Today: May 25 , 2020

Opinion: Phil Goode's reply to the City of Prescott's Proclamation

10 March 2020   Glenn Martin

Councilman Phil Goode tried to get the City of Prescott to strongly support the 2nd Amendment by declaring it a Sanctuary City. What he got instead, was something somewhat watered down.

On February 13th, Councilman Phil Goode, supported by Cathey Rusing, proposed a Resolution that would declare the City of Prescott a Second Amendment Sanctuary City, thus  protecting its citizens from illegal Red Flag Laws.

On a vote of 6-1 (Councilman Goode opposing) the Resolution was tabled for further discussion.

On February 25th, Mayor Greg Mengarelli  read a Proclamation that affirmed the support of the Constitution and the Second Amendment by the Mayor and the Council.  Councilman Phil Goode read into the record his following response:

“As I previously stated, when my Resolution was brought forward at our last Council meeting on February 11, the intent of that resolution was to send a clear message to our Arizona State Legislature and elected leadership,… That the City of Prescott’s government will faithfully perform their sworn duties and that the members of this council would reaffirm their oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona” which both specifically protect its citizens’ right to bear arms in self-defense of their lives and liberty.

While that Resolution was not adopted and ultimately tabled for further review primarily due to concerns regarding the word Sanctuary and its possible confusion with the Sanctuary movement to harbor federal immigration law violators, I do not oppose removing the Sanctuary word from this proclamation. But this is a Proclamation and not a Resolution requiring a vote of support or opposition by each Council member. Due to the legal restrictions of Arizona’s Open Meeting Law, Mayor Mengarelli could not even poll us to determine our position on this Proclamation nor suggest any changes to its wording. I would prefer that it be stronger in its message to oppose legislative acts that would infringe on our individual rights to self-defense.

Fortunately, in this current Arizona State Legislative session, the proposed bills that I was extremely concerned would likely infringe on those rights have not advanced and will almost certainly see no passage by this session’s conclusion. I want to thank our district’s Representatives Campbell and Pierce, Senate president Fann and House Speaker Bowers for their efforts in this regard.

However, we must understand that there is every likelihood that ongoing efforts to infringe on our 2nd amendment rights will continue by those that would strip us of our rights to self-defense in the name of security.

In the words of some of our nation’s founding fathers:

“Those that give up liberty for security deserve neither,” and “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”.

Thank you.”