Resolution supporting Second Amendment narrowly approved by Marco Council

Marion and Joe Gaigal join more than 100 residents Monday at Marco Island’s City Council meeting to support a resolution asking county and state government to nullify gun restrictions. Cheryl Ferrara/Eagle Correspondent

Marion and Joe Gaigal join more than 100 residents Monday at Marco Island’s City Council meeting to support a resolution asking county and state government to nullify gun restrictions. Cheryl Ferrara/Eagle Correspondent

— The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was in the crosshairs Monday at Marco Island’s City Council meeting.

Council considered a resolution to ask state and county governments to pass legislation nullifying implementation of federal gun regulations that infringe on private liberties.

They passed the motion 4-3, with Councilmen Larry Sacher, Larry Honig and Chuck Kiester opposed.

The resolution could place the City of Marco Island and federal government at odds. If implementation of federal law regarding gun restrictions required city resources, the resolution would deny those resources.

More than 100 residents spoke passionately on both sides of the issue. Councilman Amadeo Petricca said those in favor of the resolution persuaded his “yes” vote.

When the resolution was presented to council on Feb. 4, City Attorney Burt Saunders asked for time to study its language to protect the city and city employees. In the resolution passed Monday, Saunders removed language banning city employees from enforcing federal law on their own time.

With that language removed, Saunders said there was nothing to prohibit council from passing the resolution.

Councilmen who did not favor the resolution pointed to their oaths of office that require them to uphold the Constitution. They said they found the resolution redundant.

Keith Flaugh, of the conservative group Get Out of Our House, or GOOOH, said passing the resolution was council’s responsibility and not too big an issue for a small, local government.

“This is about protecting Second Amendment and God-given rights: the right of self-defense against crime and tyranny,” he said. “You should protect the life, liberty and property of those who hired you.”

© 2013 marconews.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Related Topics

Comments » 22

WizeOlMarco writes:

In a democracy, county-state-federal governments are supposed to be guided by the constituents they represent (people), not guided by other governments (such as a City). If person(s) want to have a government express their interest then they should appeal directly to that government, i.e. attend county-state-federal government meetings. As a Marco Island resident I do not want my City giving any advise to the county, state or federal governments. Will the City say 'a percent of Marco Island residents seek nullification of federal gun regulations (that haven't even been specified or passed)? Shame to the Marco Island residents for wasting the City government's time and money on this matter.

August8 writes:

Redundant?? A break please look at the track this is following with you know who and I think you might say necessary.

26yearsonmarco writes:

"We the People" can only hope the concept of "Upholding the Constitution", and protecting our rights under the 2nd Amendment, continues up the line to Washington DC, and everywhere else in between.

A big Thank You to the four Patriots brave enough to face the wrath of the "Others", who will soon be heard on this Blog.

gladesgator writes:

I find more tyranny in the oprressive homeowners and flood insurance rates and forced coverage by banks thank I find in ban on assault type wepons. The day has long passed that oppressive goverment could be reigned in by private militia.

WizeOlMarco writes:

Who the hell do they think they are NOT to uphold the Constitution?

A City government does not 'uphold' the constitution. It is every citizen's responsibility to uphold the constitution. Don't abrogate your resonsibility.

ajm3s writes:

in response to WizeOlMarco:

In a democracy, county-state-federal governments are supposed to be guided by the constituents they represent (people), not guided by other governments (such as a City). If person(s) want to have a government express their interest then they should appeal directly to that government, i.e. attend county-state-federal government meetings. As a Marco Island resident I do not want my City giving any advise to the county, state or federal governments. Will the City say 'a percent of Marco Island residents seek nullification of federal gun regulations (that haven't even been specified or passed)? Shame to the Marco Island residents for wasting the City government's time and money on this matter.

" If person(s) want to have a government express their interest then they should appeal directly to that government"

I believe we witnessed that last night when a mass of citizens gave testimony to their elected representatives requesting a vote on a resolution. And the elected representatives simply cast a vote, so the citizens can now have a voice cast forward to the state legislature.

If casting a vote on a resolution is a waste of city government than I guess, I must have missed the discussion expressed in Federalist Paper #10.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/feder...

Sincerely,
Publius

26yearsonmarco writes:

An interesting perspective indeed, and very well articulated.

Wonderful to see a young lady, no doubt raised and brainwashed from birth to be to be a liberal, who has applied her intellect and logic to an emotional subject, and come up with the obvious logical answer. Not easily done, and my hat’s off to her.

This young lady hits the nail on the head, telling a side of the gun control issue that most have never thought about.

Take a couple minutes to listen to what a very bright young black woman has learned...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/vn7bkncf1_E

ajm3s writes:

Interestingly, of the three nay votes, two felt compelled to offer a detailed "BUT" explanation.

