Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Guns topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts Second Amendment resolution after public debate; gun-rights group and sheriff speak in support
Summary
Supervisors voted to adopt a resolution supporting the Second Amendment after comments from the California Rifle & Pistol Association chapter and the sheriff. Critics in public comment challenged the timing and tone of the proclamation.
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors on July 8 adopted a resolution expressing support for the Second Amendment after public comment from local gun‑rights advocates and the sheriff.
Supervisor Magsig introduced the proclamation, noting recent Independence Day observances and thanking the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) chapter present at the meeting. Michael Carey, identified as founder and chair of Fresno County Gun Owners and a CRPA chapter representative, urged the board to send a message to Sacramento that "we support the Second Amendment" and to encourage responsible gun ownership and training.
"Please help us protect our citizens here in Fresno County by sending a message to Sacramento that we support the Second Amendment," Carey said.
Sheriff John Zidoni told the board that law‑abiding CCW holders are rarely involved in gun violence and argued that focusing enforcement on criminals would be more effective. Several supervisors expressed support for the resolution and for responsible training, while members of the public offered sharply contrasting views: some applauded the resolution and urged training and CCW access; others criticized the board for advancing a proclamation they said was tone‑deaf amid concerns about gun violence and immigration.
Supervisor Chavez said he supports responsible gun ownership and encouraged residents to pursue CCW training.
After public comment, a motion to adopt the resolution passed without recorded opposition.
The meeting included robust public comment from both supporters of the resolution, who framed it as defending constitutional freedoms and encouraging training, and detractors, who questioned whether the proclamation was appropriate and raised broader public-safety and immigration concerns.
