November 27, 2019 · OPINION
Local legislator encourages 2nd Amendment sanctuary
By Del. Michael Webert
I am happy to see so many counties declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, and I stand fully behind our right to bear arms that are guaranteed to us in the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia Constitution.
These are rights that SHALL NOT be infringed upon.
As most of you are aware, the Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions are not legally binding. However, it is vital to send a strong message to Richmond that we, law-abiding citizens, will not be treated like criminals because we possess certain types of firearms and firearm accessories.
My colleagues and I are currently in the process of drafting a bill that will protect the counties that have passed Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions and prevent the state from withholding funding from those localities because of their Second Amendment sanctuary designation.
As I have stated previously, I will not entertain emotional policy proposals that seek to undermine our Second Amendment rights and punish law-abiding citizens. I hope you will join me in this fight to protect our freedoms. Sic Semper Tyrannis.
The writer represents 18th District — all of Rappahannock, and portions of Fauquier, Warren and Culpeper counties — in the Virginia House of Delegates. A Republican who will start his fifth, two-year term in January, he manages a cattle and crops farm.
Del. Webert released this statement Wednesday, Nov. 27
martinkus · December 5, 2019 at 3:28 pm
Rally the Bubbas!
Jeffersonian American · December 4, 2019 at 9:06 pm
Fauquier County Compatriots, as of this morning and increasing daily, 41 Virginia Counties, small cities and towns have enacted their 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Resolutions, including our immediate neighbors Rappahannock and Culpeper Counties. Their stalwart local government elected officials and Sheriffs did not hesitate to act decisively to protect and defend our citizens and our State and U.S. Constitutions. And so it is up to thousands of us to ensure our local Fauquier officials and Sheriff understand how critical the line in the sand must be drawn now against the horrific bills being readied for passing by the incoming majority Democrat State Legislature and the incumbent Democrat Blackface/Klansman Governor who won't admit which character he is in his Medical University yearbook photograph.
Fauquier Government officials take heed of the wisdom and strength of the words of our two neighboring County Sheriffs in defense of our most sacred rights against unconstitutional legislation and infringement:
"I am in favor of the Second Amendment Sanctuary. I believe we need to send a message to Richmond that our citizens will take a stance. My deputies and I take an oath to uphold the Constitution and that’s what we will do," Rappahannock County Sheriff Connie Compton told Townhall.com.
Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins praised the Board of Supervisors for passing a Second Amendment sanctuary provision.
"I remain very optimistic that our General Assembly will not pass the proposed bills. Obviously, if passed, there are many of us willing to challenge these laws through the courts. In addition, if necessary, I plan to properly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms," Jenkins added.
Many other Virginia County Sheriffs have gone on the public record in strong defense of our Second Amendment rights and support for the powerful messages these County resolutions send to Richmond to put the Democrat Radicals on notice. Where do we find such local elected Fauquier officials of integrity to pledge in public their unwavering fidelity to our Virginia and U.S. Constitutions in the strongest manner possible? It seems to date we will need a very strong reminder to them in great numbers at the upcoming public hearing to get them to finally speak up as strongly and forthrightly as our neighboring counties have done this week.
Northern Virginia is already telegraphing their likelihood of turning into a Stalinist Zone of rampant Radical Left Totalitarianism. Let us draw the line at Fauquier County to avoid such a fate that is coming down across Northern Virginia- before its too late.