I thank god, that there is no BUT required to pass the resolution and the explanations were detailed and to the point and actually consumed most of the discussion by council, BUT......the claims to vote NAY:

1.Redundancy by Mr. Sacher
2.Nullification language by Mr. Honig

Its the 2nd Amendment espousing a basic right and we cannot even get a unanimous vote from our representatives. BUT it was quite a showing.

WizeOlMarco writes:

"I believe we witnessed that last night when a mass of citizens gave testimony to their elected representatives requesting a vote on a resolution. And the elected representatives simply cast a vote, so the citizens can now have a voice cast forward to the state legislature."

Your 'mass of citizens' is only some. Citizens cast forward their voice to the state legislature by citizens directly contacting their state representative. Your corporate approach to representative government doesn't appeal to me.

State representatives.

Representative Kathleen C. Passidomo
Senator Garrett Richter
Suite 304
3299 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, FL 34112-5746
Phone: (239) 417-6200

ajm3s writes:

in response to GorchFock:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

K:

Sorry, I could NOT disagree with you more so. Perhaps, you have not relinquished the government centric basis of ideology and thought Europeans love to embrace. A suppression of individualism compounded by a dose of secularization to empower the government body.

The American perspective as written in Declaration of Independence followed by the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

http://www.lonang.com/conlaw/B/cB1a.htm

The 2nd Amendment protects our inalienable rights. For a perspective of unalienable vs inalienable rights, I offer the following:

http://mddall.com/sbss/0912.htm

Note: Rights NOT granted by man.....or shall I dear say "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

It was refreshing last nite to hear the arguments by several of our representatives as to why they would NOT support passing a resolution to reaffirm our 2nd Amendment right. Imagine,the resolution as passed included the term nullification (which has bad historical connotation per Mr. Honig), and redundancy which was a cause to vote NAY because it is being discussed by other government bodies.

Thank god, 4 council members actually voted in support. To those that voted against, I will go out on a limb, to state they believe in strict gun control.

However, I understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the federal government from enacting "gun control."

ajm3s writes:

in response to WizeOlMarco:

"I believe we witnessed that last night when a mass of citizens gave testimony to their elected representatives requesting a vote on a resolution. And the elected representatives simply cast a vote, so the citizens can now have a voice cast forward to the state legislature."

Your 'mass of citizens' is only some. Citizens cast forward their voice to the state legislature by citizens directly contacting their state representative. Your corporate approach to representative government doesn't appeal to me.

State representatives.

Representative Kathleen C. Passidomo
Senator Garrett Richter
Suite 304
3299 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, FL 34112-5746
Phone: (239) 417-6200

I am confused. Corporate approach? Interesting to say the least, I guess local government is not to be contacted in support of a resolution to direct the state to act in a manner to stifle federal infringement of the 2nd Amendment. I guess our local representatives should be silenced or take a pass because it is perhaps too corporate.

If I can rebut, I believe your view is too limited in scope and a somewhat limited bureaucratic approach.

If we cannot simply have a vote (yes/no)by our local representatives, I guess I am radical in my interpretation of local governance. In fact, my initial reaction when this was originally brewing about, that it would be a slam dunk, 7-0 vote. What is the big deal? Boy, was I wrong again, but very revealing. In fact, "but" arguments to not agreeing to the resolution were eye opening.

I must be a radical or misinformed, that I should direct my concerns to the "appropriate" representative body. Well, I must have strayed from the constitutional waiting line as I await the next agent for expressing my grievances.

Did we not elect them to represent us? But you require, we direct are concerns only to state representatives? Wow!

gladesgator writes:

This whole thing was nothing but a dog and pony show - just grandstanding by some people who want to get in front of others. The second amendment speaks for itself and questions regarding its application go to the U.S. Supreme Court. There are real issues to deal with concerning real people with real needs. This whole thing was just a show by people with too much time on their hands and to much money in the bank.
Our time is better spent being a good neighbor or friend to someone in need.

Does anyone really believe that present day social systems remontly reflect the reason the framers of the constitution included the right to keep and bear arms. I don't think so!

WizeOlMarco writes:

"Did we not elect them to represent us? But you require, we direct are concerns only to state representatives? Wow!"

Corporate approach, i.e. delegating an organization to handle what I believe is a personal responsibility. Yes, the Marco Island council is elected to represent you/me/us...as it pertains to governing Marco Island; Marco Island government engaged in the 2nd Amendment? Why?

"...local government is not to be contacted in support of a resolution to direct the state to act in a manner to stifle federal infringement of the 2nd Amendment. I guess our local representatives should be silenced or take a pass..."

As a government official, take a pass, as a citizen take whatever action, if any, they feel appropriate. I'm sure Marco Island will follow through and send the message of the meeting, hopefully it won't be signed 'The Residents of Marco Island'. The petitioners for the 2nd amendment message target the wrong messenger.

JohninMarco writes:

Considering all the problems here on Marco, I see this as a silly waste of time.

