Redding, CA – In a contentious move, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 in favor of a resolution permitting employees with concealed weapons permits (CCWs) to carry firearms into local government buildings. The resolution, spearheaded by Supervisor Patrick Jones, owner of a Redding gun store, has stirred heated debates within the community.
The decision, made last week, is a direct response to Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), authored by Senator Portantino and signed into law last year. However, the implementation of SB 2 has been stalled by a judge. The bill seeks to prohibit CCW holders from carrying firearms into various public places, including schools, government buildings, courthouses, polling places, stadiums, casinos, and churches, with an initial effective date of January 1.
Supervisor Jones argued that Shasta County views SB 2 as unconstitutional, prompting the need for this local resolution. This move comes on the heels of the board’s earlier symbolic gesture, made six months ago, expressing the county’s commitment to upholding the Second Amendment.
The resolution has faced opposition from Supervisors Mary Rickert and Tim Garman, who voted against it. Concerns have been raised among some county employees about the potential impact on workplace safety. However, County Counsel Gretchen Stuhr clarified that the current county policy prohibiting employees from bringing weapons to work remains unaffected.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta weighed in on the matter, asserting that the Shasta County resolution is superseded by existing state law. Bonta emphasized that the section of SB 2, prohibiting guns in government buildings, has never been legally challenged.
As Shasta County finds itself at the center of this debate, the decision raises questions about the balance between Second Amendment rights and public safety, especially in the wake of a statewide effort to limit firearm access in certain public spaces. The unfolding situation may prompt further legal challenges and public discourse as Shasta County’s resolution clashes with the broader state legislation.