Silii · December 3, 2019 at 7:31 pm
Republicans simply have not addressed rural issues - 1. lack of broadbased attention to creating jobs; 2. lack of broadband which directly affects success at school, applying for jobs, working from home, having access to the internet, access to online healthcare; 3. no affordable healthcare unless a person is eligible for medicaid; 4. community hospitals closing; 5. severe opiod addiction which affects ability to get and hold a job, success at school, decent health, increased crime, lives of desperation. Unfortunately, rural Virginians think Republicans are their friends when in actuality, Democrats are their friends and much more likely to implement programs and supports that are helpful and life-supporting to rural areas. Republicans, instead, as Mr. Webert's statement here, does nothing to help people. Instead, it gets people all stirred up, incites fear with no actual basis, unreasonably, on untruths and implications and suggestions about things that will never happen. Democrats are not out to take peoples' guns from them. Period. But, to read Mr. Webert's ditty, one would think the world is ending because Democrats are going to pass laws that will take their guns from them, take their ammo, take their very being. Thank goodness the VA legislature turned Democratic majority. Now people in rural Virginia might actually see someone caring about them and not just their vote. Shame on Mr. Webert for perpetuating lies and cruelly upsetting his constituents.
FairandBalanced · December 2, 2019 at 3:38 pm
WAPO got it right yesterday in one of their opinion pieces. It called the Second Amendment sanctuary movement an 'agenda' fanned by 'mischief-makers'. To the contrary, it says, '...gun legislation with the best chance of passage would promote public safety by requiring universal background checks...' a measure with overwhelming bipartisan support in Virginia. Also, bills limiting the number of guns sold is an anti-trafficker measure that was the law for 20 years in Virginia.
The 'Red-flag' laws being proposed are different from the nonsense some rural Repubs are comparing to mass gun confiscations. These new laws generally depend on an order from a judge after consideration of evidence presented in a court.
'Local authorities who refuse such orders would be thumbing their noses not just at state law but also judicial orders-and they should be removed from office and prosecuted'. Amen!
martinkus · December 1, 2019 at 1:57 pm
Seems to me this movement is an NRA-backed, knee-jerk reaction to something that has not happened yet in Richmond. I hope the BOS has more common sense than to capitulate to the far right. I honestly don't believe that Fauquier County would want to be recognized as a backward bubba county in the Commonwealth.
Silii · December 1, 2019 at 10:51 am
This in your face I'll prance around the grocery store or Dollar Store with my AK 47 and loaded sidearms if I darn well please, I have my RIGHTS is exactly one of the major reasons the Virginians voted for a majority Democratic legislature. The majority of Virginians are tired of needless slaughters with firearms, they're sick of this in your face attitude, and they came out in the majority to make it known that they aren't against the 2nd amendment. They ARE in favor of universal background checks, red flag laws, laws requiring home child care centers to keep firearms locked up while the infants and toddlers under their care are present. But nowhere do you see a major movement to take people's guns from them and there has never been such a movement. Webert has drained the glass of kool aid, again, he has shown his inability to be reasonable and think independently. But this session he needs a crossword puzzle book to keep him busy because even Republicans turned on this crazy gun stuff last November 5th.
Jim Griffin · November 30, 2019 at 5:29 pm
Demosthenes: Well written. I agree with those who like DF support the Second Amendment and its peaceful, law-abiding assertion, not a promise of sanctuary to defiant armed lawbreakers -- especially so laws that haven't even been passed.
Webert doesn't support them either. He just says he does and calls it non-binding. It's called whipping up the base, a trick to incite the crowd.
Isn't that a politician for you! A check you cannot cash, support for a resolution not binding.
Better the Publisher Clearing House Sweepstakes version than a real sanctuary for law breakers. Note: You are not law-abiding if you pledge to break laws. Just like this so-called sanctuary: It's fake claim. Non-binding. Not real.
Webert should secure a reallocation of state school aid that doesn't penalize us for conservation easements the state encourages upon us. Use whatever political clout you've accumulated in the statehouse to lighten the load on our wallets. Fooling with fake sanctuary declarations is beneath you, distraction from the work at hand and costs Fauquier key allies needed to change the school aid law.
Demosthenes · November 30, 2019 at 9:03 am
I definitely disagree with the 2nd amendment sanctuary movement, and with Delegate Webert's support of this.
As others on here have mentioned, if the laws passed by Richmond truly are unconstitutional, then the place to address that is in the courts. For those of you who are so certain that state laws will be in violation of constitutional rights - stop placing pressure on local officials to violate the rule of law and instead contact groups like the NRA and offer them your support or donations as they are almost certain to challenge these laws in court.
