Stances require democracy

Sometimes lawyers have to argue in favor of issues they are opposed to. For example, a lawyer dedicated to First Amendment rights may defend a pornographer on constitutional grounds, although he’s opposed to the proliferation of smut. Or a criminal defense lawyer may feel icky defending a child molester but will still vigorously defend his client because he believes in our system of “innocent until proven guilty.”

And sometimes a lawyer has to defend a county board’s right to declare their county a gun sanctuary even though he’s opposed to the idea.

The Duluth City Council recently considered a resolution on nuclear weapons, causing many to mock the council for even taking up the issue, which, of course, can’t be resolved by a small midwestern city. Then again, gun freedom and gun restrictions aren’t a local issue, either, but that didn’t stop the Itasca County board from considering a resolution to create a gun sanctuary in their county, joining more than 20 jurisdictions state-wide that have made similar resolutions.

It’s curious how the same people who support the Duluth resolution speak out against the Itasca County resolution, and those who support gun sanctuaries ridicule those in favor of anti-nuclear weapons statements. Both resolutions have merit and are important for local governments to address, if done occasionally.

I don’t advocate county boards and city councils take up every social issue brought before them by interested citizens. That’s why we live in a representative democracy and don’t govern by referendum. Think of the amount of time people would spend, tying up elected officials and keeping them from getting their necessary work done. But occasionally, when an elected official feels strongly enough on an issue, I support them taking a stand, even if it appears meaningless.

So, if our Carlton County board spends 20 minutes at a future meeting discussing a vote on an anti-nuclear weapon resolution, I’m all for it. And — here’s the hard part, because I think this may happen soon here — if they want to consider a resolution calling Carlton County a Second Amendment sanctuary county, I will support the discussion.

But I can’t support the resolution. In Itasca County, the resolution was introduced with the least amount of notice possible. It was sneaky and divisive and un-democratic. And there is an effort underway in Carlton County to do the same thing, which is why I am bringing this up now. Don’t be surprised if some group tries to get the county commissioners to add a last-minute agenda item on gun rights.

Frankly, I’d be surprised if our commissioners would agree to hear this issue at all, much less in a sneaky, hope-no-one-notices kind of way. We have a pretty competent county board. But that’s not going to stop a group from trying. Besides, if the issue of gun rights is so important to those advancing the issue, why do they need to surprise the rest of the voters by slipping it in at the last minute? The groups advocating for such resolutions don’t truly value democracy or our constitutional form of government. They just like to shoot guns.

While these resolutions are mostly symbolic — they won’t really change anything — such resolutions should be made only after the public has a real opportunity to discuss the issue. After all, unlike most of the work that county commissioners do (reviewing business decisions; plotting policy; spending our taxes) referendums on social issues like nuclear weapons and gun rights really should reflect the community at large. The discussion will be largely predictable: opponents will cite their normal statistics and arguments; proponents will explain why they feel such action is absolutely necessary. No minds will be swayed. No one will change their position and, in the end, the commissioners will likely vote the way they would have as if it were any other county decision.

Public discourse is valuable. That’s why I support these seemingly crazy, out-of-place resolutions. If used sparingly and democratically, it’s good for the community.

Pete Radosevich is the publisher of the Pine Knot News community newspaper and an attorney in Esko who hosts the cable access talk show Harry’s Gang on CAT-7. His opinions are his own. Contact him at [email protected].