garman agreed, telling Supervisors it isn’t the Board’s place to decide the constitutionality of laws. Doing so, he said, would put the County at legal and financial risk.

“I have to be fiscally responsible to the citizens of this County,” Garman emphasized.

Jones strongly disagreed with Cruse, Rickert and Garman that the resolution without revisions could place the County at legal risk, saying the resolution had been reviewed by “one of the most celebrated 2nd Amendment attorneys in the U.S.”

“They have supported it the way it was written,” Jones continued, “There’s a lot of credibility there for a person who’s an expert in the field.”

Shasta County Sheriff Michael Johnson, who has previously described himself as a “Constitutional Sheriff,” also weighed in on the 2nd Amendment resolution.

During public comment, Johnson told the Supervisors that he would not support the resolutions without revisions suggested by the County Attorney, despite his staunch support for the 2nd Amendment.

“The conflict in the 2nd Amendment comes down to interpretation,” Johnson explained to the Board, “It’s various interpretations that lead to the struggles, the difference of opinions and everything we’re hearing in this room today.”

“Stating the 2nd amendment is a blanket, inherent right to carry, I think is errant,” Johnson continued, “Because if you subscribed to that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment than any armed violent felon would be able to carry a weapon. Any fourteen-year-old, twelve-year-old, would be able to strap on a weapon and walk into their classroom. There needs to be some sort of regulatory provisions, governance of firearms, it has to be there, for the safety of all the good citizens in each county and each state.”

Johnson told Supervisors that California’s law already supports the citizen’s right to bear arms through the concealed carry permitting process. While he disagrees with many of the State’s gun restrictions, Johnson said, it’s up to the courts, not public officials or employees, to decide if those laws are constitutional.

“If the courts rule that open carry is in fact a Constitutional right,” he said, “Stand by folks, we’ll be going to open carry, because that’s what I go on, what is ruled Constitutional and what is not.”

“But make no mistake about it,” he continued emphatically, “the laws that are on the books are on the books. If you carry a gun, loaded or unloaded, open or concealed, without a permit, currently, the Shasta County Sheriff’s department will enforce that law. You will be arrested. We will take your gun as evidence and you will be prosecuted. That is hard and fast right now.”  

Supervisor Jones immediately challenged Johnson, stating that the Constitution doesn’t allow the permitting of rights.

“That’s an interpretation,” Johnson fired back, reinforcing his earlier point.

Early on, Supervisor Kevin Crye appeared to side with Rickert and Garman against the original wording of the resolution. But he eventually chose to abstain from voting after Jone’s motioned to pass the resolution without changing the wording about who could interpret the Constitutionality of gun laws.

Crye’s decision, which left the vote gridlocked 2/2, appeared to anger Jones.

“You’re paid to make decisions, Supervisor Crye,” Jones said. “A yes or a no should be an appropriate response.” 

“I’m paid to make good decisions. Well-informed decisions,” Crye responded after a long pause, explaining that he wanted to consult his own legal counsel before voting on the resolution.

His response appeared to satisfy Jones who motioned to bring the resolution back to the Board on March 14th.

Crye supported that vote, which passed, 3/2, with Garman and Rickert still opposing. 

Do you have a correction to this story? You can submit it here. Do you have information to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org

Related Coverage:

Proposed 2nd Amendment Resolution Is An Overreach of Board’s Authority, Shasta County Legal Counsel Warns