Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Guns topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Craig County board reaffirms 'Second Amendment Sanctuary' status with added call for local law enforcement to 'interpose'
Summary
The Craig County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 4 re-adopted a Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution and approved an amendment urging the county sheriff and commonwealth's attorney to uphold their oaths and resist enforcement of gun-control measures within county jurisdiction. The measure passed on recorded vote.
The Craig County Board of Supervisors re-adopted a resolution on Dec. 4 reaffirming the county's intent to be a "Second Amendment Sanctuary," and approved an amendment that calls on the sheriff and commonwealth's attorney to "exercise all powers and means to prevent the enforcement of any gun control activities within our jurisdiction."
The amended resolution, labeled R25-87, restates the board's opposition to laws the board said could "infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms" and cites U.S. Supreme Court rulings and provisions of the Virginia Constitution as background. Supervisor Jason Matyas proposed the additional language directing local prosecutors and law enforcement to "interpose" on behalf of residents; that amendment was adopted as part of the readoption.
Board members recorded their votes during the meeting; the clerk recorded the readoption with the amendment as approved. The motion to readopt with amendment was moved and seconded and recorded as passed on the public roll call.
Supporters of the resolution framed it as a statement of principle and a statement about the board's use of local authority; the meeting minutes do not record any formal legal mechanisms the county would use beyond urging the sheriff and commonwealth's attorney to act. There was no public hearing testimony on the resolution recorded in the meeting minutes.
The resolution text references U.S. Supreme Court decisions including District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago and cites Article I of the Virginia Constitution as part of its justification. The board also recorded the resolution under the label R25-87 during the Dec. 4 session.
The board's adoption of the measure does not itself change state or federal law; the resolution expresses the board's policy position and requests that local officers consider their oath and prosecutorial discretion in responding to state or federal measures the board deems unconstitutional. The minutes record no subsequent legal action or directive implementing enforcement changes.