If you are right about the constitutionality of new gun laws, then a victory in a federal court will mean a whole lot more than locally passed nonbinding resolutions.
Linda Ward · November 29, 2019 at 3:24 pm
Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Assuming that some kind of guns forfeiture is eventual. You all know what assuming leads to.
My take is this "might" mean turning in MODERN weapons with a capability to kill many in a short period of time from the masses, not regular weapons. Today's weapons are not like the weapons used when the 2nd Amendment was written, unless you all want to go back to using the Brown Bess musket, Charleville musket, "Committee of Safety" muskets, or Long rifles. The musket was used to fire a single shot ball, or a cluster style shot which fired multiple projectiles giving the weapon a "shotgun" effect. These weapons were not capable of shooting more then 1 round. The AR15 is not a rapid-fire weapon and is not designed for infantry use; the M16 is the Assault rifle, AR15 distinction would be “semi-automatic rifle. The AR15 is the civilian version of the M16 sold to the military. The Military uses the M16, and civilians can buy the AR15. AR stands for "ArmaLite Rifle".
The AR-15 can still shoot more projectiles per minute then any 1770 weapon being a semi-automatic.
"Same as any other semi-automatic. It’s one round per trigger pull. Now remember a trigger pull is basically curling your finger against a 5 pound weight. From there we have the size of the magazine which could be from 5–30 depending on your state and preference. Now a semi skilled shooter could probably get 60 rounds per minute out and a more skilled about 100 per minute. Generally after a minute of that you shall have to give the whole gun a cooling off period. Now technically there is a 100 round drum you could use but no one does as they are heavy and Jam a lot. Now taking Cruz for example as they say he used 10 round magazines and could probably change them in 2 seconds. Considering he was not used to pulling a trigger nor had any training he might of been 30–40 rounds a minute but he did get 6 minutes."
Take it from a trauma surgeon there is no reason for civilians to own an ArmaLite Rifle: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/parkland-shooter-s-ar-15-was-designed-kill-efficiently-possible-ncna848346
Mark House · November 29, 2019 at 12:11 pm
Why are so many against Sanctuary cities for people seeking asylum yet OK with 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries?
"Affirmative Asylum Processing with USCIS:
To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
You must apply for asylum within one year of the date of their last arrival in the United States, unless you can show:
Changed circumstances that materially affect your eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing
You filed within a reasonable amount of time given those circumstances.
You may apply for affirmative asylum by submitting Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, to USCIS. See Form I 589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal for instructions on how to file for asylum.
If your case is not approved and you do not have a legal immigration status, we will issue a Form I-862, Notice to Appear, and forward (or refer) your case to an Immigration Judge at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The Immigration Judge conducts a ‘de novo’ hearing of the case. This means that the judge conducts a new hearing and issues a decision that is independent of the decision made by USCIS. If we do not have jurisdiction over your case, the Asylum Office will issue an I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, for an asylum-only hearing. See ‘Defensive Asylum Processing With EOIR’ below if this situation applies to you.
Affirmative asylum applicants are rarely detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). You may live in the United States while your application is pending before USCIS. If you are found ineligible, you can remain in the United States while your application is pending with the Immigration Judge. Most asylum applicants are not authorized to work."
farmbum · November 29, 2019 at 6:04 am
Webert undermines his Constitutional duties by supporting a bill based on emotional reactions to perceived non-existent proposals that "undermine" our Republics Constitutional rights. He proposes Fauquier not follow the rule of law.
Webert contradicts himself and is misguided in his intentions.
Our Second Amendment rights are already protected and indeed have legislative and judicial backing by the Republic.
joewtny · November 29, 2019 at 3:46 am
Unfortunately, the writer is as clueless as to the true history and meaning of the 2nd Amendment as those seeking "sanctuary". The new laws don’t violate the 2nd Amendment because they don’t involve the “well-regulated militia” of our “free state” of Virginia. Yes, the Amendment did protect the possession of guns, but only military arms in the service of the militia.
