Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance 6002 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jackson County anti-crime committee holds proposed firearms ordinance amid attorney general litigation
Summary
Jackson County's Anti Crime Committee voted to hold Ordinance 6002, a rewrite of local firearms possession and age rules intended to address a state attorney general lawsuit, after debate over overlapping measures and whether definitions in the new text would resolve litigation concerns.
At a Jackson County Anti Crime Committee meeting, members voted to hold Ordinance 6002, a proposed repeal of section 5577 of the Jackson County Code (1984) and enactment of two new sections addressing possession of firearms and age restrictions.
Brian Kavinsky of the counselor's office told the committee the new ordinance was drafted in response to recent litigation the county faces with the state attorney general. "This could probably — this will, I believe, really moot many of the issues from the litigation," Kavinsky said, describing the draft as aligned with state statute language and noting discussions with the attorney general's office.
Members questioned why the county was considering a new ordinance when Ordinance 5904, which uses similar language, has been on the docket for months. Counsel said the principal difference is that Ordinance 6002 adds more specific definitions requested in the attorney general's petition; 5904 does not include those added definitions. One member noted 5904 had been on the agenda for roughly half a year and asked whether pursuing that earlier measure would have put the county at legal risk.
An unidentified committee member said they would "probably abstain" from the vote, and another critic accused the panel of political maneuvering. "We're not trying to solve the issue. It's about who gets the credit for it at the end of the day," an unidentified speaker said, arguing earlier efforts had been blocked for political reasons.
After debate about combining the two measures or selecting one to pursue, a motion to hold Ordinance 6002 was made and seconded. The committee conducted a voice vote; the chair called for "Aye," and the body announced that Ordinance 6002 would be held. The transcript records no recorded "Nay" votes. The meeting adjourned at 02:39 PM.
Next steps were not set in the meeting record: the committee held the proposed ordinance for future consideration but did not schedule a date to reconvene the item.
