The Kane County Commission held a special meeting on Monday, July 26, to hear comments regarding two proposed ordinances: No. O-2021-23, an ordinance establishing the Kane County Constitutional Defense Council and No. O-2021-27, an ordinance enacting the Second Amendment Sanctuary County Ordinance.
Ordinance O-2021-23 is proposed to create a council made up of the following members: the Kane County Commissioners, Kane County Attorney or designee, the Kane County Sheriff or designee and two residents of Kane County appointed by the commission. One of the main duties of the council includes determining the constitutionality of executive orders by the President of the United States or the Governor of the state of Utah.
Another duty of the council would include determining whether the Kane County Commission should seek to have an executive order declared to be unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful. Comments were made in opposition of such council, stating that the council was unnecessary and that the current commission and sheriff already fill such roles.
The general purpose of Ordinance O-2021-27 is to prevent the possibility of unlawful state or federal executive orders from infringing on the Second Amendment rights of Kane County citizens. The ordinance states that an “unlawful act shall consist of any federal or state executive order, act, law, order, rule or regulation, which restricts an individual’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms, including any federal or state executive order, which has been determined by the Kane County Constitutional Defense Commission to be in violation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Comments were made in opposition of the ordinance as it is currently written. There was a general consensus that current law enforcement powers should be maintained with the county sheriff, and that the proposed ordinances or council would detract from the current duties of the sheriff.
After hearing statements from the county commissioners, Attorney Rob Van Dyke and Sheriff Tracy Glover, the public comment period was opened to the residents of Kane County. Comments were made with strong opposition to both ordinances. Some comments were directed at the wording of the ordinance, suggesting the language wasn’t strong enough.
There were roughly fifty residents in attendance, with the overall majority opposing both ordinances, but being in favor of a resolution instead of an ordinance defending Second Amendment rights against unlawful federal or state executive orders.