Back then, per the 1792 Militia Act, every able-bodied adult male was required to join the militia, obtain a state-of-the-art military grade firearm, enlist in their local militia company, learn the latest US Army infantry tactics, drill every four months, and once a year "have a field day" to prove their proficiency with firearms and ability to function in a military unit. But while the right to defend yourself, home and family --with guns, swords, pitchforks, whatever was handy--was long acknowledged, there was no universal guarantee that virtually could own and/or carry virtually any type of firearm.
In fact, even famous “Wild West” cities and towns like Abilene, Dodge and Deadwood, outright banned the keeping and bearing of arms. In one small town plagued by gunfights, a group called The Cowboys refused to turn in their guns to the sheriff, so a group of federal marshals named Earp went to disarm them. They met in the OK Corral, and the rest is history, as the federals enforcing local gun control came out the heroes.
Constitutionally, the right to keep and bear arms belongs to each free state through their militia. These combined massive and widespread militias of every state were the primary military defense force of our new, sprawling nation, not the tiny federal army which was deliberately kept tiny out of states' fear that a large standing army as was common in Europe might dominate them. Every able-bodied male was (and still is) a member of the militia. Yes, we able-bodied adults are all legally still members of the “unorganized” militia, subject to being called up for military service by our governor and our president.
However, we’ve slacked off since the 1790’s. In 1903, Congress passed the “Dick Act", which relieved 99% of the militia from any regulation, oversight, training, or military structure whatsoever, leaving only the 1% in the National Guard units to comply with the constitutional requirement that the state militias be “well regulated”. Almost all the founding fathers would say this "organized/unorganized" arrangement is unconstitutional, as what right did the federal government have to basically deregulate each state’s militia, when the Constitution specifically says they must be “well regulated"? Under the Constitution, the states, not the federal government, regulated how each militia member was trained.
America’s first, defensive force, the Virginia Militia, was formed in Jamestown in 1609 to defend mainly against frequent Indian attacks. It carried on the English militia tradition of quick-reaction bands of armed citizen-soldiers first started by King Alfred the Great in the 9th century A.D. to defend England's vast coastline against Viking raiders. The Minutemen of Concord is another example of our well-regulated citizen-soldier militia.
So for us to truly comply with the 2nd Amendment as the founders originally wrote it and meant it, we’d need to arm every adult with AR-15's and train them in modern military tactics. On the plus side, that would greatly satisfy the NRA's goal of a well-trained and well-armed citizenry, but on the down side, it would also require that this massive force of millions of armed citizens once again be "well regulated"--but by their state, with gun registration, firearms proficiency requirements, and restrictions against those who would not or could not meet the standards of the Virginia Militia.
For today’s gun dilemma, bringing back the structure of the "well-regulated militia" would be the simplest, best and most constitutional way to ensure guns remain a safe and valuable part of our lives. After all, Switzerland and Israel have for many years had the same basic system of a well-armed, well-trained populace that our founding fathers did, but without frequent massacres. If they can do it, so can we. It really is the only acceptable, constitutional, solution to the issue of the keeping and bearing of unregulated arms. Bringing back the militia might not completely prevent all of these frequent massacres, but it might prevent most of them, help diffuse public anger, serve as an early warning system of irresponsible militia members, and yet preserve the right of responsible citizens to keep and bear arms they are qualified to use.
Jim Griffin · November 29, 2019 at 12:05 am
If the "public weal" is a factor, pay closer attention to Section 7:
"all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised."
The Commonwealth's "representatives of the people" are found in its elected legislature and its elected Governor.
This article is correct: "no legal authority." Not worth the paper it is written on. Webert is correct: Non-binding. Just like the non-binding actions in the distinct minority of other counties, pure posturing. Nothing more than angst about losing elections that constitute legislative control. An expression of opinion.
