Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the 2nd Amendment Resolution topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Screven County commissioners table consideration of 2nd Amendment resolution after split vote

Board of Commissioners of Screven County · March 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After multiple residents spoke both for and against a proposed 2nd Amendment Resolution, the Screven County Board of Commissioners voted 5–1 on May 9 to table consideration of the resolution because one commissioner was absent.

The Screven County Board of Commissioners voted 5–1 on May 9 to table consideration of a proposed 2nd Amendment Resolution after residents offered competing views during public comment.

During the public-comment period, several residents urged opposing outcomes. Rita Junco told the board she opposed the proposed resolution and said she did not consider it necessary; Mary Felton voiced support for the original version of the resolution and said she fears future government confiscation of weapons. A speaker identified only as Mrs. Morris said she supports the right to bear arms but believes assault rifles are unnecessary for self-protection. Ben Counts reiterated opposition, argued assault rifles are not needed and reminded commissioners that state law cannot supersede federal law. Brenda Johnson said she opposed the measure, citing concerns about mass shootings nationwide.

Commissioner Allison Willis moved to table consideration of the 2nd Amendment Resolution due to Commissioner Ben Thompson’s absence; Commissioner J.C. Warren seconded. Chairman Will Boyd, Commissioner Mike Dixon, Commissioner J.C. Warren, Commissioner Edwin Lovett and Commissioner Allison Willis voted to table; Commissioner Rosa Romeo voted against the motion. The motion carried by majority (5–1), meaning the board did not take a substantive vote on the resolution itself.

The public comments and the board’s decision to delay action leave the resolution’s future uncertain. The minutes do not record a new date for further consideration. The meeting record shows the board took no additional formal action on the resolution at the May 9 session.