26yearsonmarco writes:

Does anyone else, beside me, find it strange that the regulars like Klaus and 1P have not remarked on the woman’s comments in this video????? Or is it just too difficult for them to face the truth for once???

http://www.youtube.com/embed/vn7bkncf1_E

RayNetherwood writes:

Well ...... David and Goliath comes to mind. It is a sad reflection on the real State of the Union that the incompetents in D.C. are nothing more than knee jerk panders.

We really need some changes to our criminal justice system ... armed robbery -- death penalty, violent crimes involving guns -- death penalty .... one appeal, sentence carried out within one year.

The kooks can only be stopped before hand largely by chance. But, armed citizenry doesn't only help prevent a Stalanistic or Hitlerian takeover by an out of control govt, it also provides a chance to stop a kook or criminal .... neither of which give a rat's hiney about whatever "gun control" laws get passed.

1Paradiselost writes:

in response to 26yearsonmarco:

Does anyone else, beside me, find it strange that the regulars like Klaus and 1P have not remarked on the woman’s comments in this video????? Or is it just too difficult for them to face the truth for once???

http://www.youtube.com/embed/vn7bkncf1_E

26....

No need to weigh in on the subject, as I agree with the woman in the video!

gladesgator writes:

in response to gladesgator:

This whole thing was nothing but a dog and pony show - just grandstanding by some people who want to get in front of others. The second amendment speaks for itself and questions regarding its application go to the U.S. Supreme Court. There are real issues to deal with concerning real people with real needs. This whole thing was just a show by people with too much time on their hands and to much money in the bank.
Our time is better spent being a good neighbor or friend to someone in need.

Does anyone really believe that present day social systems remontly reflect the reason the framers of the constitution included the right to keep and bear arms. I don't think so!

How is it an affront to the second amendment to ban assault weapons? Does anyone think oppressive government can be replaced by a private militia?

If you are afraid that there is a big conspiracy leading to a one world government, assault weapons are not going to help you. Our greatest weapons are prayer,faith, love, hope kindness, honest, truth, good deeds and justice.

26yearsonmarco writes:

Is this what HERR DUMPKOPFFFFF refers to as Common Sense???

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/...

As a Veteran, my permit was issued without question.

ajm3s writes:

in response to gladesgator:

How is it an affront to the second amendment to ban assault weapons? Does anyone think oppressive government can be replaced by a private militia?

If you are afraid that there is a big conspiracy leading to a one world government, assault weapons are not going to help you. Our greatest weapons are prayer,faith, love, hope kindness, honest, truth, good deeds and justice.

"This whole thing was just a show by people with too much time on their hands and to much money in the bank. Our time is better spent being a good neighbor or friend to someone in need."

I believe we can do both and with so much time on our hands some folks like to confront the media and the current administration from turning a tragedy into a anti-gun demonstration.

And no conspiracy theory in my bag, but I do believe the 2nd Amendment should be taken seriously:

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-poli...

But the media wishes to portray the 2nd Amendment under this perspective:

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-poli...

This article, "The Real Rationale for the 2nd Amendment, That Right-Wingers Are Totally Ignorant About" is a poor attempt in assessing history, by totally disregarding the genesis of the Bill of Rights. The author's thesis from the onset is NOT supported by the conversations that led to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. Just Google George Mason for a start.

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because of its lack of a Bill of Rights asked in conference: "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."

The 2nd Amendment was to protect the states rights and prevent the federal government from overreach. The framers understood the power of central government control as well as the powerlessness and negative impact of no central governance hence the dissolution of the Confederation of States to what is now the law of the land.

Fast forward to today: if the current administration was really interested in addressing the issue via the bully pulpit, he could start with enforcing and reviewing laws that deal with felonies committed with a gun. To address the problem we must at least aim and focus on the felon.

But I know the retort, its guns that kill. Really?

I will applaud any organization no matter how zealous, if it elevates the discussion beyond the media's portrayal. Are we not American's that can engage our representatives on a host of issues? Or will we now have to have a resolution regarding the 1st Amendment to combat political correctness now permeating this country under such headings as sensitivity training.

26yearsonmarco writes:

AT LAST, "WE THE PEOPLE" ARE BEGINNING TO SPEAK UP!!!!!!

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-...

ajm3s writes:

in response to 26yearsonmarco:

AT LAST, "WE THE PEOPLE" ARE BEGINNING TO SPEAK UP!!!!!!

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-...

And finally, the press is printing the truth instead of the dribble coming out of the major entertainment networks under the letters of NBC, ABC and CBS pretending to provide the news:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinion...

And a special callout to K:

This is the crap that your illustrious Mr. Obama can get awa way regarding sequestration as he castigates the evil Republican party. Simply incredible!!!

Disclaimer: I am NOT a Republican! But the truth will set you free to formulate your own views.

Is this too radical a request?

Thank you Mr. Woodward for your clarity to an issue that is being clouded and distorted and from the president himself a complete lie.

God I have never heard so much Bull$$it from the executive branch under the (lack of) leadership Mr. Obama.

Folks Wake Up its not about politics, its about knowing the truth!

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features