Virginia State Police, Commonwealth sheriffs and police are sworn to uphold the law. We stand for the rule of law, not mere supposition of what might happen and how courts might rule.
So-called "law-abiding citizens" cease to be "law-abiding citizens" when they seriously threaten criminal disobedience, conspire to break the law and offer sanctuary to criminals.
Stick with non-binding. Works better. Non-binding is First Amendment advocacy; Pretending it's real has consequences, sends the wrong message to our youth and other legislators.
Don't think it has consequence? Why else would Webert write he is drafting a bill to "protect the counties that have passed Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions and prevent the state from withholding funding from those localities because of their Second Amendment sanctuary designation."
What are the odds the majority passes a law and also passes a law that excuses refusal to follow it? How will they finagle that? Something tells me they will argue it was all non-binding, pure advocacy. Fortunately, they'll be correct.
Jeffersonian American · November 28, 2019 at 8:32 pm
Just a clarification for some below who desperately need a history lesson. We are talking about brazen, totalitarian ** UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ** being proposed by the incoming regime in Richmond- which is key to this entire issue and public discussion to take place by the Public Weal (our local, legal Fauquier County citizens) as enshrined in our Virginia Declaration of Rights. Delegate Webert's heart may be in the right place, but he is mistaken about the "non-binding" part- Legally binding is what the Public Weal says is binding here in Virginia according to our Virginia Declaration of Rights. I encourage everyone who has not read the VDR to study this document that still guides us in our current time- thank you George Mason, Father of our Bill of Rights; and as it turned out- our wisest American Founder and the one who saw the farthest down the road into the future.
SECTION 3 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights specifically of note:
"That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."
On a related note, I'd like to pass along what happened in Madison County this week from a trusted source and eyewitness present at their County 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Resolution meeting- and he said their board originally wanted to push the date of decision out to some distant time in the middle of the night so they would not have to deal with the Madison County CITIZENS. Fortunately, enough citizens showed up in strong numbers to the meeting that the Supervisors went ahead and passed something. ONE of the 5 voted "NO." The Madison County citizen eyewitness reports this Government official's name is now mud in Madison County and I suspect he will be lucky to be able to buy a loaf of bread from now on, prior to his being thrown out of office next Election Day.
Let us pray our County citizens, Board and Sheriff all come together united in purpose and action on December 12th to put a stop to these unconstitutional acts being promised by Richmond. If our local and State Government elected officials cannot protect our citizens from unconstitutional acts currently being promised to legislate against the citizens of Virginia, the Public Weal can and will protect all Virginians under the guidelines of our Virginia Declaration of Rights.
Jim Griffin · November 28, 2019 at 8:10 am
We strongly support the full Bill of Rights and our Constitution and all efforts that support them in a fully-law abiding manner. While I practice and defend more often the First Amendment -- I am principally in the music and media business -- we pay the Second Amendment its due with our thoughts and regular actions.
I oppose threats to break the law or offer sanctuary to those who wish to break the law. I stand with our good Sheriff Mosier in this regard. He enforces the law.
Yes, this means I want DonkeyFarmer to keep his AR-15 should he wish to do so. Our son can recite the history of Armalite back to its roots and knows well its role in protecting the island, where they practiced a strategy known as "Armalite and Ballot Box."
Anger and guns do not mix well, worse still in an exercise that focuses on persuasion. DF is correct: We drink in the same pub but may walk different streets to get there. My approach is less strident, focused on reason and less emotion.
I absolutely draw the line against "county police could be told not to enforce such laws either (law enforcement officers do not have to- and shouldn't- enforce" types of activities or expression. We are nothing if not a nation of laws and we can only imagine other groups wishing for non-enforcement of other laws. Actually, we needn't imagine it -- it's happened, and these same people stood resolutely opposed, as do I.
Strong message? Fine. "Not legally binding." Got it, agreed. But beware that line; Cross it and I support the sheriff and Virginia State Police in doing the job they swore to do: Enforcing the law.
Jeffersonian American · November 28, 2019 at 7:46 am
We stand with you Delegate Webert, and will support you in this fight against unconstitutional totalitarianism emerging from the Radical Left soon to take total control over both the Legislative and Executive Branches of our Virginia Government. It is critically important our like-minded, law-abiding Virginia citizens contact their Board of Supervisors- all of them- by phone, email and signed petitions to voice their support of the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Resolution for Fauquier and other counties to send a warning message to the hostile radical regime in Richmond that unconstitutional laws passed in violation of our U.S. and Virginia constitutions will not be enforced.
A Second Amendment Sanctuary is any locality that says it will not enforce any unconstitutional (federal or state) gun laws. Many County Sheriffs are going to take their county's lead on this and county police could be told not to enforce such laws either (law enforcement officers do not have to- and shouldn't- enforce any unconstitutional laws).
In just three weeks, 23 Virginia counties have already declared themselves 2nd Amendment Sanctuary counties- and the list continues to grow daily. I strongly encourage my fellow citizens and compatriots to learn more facts of the recent day swift and decisive public actions (and photographs) taken by fellow citizen compatriots in other Virginia counties at the following link:
In addition, it is critically important to gather actual SIGNATURES on petitions to the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors, now in place locally in the Town of Warrenton and Fauquier County locations, to be collected after 1200 NOON on 6 DEC to be delivered to the County Board of Supervisors to supplement the emails, phone calls and other communications to our local County Board members. In addition, we need as many law-abiding Fauquier citizens and compatriots to turn out at the Fauquier County Board Meeting on Thursday 12 December in defense of our 2nd Amendment Rights under our U.S. and Virginia constitutions- and to demonstrate the urgent need for Fauquier County to join the many other pro-active Virginia counties to send their powerful 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Resolution ordinance from Fauquier County to the hostile regime in Richmond that their unconstitutional acts will not be enforced here locally.
Concerned Fauquier citizens and compatriots can find the petitions at the following locations through 12 NOON 6 December to sign:
TOWN OF WARRENTON and FAUQUIER COUNTY CITIZENS: High Flyer Arms (5th Street)
FAUQUIER COUNTY CITIZENS ONLY: Catlett Service Center (closed weekends); Calverton Southern States (M-F 8-5, SAT 8-1)
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY CITIZENS ONLY: Trojan Arms and Tactical
Fellow citizens and compatriots, we must take decisive action now to safeguard and protect our most cherished constitutional rights. Our U.S. and Virginia Constitutions cannot defend themselves- WE THE PEOPLE MUST DEFEND THEM. Our legal Fauquier Citizens ARE the Fauquier Government. Now is the time to act against the unconstitutional tyranny that has been already been telegraphed ahead from Richmond to occur in January, 2020 against our most sacred, God-given rights enshrined in those founding documents bequeathed to us, and as sacrificed for, by our Virginia forebears. Do not sit out this fight- stand with your fellow law-abiding citizens and compatriots to end these unconstitutional acts before they land on your front doorsteps, and to direct our County Board to enact the Fauquier County 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance in joining the many other Virginia counties which have already done so. Lest we forget our Virginia State Motto: SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS (“Thus Ever to Tyrants”).
Truepat · November 28, 2019 at 6:25 am
Thank you Del Webert, the majority supports the 2nd Amendment as well as our Constitution and the Laws of the US, continue the work, we will support you!!
Virtus · November 27, 2019 at 5:07 pm
Thank you Delegate Webert.
Enter your email address above to begin receiving
news updates from FauquierNow.com via email.
Friday, December 6
Board will vote on Thursday, Dec. 12, joining more than 40 jurisdictions that have adopted official positions
Friday, December 6
Concealed carry applications, tons of strawberries, town’s historic structures and manufacturer’s workforce
More Fauquier news
Friday, December 6
From poll tax to segregated rail cars, they charted “Massive Resistance” to integration